From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 10 11:45:52 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA15238; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:40:32 +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 SAA15235 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:40:30 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p42-max19.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.17.119.170]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id SAA10948 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:40:11 +1300 Message-ID: <3827B369.CA041967@ihug.co.nz> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 18:38:49 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Web of Fire Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: scott 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 I suggest that Web of Fire be returned to Fire College. There was no good reason to drop this spell in the first place and it added a different character to the normal run of fire spells. Scott -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 10 11:47:56 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA16265; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:48:32 +1300 Received: from FS13MSG (kotuku.manukau.govt.nz [202.14.82.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id KAA16262 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:48:24 +1300 Received: from GWMCC-Message_Server by FS13MSG with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:47:15 +1300 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:46:47 +1300 Subject: Magic Resistance lunacy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: "Adam tennant" 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, it's Adam here. I just thought I'd put in a brief re-appearance due to a viscious rumour I = heard. Supposedly it has been decided that MR rolls should have the normal cap of = 70+Stat+difficulty factor ( in this case 1 ) put on it? Am I hearing things? Has everyone gone insane? Is the world REALLY going = to end on January 1st? Are you purposely trying to kill the Namer college? It's a marginal enough = college as it is in its current form. There'd be no point ranking = counterspells any more! All a decent mage has to do is have all his = colleges spells at rank 6 and then fill his MA up with other college = counterspells and he'll be virtually as good as a Namer!?!?! Given that = his counterspells take 2 pulses to cast, but good grief! And it was hard enough going on hideously dangerous adventures before. = Then the new Purification ritual came along to make it worse. Now this. = Where will it all end? Please tell me I'm mistaken. P.S. I don't subscribe to the group so please EMail any replies/rants/flame= s directly to me and copy them to the group for amusement value. L8R, Adam. MCC Novell Systems Admin atennant@manukau.govt.nz +64 09 263 7100 xt 8848 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 10 11:49:50 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA15196; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:29:56 +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 SAA15193 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:29:54 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p468-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.228]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA09250 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:29:18 +1300 Subject: Re: November meeting minutes Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:28:09 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2a73$35c87b00$e4886dcb@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 >... it was a realisation that >something had been interpreted in a manner that may or not be correct. >Discussion about the issue was conducted by those who attended the session >and it was deemed that it was a clarification of an abiguous rule. > >The two ways I see of looking at it are : > >1 MR is a willpower stat check. > >2 MR is a number in it's own right generated with Willpower as a base >component. > >Both are possibly true and have good arguments. The gods meeting has >clarified the issue one way or another and we can now debate the issue from >a clear position. The fact is that it will not require any changes to the >rule book is the indication that it is soley a clarification. Whether or not you can point to the rulebook and say that a change to the game that requires the least number of letters to be changed therein is pretty irrelevant. The most important consideration is what it is important to achieve. I.e., what sort of game you want to offer players. I wasn't party to the discussion, but I can only assume that the reason for this 'rule clarification' is so that there might be a point in casting spells that allow the target(s) to resist and take no harm. I think the principle of limiting Magic Resistance in some fashion, is sound. I don't believe that treating it as a stat roll is appropriate. It is, if you like, a 'rules finesse', not a real rule. As far as I can see, the real problem with Magic Resistance is that a player can expect to have (some time in the future, if not right away) a passive Magic Resistance of 59%-69%, without using a counter-spell, or any non-standard magical items to boost them any higher. If you add a Rank 0 counterspell, you're adding another 30 points to a pretty enormous total. If we choose to use the concept of MR as a stat roll, then that means that the maximum amount of MR a 15 WP character can have is 85%. Rolls over that number are automatic failures, regardless of how highly a counterspell is ranked. There are two bad things this does. 1) It reduces the incentive in ranking counterspells. 2) It rewards players who choose to have high WP values. It punishes players who choose to have low WP values. WP is already a valuable stat, governing MR, stun recovery, horsemanship, astrology, resistance to torture, and so on. There is no reason to give it an increased value. Nevertheless, I do agree that the high resistance values of characters, player and non-player means that a lot of spells are not going to be used, because when a target has a chance significantly greater than 50% to avoid any harm from a spell, then it just isn't worth casting...A general knowledge spell that allows a target to resist for nothing, costs 1 FT, and 2 pulses of casting time. A special knowledge spell that inflicts some degree of harm, even if the target resists costs 2 FT, and 2 pulses of casting time. However, a general knowledge spell will generally have a higher base chance and/or a lower EM. I would judge that a general knowledge spell that inflicts some kind of harm, but allows them to resist for no harm, is probably balanced if the base expectable MR is about 50%. Not all such spells, mind you...Sleep, for example, is not a great example, however, the principle is sound enough, I think. I suggest, therefore, that the root of the problem is not so much the effect of counterspells, but rather, the bonus to MR from Enchantment. If Enchantment was changed in no other way than that the bonus could no longer be applied to MR, then a lot of the problems go away. Admittedly, a character can become very resistant to a few colleges, but there general MR would be as much as 21 points less severe...69% MR becomes 48%...Significant, but not pants wettingly frightening. A rank 0 counterspell takes this character to 78%. It would take a rank 8 counterspell to give the character a MR equal to, or higher than 100. And that would be a 25 WP character. A 15 WP character would need a counterspell of Rank 11 to exceed 100. This means that highly ranked counterspells become extremely valuable, but any counterspell is worth having. A party whose number includes a highly ranked Namer becomes very resilient. On the other hand, the FT cost of casting counterspells on all of the party quickly becomes exorbitant. Assuming that no spells are miscast, and that the average size of the party is 6, then the Namer is looking at whacking off 12 points of FT, before they start hitting things with heavy objects. Therefore, although a party may cover themselves with counterspells, they are not going to be resistant to the rest of the colleges, or non colleged magic, and that assumes they are lucky enough to have a Namer with seriously high ranks in the right counters. I know this doesn't get around the problem of the players making themselves proof against the magic of an entire college, but it does mean that the incidence is pretty low. Not that I've noticed it being much of a problem, actually, but hey. In addition, removing MR from the Enchantment equation does two other really useful things. It makes the magical attacks of creatures like dragons and salamanders frightening. It means that active MR is the same number as passive MR. Players regularly muck this up. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 10 12:30:49 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA16414; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:19:55 +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 MAA16411 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:19:52 +1300 Message-ID: <3828AB7B.7F3AB8F2@peace.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:17:15 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Magic Resistance lunacy 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 Adam, No, not mistaken, but... > Are you purposely trying to kill the Namer college? It's a marginal enough college as it is in its current form. There'd be no point ranking counterspells any more! This may be one of the best arguments against MR being limited to 70+stat, etc. Jim's comment/suggestion about removing MR from Greater Enchantment (instead) is interesting because it would have exactly the reverse pressure -- Rank 0 CS would be relatively better (compared to base MR) but only a decent rank in CS would confer 100%+ MR. The more I think about it, the more GE seems to be the fly in the ointment. The only positive thing it seems to do is raise weapon BCs... and that is only positive because the SC vs. Def balance is a bit off. Anyway... yes, we did agree on Sunday that MR should be/is logically a stat check. Perhaps this is not a desirable decision. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ 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 Wed Nov 10 17:01:50 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA16718; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:58:10 +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 QAA16715 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:58:08 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p375-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.121]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA09238 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:57:14 +1300 Subject: Re: Web of Fire Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:56:06 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2b2f$844f25a0$79e86dcb@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 Scott wrote: >I suggest that Web of Fire be returned to Fire College. > >There was no good reason to drop this spell in the first place and it >added a different character to the normal run of fire spells. How about because fire as an element isn't the sort of thing you might expect from fire? I don't see why it should be returned. It was a half damage spell in disguise, and tougher than any other web spell in the game, God knows why. If any college deserved not to have a web spell, the Fire college would be it. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --