| Subject | DQ: Ranger v0.2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| From | Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@AJ.CO.NZ | ||
| Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:38:41 +0000 | ||
--0__=CC2569A00003AABE8f9e8a93df938690918cCC2569A00003AABE Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I finally got my ideas together. =A0Let me know what you think. Rosemary (See attached file: ranger-02.pdf)=
| |||
| Subject | Re: DQ: Ranger v0.2 |
|---|---|
| From | Martin Dickson |
| Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:35:48 +1300 |
Hi Rosemary,
Thoughts/Comments:
45.1 Environment Options
Both options raise a question of how +1/+2 effective ranks is handled when
this raises the rank over 10. As for the two options offered, I strongly
prefer "B". I'm not sure if option "A" would really get used. Given the
Guild structure it would be difficult to determine when ranking (at the end of
an adventure) what the most useful environment would be for the next session,
and the 4 or 8 week requirement would be too long to keep a party waiting for.
Default Base Chance need not be specified in the skill. 90+Rank applies to
all non-magical skills without a specific BC
Identify Plants and Animals
Perhaps add a comment that the BC may be reduced for uncommon or rare plants
and animals.
"(NB a ranger does not need to make an attack roll but may automatically kill
small animals that it has caught during foraging)." Should be either "that
they have caught", or perhaps, "that were caught during foraging".
Traps
The weight seems low, and perhaps unnecessary. At what rank can the Ranger
dig and conceal their elephant pit? :) Or build a man-trap for that matter.
First Aid
The ability to stop bleeding may need an equivalent Healer rank if it is to be
used to stop a combatant bleeding to death.
Environments
Caverns
The "inhabited" caveat seems to imply that the ranger can use all of their
skills caves, for example, unless there are gobbos living in the caves. Is
this intended?
Rural
I'll restate my objection to this as an environment... generally it is just
plains or valleys that people live in, and seems adequately covered by other
environments. If fertility is the main concern it might be worth changing
Plains to be "Poor to Average" and noting that areas may be cultivated.
Overall
Very clear and easy to understand. A little heavy on formulae for my tastes,
but I am aware that some GMs and players like having numbers to work with and
the rest of us will just tend to fudge it as we go along. :)
Regards,
Martin
--
_/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401
Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400
-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
| |
| Subject | RE: DQ: Ranger v0.2 |
|---|---|
| From | "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" |
| Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:31:59 +1300 |
Thoughts on "rural" specialisation in reply to Martin. Put your average british poacher in the veldt, pampas or prairie. They don't have a chance. However, they can live off the land happily in their area of specialisation - where animals are mainly domesticated, lands are broken in, etc, they can live "wild". You could argue this just makes them incompetant rangers, but some live their entire life in this way, and know lots & lots of trick of survival in this environment. There are a number of guild members who fill the same ecological niche as the poacher, and this category is a sensible one given how often this environment turns up in games. Stealthing through farmyards after chickens has got to be distinct from & more common (in DQ) than stealthing through African grasslands after antelope. Agriculture changes the nature of the land, its inhabitants and dangers. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson Environments Rural I'll restate my objection to this as an environment... generally it is just plains or valleys that people live in, and seems adequately covered by other environments. If fertility is the main concern it might be worth changing Plains to be "Poor to Average" and noting that areas may be cultivated. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: DQ: Ranger v0.2 |
|---|---|
| From | Martin Dickson |
| Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:47:31 +1300 |
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE> <pre>Put your average british poacher in the veldt, pampas or prairie. They don't have a chance. However, they can live off the land happily in their area of specialisation - where animals are mainly domesticated, lands are broken in, etc, they can live "wild". You could argue this just makes them incompetant rangers, but some live their entire life in this way, and know lots & lots of trick of survival in this environment.</pre> </blockquote> <p><br>Hi Andrew, <p>I guess what I'm really looking for is consistency. <p>There have been arguments (both for and against) in past about Rangers specializing in "City", or using their skills in an urban environment. In Rosemary's proposed version the Caverns environment states that tunnels that are part of an inhabited area are not included for purposes of Rangering. <p>Rural is what it is because of continued habitation. So, basically, does Ranger cover inhabited areas or no? <p>Cheers, <br>Martin <p>PS: "Stealthing through farmyards after chickens" is not technically Rangering... its Thievery. :) <p>-- <p> _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com <br>_/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 <br> Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 <br> </html> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | RE: DQ: Ranger v0.2 |
|---|---|
| From | "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" |
| Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:59:32 +1300 |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=677205803-23112000>I'd like to refund my hobbit's ranks in Ranger then - It's all been a big misunderstanding.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=677205803-23112000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=677205803-23112000>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]<BR></FONT>PS: "Stealthing through farmyards after chickens" is not technically Rangering... its Thievery. :) </DIV> <P> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> | |
| Subject | Re: DQ: Ranger v0.2 |
|---|---|
| From | Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@AJ.CO.NZ |
| Date | Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:33:46 +1300 |
<br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Thanks for your feedback Martin.</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Overall<br> Very clear and easy to understand. A little heavy on formulae for my tastes,<br> but I am aware that some GMs and players like having numbers to work with and<br> the rest of us will just tend to fudge it as we go along. :)</font> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Ha, you should have seen all the formulas I took out !</font> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">But seriously, I would be quite comfortable with fewer numbers and more description, but when playing people just don't interpret things the obvious way (ie my way). I looked at the Bestiary with a view to using generic terms eg. small land animals, but that document is too, hmmm, stuffed is too strong, lets try too far from common sense, to be useful. </font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> <br> 45.1 Environment Options<br> Both options raise a question of how +1/+2 effective ranks is handled when<br> this raises the rank over 10. </font> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">I was thinking in terms of rangers going up to a 'nominal' rank 12, but it might be better changed to something more like "... in this environment their base chances and other formulas should be calculated as if they were 2 ranks higher."</font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">As for the two options offered, I strongly<br> prefer "B". I'm not sure if option "A" would really get used. Given the<br> Guild structure it would be difficult to determine when ranking (at the end of<br> an adventure) what the most useful environment would be for the next session,<br> and the 4 or 8 week requirement would be too long to keep a party waiting for.<br> </font> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">I actually dislike the idea of people changing environment to suit their next adventure, or basing any of their ranking on the next scenario they are going on. A bit of it goes on; it feels more real to make ranking choices based on when the character was planning, ie at the end of the last adventure, not based on events or needs months down the track. </font> <br> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Option A doesn't stop a ranger working in any environment, they are just a bit better in the one they are most familiar with.</font> <br> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Option B was what I came up with 1st, but as I thought it through I decided that my ideal of a ranger wasn't a like a mage or philosopher who learns formally and is adding to their knowledge but someone whose skills come from familiarity and long use</font><font size=2 face="Courier New">.<br> </font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Default Base Chance need not be specified in the skill. 90+Rank applies to<br> all non-magical skills without a specific BC<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">I stuck this in for the same reason I stuck it in Healer. There are abilities that don't quote a base chance and this just reminds people that nothing is automatic unless it says so. </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> </font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Identify Plants and Animals<br> Perhaps add a comment that the BC may be reduced for uncommon or rare plants<br> and animals.<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">OK</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">"(NB a ranger does not need to make an attack roll but may automatically kill<br> small animals that it has caught during foraging)." Should be either "that<br> they have caught", or perhaps, "that were caught during foraging".<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Thanks </font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> </font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Traps<br> The weight seems low, and perhaps unnecessary. At what rank can the Ranger<br> dig and conceal their elephant pit? :) Or build a man-trap for that matter.<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">This section was designed as supplement to foraging and I was thinking firmly of the string & bent branch type of thing. Now those just don't hold anything with longish legs or any strength.</font> <br><font size=3 face="sans-serif">If we want to expand this to pit traps, nets flipping into trees, rock falls and other fun and games then this whole bit needs re-writing (and probably doesn't belong in the food section any more). Any suggestions?</font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> First Aid<br> The ability to stop bleeding may need an equivalent Healer rank if it is to be<br> used to stop a combatant bleeding to death.<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">Oops, this should be 'stop external bleeding'. This whole bit is supposed to be 'first aid' not pseudo magical healing.</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> </font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Environments<br> Caverns<br> The "inhabited" caveat seems to imply that the ranger can use all of their<br> skills caves, for example, unless there are gobbos living in the caves. Is<br> this intended?<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">I didn't change this from the original and I think 'inhabited' is meant to refer to 'other underground areas' not the cavern's caves bit. I'll have a think about this and reword it.</font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> Rural<br> </font><font size=3 face="sans-serif">I'll reply to this separately</font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br> <br> <br> Regards,<br> Martin<br> </font> <br> | |