From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 15:44:34 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA02183; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:44:34 +1300 Received: from usenet.net.nz (root@usenet.net.nz [203.29.170.93]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA02180 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:44:32 +1300 Received: from kcbbs.gen.nz (kcbbs.gen.nz [202.14.102.1]) by usenet.net.nz (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA08337 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 15:02:26 +1300 Received: from bear (as5200-51.kcbbs.gen.nz [202.14.102.81]) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA17760 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 14:56:09 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991104145958.007c0100@kcbbs.gen.nz> X-Sender: salient@kcbbs.gen.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 14:59:58 +1300 Subject: Re: Namers - A different topic Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Sally Jackson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz At 10:48 3/11/99 +1300, Mark Simpson wrote: > Magic >resistence can also be seen to fall into this category - with modifiers >coming from not only counterspells but also purification (up to 20%), >amulets, college bonus/subtraction(+/- 5%), greaters(up to 21%) to name >but a few. I haven't done the numbers, but my impression is that most medium/high characters that have high MR, have magical items contributing a major component of it. Magical items created by GMs, "outside the rules", as so many items seem to be these days. Is this a reason to change those rules? Sally -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 16:07:49 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA02382; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:07:49 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id QAA02377 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:07:24 +1300 Message-ID: <3820F842.B57C910C@peace.com> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 16:06:44 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Item rules (Re: Namers - A different topic) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sally Jackson wrote: > I haven't done the numbers, but my impression is that most medium/high > characters that have high MR, have magical items contributing a major > component of it. Magical items created by GMs, "outside the rules", as so > many items seem to be these days. Is this a reason to change those rules? > > Sally So should we make up a bunch of rules (or meta-rules) on what is an acceptable magic item? Pros: * Reduce the problem of unbalanced magic items * Could get more consistency in valuation of items * Could get more consistency in the sorts of items that are possible in the world. Cons: * Lots of GMs unhappy about restrictions on their creativity * Lots of players unhappy when their favourite magic items are declared beyond the pale * Very difficult to do well. It looks to me like the cons outweigh the pros, but if the meta-rules were downgraded to strong suggestions, the cons loose much of their force. (The 'old, beyond the pale items' problem still haunts us, either making players unhappy or continuting to unbalance the game.) One item meta-rule I would like to see is: Any metal weapon that allows casting of magic at full base chances will have a value of at least the cost to true-silver that weapon. If we get a few more suggestions of possible item meta-rules, we could get a better idea of whether an acceptable system could be developed or not. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 16:16:03 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA02435; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:16:03 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id QAA02432 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:16:00 +1300 Message-ID: <3820FA0C.485987A0@peace.com> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 16:14:20 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Namers - A different topic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Hi Sally, There aren't too many bonuses inside the rules to MR. Mark mentions purification up to 20, but at 0 ( +1/Rank) now and as a ritual there is 4 years worth of ranking in that... I would suggest +10-12% as more likely. Most of the other bonuses are pretty small: amulets, college bonues (and these are as likely to be bad for you)... The biggies are Counter Spells (which aren't on for very long usually), Magic Items (hard to police and control) and Greater Enchantment... and I think this is another case of GE raising its ugly head. Look at it this way... at Rank 20 (still admittedly a lot of hard work to get to) the E&E can put GE on their friends/companions/pets that are the equivalent of each and every one of them spending 4 years to Rank purification. I don't really want to lay into GE again... but let's be honest here.. if I was writing a brand new College for the game and proposed a cheap ritual that added Rank bonus to pretty much every action a character took (BC, MR, Stat checks, SC) and that lasted for even 3 months, would you expect it to get: a) through the review process and into the rules b) modified so that it was less pervasive or brief in duration; or both c) shot like a rabid dog. :) I'd be tending towards "c" myself, but could be persuaded to "b"... let's see... Purification ritual, gives 0 (+1/Rank MR)... last a day or two... How about... GE, adds 1 per 2 Ranks to one of MR, BC, SC, or Stat Checks... last maximum of 3 months... with a reasonable price. Yeah, I reckon that might get through review. :) I know Mortimer would pay something to have +10% BC for a season. You make the comment that MR is coming from magic items "created by GMs, 'outside the rules', as so many items seem to be these days". I'm not sure about "these days", but magic items have always been created outside the rules because there are no rules for creating magic items. Many items replicate abilities/magic/skills inside the rules, to be sure, but many have always been unusual. I usually find that magic items are a problem when their effects combine or add up with other items. Cut down/cut out GE and tidy up item stacking restrictions and we may well be better off than trying to restrict GM/item creativity. Cheers, Martin Sally Jackson wrote: > At 10:48 3/11/99 +1300, Mark Simpson wrote: > > > Magic > >resistence can also be seen to fall into this category - with modifiers > >coming from not only counterspells but also purification (up to 20%), > >amulets, college bonus/subtraction(+/- 5%), greaters(up to 21%) to name > >but a few. > > I haven't done the numbers, but my impression is that most medium/high > characters that have high MR, have magical items contributing a major > component of it. Magical items created by GMs, "outside the rules", as so > many items seem to be these days. Is this a reason to change those rules? > > Sally > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 17:41:21 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA02768; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:41:21 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA02765 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:41:20 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p217-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.217]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA01911 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:40:57 +1300 Subject: Re: Namers - A different topic Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:40:26 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf267e$b72d5740$d99a64d8@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Martin Dickson wrote: >I don't really want to lay into GE again I do...Let's trash the bloody thing...It's effect is at once far too tough at the top end, and pathetic beyond worrying about at the bottom end... Something different would be better, but hey, if the alternative was a complete absence from the college, I'm keen for it... No other ability in the game has such a arithmetically powerful effect on the game, and one that so rapidly reduces the value of ranking than this ritual. It offers as much as 7 more Ranks to the castability of a spell, and it provides the player with an enormous amount of resistance to magic. Weapons gain the effect of 5 more ranks, as well, which is pretty bloody amazing, you must admit. >... but let's be honest here.. if I >was writing a brand new College for the game and proposed a cheap ritual that >added Rank bonus to pretty much every action a character took (BC, MR, Stat >checks, SC) and that lasted for even 3 months, would you expect it to get: >a) through the review process and into the rules >b) modified so that it was less pervasive or brief in duration; or both >c) shot like a rabid dog. :) > >I'd be tending towards "c" myself, but could be persuaded to "b" I'd be tending towards 'c', I could be persuaded to 'c', and if I saw one on the street, I'd give it a healthy dose 'c'. > >You make the comment that MR is coming from magic items "created by GMs, >'outside the rules', as so many items seem to be these days". I'm not sure >about "these days", but magic items have always been created outside the rules >because there are no rules for creating magic items. Many items replicate >abilities/magic/skills inside the rules, to be sure, but many have always been >unusual. I usually find that magic items are a problem when their effects >combine or add up with other items. The largest bonus to MR that I have ever seen on a character was 10 pts worth. The bonus that the most pathetic counterspell provides you with is 30 pts. And, they're available at the Guild at a cost of 2K Ag. Trivial. As for the rest, item creation is a central function of DMing, allowing them to make a statement, add to the flavour, or introduce a new kind of beauty into the world. However much some people choose to look at a roleplaying game as a board game, it is more a variety of performance art than it ever is a wargame. Further, problems with MR are not caused by items, in general, but by the huge amounts of internally available spell and ritual effects, like counterspells and enchantments. I take exception to Sally comments that the fault lies with DMs creating items that contribute to high magic resistance values. You might as sensibly say that the reason that player characters die is because of the DM. It is true enough, as these statements go, because after all, only the DM can actually say that a player's character is dead or alive. However, it takes us no further, unless qualified in some meaningful way, i.e. this DM killed the pc because they cast a lightning spell when they were knee deep in methane... Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 18:05:42 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA02826; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:05:42 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr03.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA02822 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:05:39 +1300 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz - 10.8.1.28 by fclaklmr03.fcl.co.nz with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1774.114.11); Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:04:27 +1300 Received: by FALAKLEX00 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:09:30 +1300 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A725FB458@FALAKLEX00> Subject: Greaters Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:09:28 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF2682.C58F1A20" From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2682.C58F1A20 Content-Type: text/plain Should we have another shot at sorting out greaters - I'm personally keen on +1/2 Ranks on one of MR, spells BC, weapon BC or stats, but removal of the ability from the game isn't that far behind... Last time we had a go, I think it got shunted sideways by some quick maneouvering by a minority. Once more into the breach... Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Arona [SMTP:jimarona@ihug.co.nz] > Martin Dickson wrote: > >I don't really want to lay into GE again > > I do...Let's trash the bloody thing...It's effect is at once far too > tough at the top end, and pathetic beyond worrying about at the bottom > end... > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2682.C58F1A20 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greaters

Should we have = another shot at sorting out greaters - I'm personally keen on +1/2 = Ranks on one of MR, spells BC, weapon BC or stats, but removal of the = ability from the game isn't that far behind...

Last time we had a = go, I think it got shunted sideways by some quick maneouvering by a = minority.

Once more into the = breach...
<Oh, and we've = wandered of namers/counterspells again.>

Andrew

    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Jim Arona [SMTP:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
    Martin Dickson wrote:
    >I don't really want to lay into = GE again

        I do...Let's trash = the bloody thing...It's effect is at once far too
    tough at the top end, and pathetic = beyond worrying about at the bottom
    end...

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2682.C58F1A20-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 18:39:53 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA02914; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:39:53 +1300 Received: from westpac.co.nz (firewall1.westpac.co.nz [210.55.236.18]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA02911 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:39:52 +1300 Received: by firewall1.westpac.co.nz id <32259>; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:41:29 +1300 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WESTPACTRUST Message-Id: <99Nov4.184129nzdt.32259@firewall1.westpac.co.nz> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:39:26 +1300 Subject: Re: Greaters Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: "Mark Simpson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Greaters are one of the single biggest influences on DQ at medium or high level's of play. Are the overly powerful? - almost certainly. Can we just tweak the cost? - I'm always against trying to use money/cost to balance any game factor because, to be blunt, there is little or no balance in the way money is handed out and there is just too much of it out there already. Do we really want the richest characters to be the ones with greaters? Changing duration is really only tweaking cost from a different angle, unless we are talking about going down to "hours" instead of weeks/months. Can Greaters simply be removed? - I'd say no, not in isolation. It seems to me the system expects medium/high characters and NPC's to have Greaters in order to be able to cast/perform those many low base chance (<10%) spells and rituals (with powerful effects and high em's), or to have a reasonable chance to resist such things (ie instant death spells) when they are thrown at them. A spell with a 1% base chance will only have a 31% base chance (ignoring other modifiers) at rank 10 - that means it backfires as much as it works when you minute cast it, much more if you try pulse casting it. Are rank 10 spells meant to be that difficult to cast? Throw a rank 19 or 20 greater into the mix and the equation for that spell is radically changed - the spell can be cast sucessfully just over half the time with only a 10% or 20% chance of backfire. My first stab at a suggested solution would be something like - greaters give 1+1/3 ranks (ie max 8%) with rank twenty being 1 year duration, rank 12-19 being 3 months, 6-11 1 month etc. Cost/em to be taken down accordingly. Also all base chances for all special spells and rituals along with magic resistence are all increased by 5 - 10% (as beginning characters are supposed to be able to cast generals and they tend to have reasonable base chances) . /\/\ark /\/\ark -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 18:48:20 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA02952; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:48:20 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA02949 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 18:48:19 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p42-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.42]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA13864 for ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:48:00 +1300 Subject: Re: Greaters Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 18:47:18 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2688$0ef66620$2a9a64d8@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF26F5.05EFAE20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF26F5.05EFAE20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andrew Withy wrote: Should we have another shot at sorting out greaters - I'm personally = keen on +1/2 Ranks on one of MR, spells BC, weapon BC or stats, but = removal of the ability from the game isn't that far behind... =20 =20 I would prefer to see the bonus removed, full stop. The only = thing about Enchantment that I have no problem about at all, is the = bonus to Strike Chance, and I'd like to leave that as it is. As far as = the rest is concerned, I think that it would be better if an Enchantment = provided other kinds of bonuses, rather than a straight addition to = success chances of various sorts. =20 For example, I would prefer it if an Enchantment allowed a = player to have a finite, Rank controlled number of alternative rolls, = when it comes to spell casting. This avoids the double casting bonus = that accrues to Investment, where a mage with an Enchantment can invest = spells with a permanently enchanted Cast Chance. =20 Jim. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF26F5.05EFAE20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greaters
Andrew Withy wrote:
Should we have another shot at sorting out greaters - I'm = personally=20 keen on +1/2 Ranks on one of MR, spells BC, weapon BC or stats, but = removal=20 of the ability from the game isn't that far behind...

 

    I would prefer = to see the=20 bonus removed, full stop. The only thing about Enchantment that I = have no=20 problem about at all, is the bonus to Strike Chance, and I'd like to = leave=20 that as it is. As far as the rest is concerned, I think that it = would be=20 better if an Enchantment provided other kinds of bonuses, rather = than a=20 straight addition to success chances of various sorts.

    For example, I = would prefer=20 it if an Enchantment allowed a player to have a finite, Rank = controlled=20 number of alternative rolls, when it comes to spell casting. This = avoids the=20 double casting bonus that accrues to Investment, where a mage with = an=20 Enchantment can invest spells with a permanently enchanted Cast=20 Chance.

Jim.

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BF26F5.05EFAE20-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Nov 5 19:48:35 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA03040; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 19:48:35 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr03.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA03035 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 19:48:29 +1300 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz - 10.8.1.28 by fclaklmr03.fcl.co.nz with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1774.114.11); Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:47:24 +1300 Received: by FALAKLEX00 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:52:25 +1300 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A725FB459@FALAKLEX00> Subject: RE: Greaters Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 19:52:24 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF2691.26B4D880" From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2691.26B4D880 Content-Type: text/plain Base Chances for special spells are generally high enough. In most colleges (E&E excluded), you can get +10-20% in good conditions. 1% spells are scary all round - you don't want them to be automatic as well. Note: only specialist mages (usually MA 20+, high ranks, wierd items) cast 1% spells with ease - fighter-mages deserve to backfire for trying. They cast the 20-40% spells and only have a few spells they are competent to cast. And who's really afraid of backfiring by medium level? Backfires are usually resistable and removeable, as well as rare. In combat they can be fatal, but so can the enemy or even friendly fire. Lets not add 20% to everything so we can remove greaters. :) Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Simpson [SMTP:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz] > Can Greaters simply be removed? - I'd say no, not in isolation. It seems > to > me the system expects medium/high characters and NPC's to have Greaters > in > order to be able to cast/perform those many low base chance (<10%) spells > and rituals (with powerful effects and high em's), or to have a reasonable > chance to resist such things (ie instant death spells) when they are > thrown at them. A spell with a 1% base chance will only have a 31% base > chance (ignoring other modifiers) at rank 10 - that means it backfires as > much as it works when you minute cast it, much more if you try pulse > casting it. Are rank 10 spells meant to be that difficult to cast? Throw a > rank 19 or 20 greater into the mix and the equation for that spell is > radically changed - the spell can be cast sucessfully just over half the > time with only a 10% or 20% chance of backfire. > > My first stab at a suggested solution would be something like - greaters > give 1+1/3 ranks (ie max 8%) with rank twenty being 1 year duration, rank > 12-19 being 3 months, 6-11 1 month etc. Cost/em to be taken down > accordingly. Also all base chances for all special spells and rituals > along > with magic resistence are all increased by 5 - 10% (as beginning > characters are supposed to be able to cast generals and they tend to have > reasonable base chances) . > > > /\/\ark ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2691.26B4D880 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Greaters

Base Chances for = special spells are generally high enough. In most colleges (E&E = excluded), you can get +10-20% in good conditions. 1% spells are scary = all round - you don't want them to be automatic as well.

Note: only = specialist mages (usually MA 20+, high ranks, wierd items) cast 1% = spells with ease - fighter-mages deserve to backfire for trying. They = cast the 20-40% spells and only have a few spells they are competent to = cast.

And who's really = afraid of backfiring by medium level? Backfires are usually resistable = and removeable, as well as rare. In combat they can be fatal, but so = can the enemy or even friendly fire.

Lets not add 20% to = everything so we can remove greaters. :)

Andrew

    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Mark Simpson = [SMTP:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
    Can Greaters simply be removed? - I'd = say no, not in isolation. It seems to
    me the system expects medium/high = characters  and NPC's to have Greaters in
    order to be able to cast/perform = those many low base chance (<10%) spells
    and rituals (with powerful effects = and high em's), or to have a reasonable
    chance to resist such things (ie = instant death spells)  when they are
    thrown at them.  A spell with a = 1% base chance will only have a 31% base
    chance (ignoring other modifiers) at = rank 10 - that means it backfires as
    much as it works when you minute cast = it, much more if you try pulse
    casting it. Are rank 10 spells meant = to be that difficult to cast? Throw a
    rank 19 or 20 greater into the mix = and the equation for that spell is
    radically changed  - the spell = can be cast sucessfully just over half the
    time with only a 10% or 20% chance of = backfire.

    My first stab at a suggested solution = would be something like - greaters
    give 1+1/3 ranks (ie max 8%) with = rank twenty being 1 year duration, rank
    12-19 being 3 months, 6-11 1 month = etc. Cost/em to be taken down
    accordingly. Also all base chances = for all special spells and rituals along
    with magic resistence are all = increased  by  5 - 10% (as beginning
    characters are supposed to be able to = cast generals and they tend to have
    reasonable base chances) .


    /\/\ark

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2691.26B4D880-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --