Subject[dq] Bane -- Re: [dq] Namer Specials
FromMartin Dickson
DateMon, 04 Dec 2000 09:14:38 +1300
Michael Parkinson wrote:

>'ll have another spell like the current Compel -- few people
> ranking it, but those who do tending to become (for atleast a few years) a
> 1-spell mage, as they do everything to it to highish ranks.

I'll play with some numbers for AoE.  My preference is for an area that gets
larger with Rank, and which as Michael says: "may be vacated by almost all
entities within 1 pulse [say 35' dia] with the Effect within that AoE starting
low & increasing per rank".

> That being said, I do suspect eitherway that the %age reduction *may* need
> tweaking:

After some off-board discussions about the efficacy of Bane the per Rank effect
will be dropping in the next draft to a reduction of 3%.  The base may also be
dropped to either 5% or 3%.

The overall effect of this is to make each Rank in Bane negate only a single
Rank of spells in the area.

Thanks for the review.



 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email:
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Analyst                          Phone: +64-9-373-0400

-- to unsubscribe see http://www --

Subject[dq] Recap of Witchsight & Illusion issues
From"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)"
DateMon, 4 Dec 2000 09:13:14 +1300
Michael et al.

As I see it, there are five "problems" with the new witchsight rules.
1) GMs aren't used to them yet, and don't instinctively get them right, so
they either need to back up and change what they've just done, or play by
the old rules for that encounter. This will be solved with a little time, if
the GMs *emotionally* accept the rule change.
2) The "something's there but I can't recognise/target it" result when
looking at high-ranked invis can be confusing to players & GMs. Again their
intuitions aren't in tune with the change. Is it counter-intuitive or just a
3) In low level games, Walking Unseen has been depowered, requiring a
behaviour change by players. It was too powerful, now it might be too weak.
4) The PC witchsight talents / spells have not yet acclimatised to the new
rules. This means that PCs who expected to see everything now can't.
(Example, my PC had 108% witchsight at Rank 7 - now he needs Rank 20 for the
same result).
5) The GM needs to reveal the rank of the invis (at least approx).

Most of these problems will go away with a little time, practise &
acceptance. I had little trouble GMing or playing it, but my players and GMs
had trouble with the effects, whenever I used rank 16+ invis either as
player & GM.

On the other hand, Keith's suggestion last month gives an intermediate
result, making unseen useful against very low ranked witchsight, and
high-experience PCs have an advantage over newer ones, resolving most of
issues #2, #3 & #4 above. In summary, I think he suggested : 
At Witchsight Rank WRk & Perception PC, a character can see Walking Unseen
of up to Rank WRk*2 + (PC over 15) and Invis of WRk/2 + (PC over 15). Each
player would have to write down once a session what invis & unseen ranks
they could see, next to their talent rank.

I feel this would resolve some of the issues and possbly get greater

The "Illusion thing" was more a matter of asking people's expectations and
raising awareness. Like Mark Simpson & Michael Woodhams, as a PC
illusionist, I don't need to see through my own illusions or anyone else's.
However, if GMs are generally going to consider that illusions should be
seen through and thus make a significant portion of NPCs ignore them for
other than specific plot/background reasons, then this should be an agreed
part of the campaign. Many illusions are only effective when *everybody* is
fooled, particularly in court/social/non-combat settings. I thought that
raising the topic of illusionists being able to see through illusions would
get people talking about illusions and people seeing through them in

The next step is either to try to write up an exact proposal for a "see
through illusions" spell or talent, or drop the topic. As I'm not interested
in introducing such a spell or talent either as GM or player, I'm not doing
anything about it - but anyone else may, if they wish.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Young []
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2000 8:00 p.m.
Subject: Re: [dq] New draft of Namer College available

Well I havent read the new Namer college yet AT ALL, so I may be shooting in
the dark but from what I have seen here I have to agree with Mark. I'm not
sure what the problem with Illusions and Witchsight are that you are all
having cos its not a problem when I GM. But then I'm a genius, right?  LOL

Be real useful if say Andrew W. explained the problem to me as I REALLY dont
understand what all the fuss is about regard Witchsight and invisible
effects. Ditto with all the illusion problems the rest of you seem to be
having. So someone give me a call or email and try and get it through my
thick skull. Because I'm cant see whats the problem!

Michael Young

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Simpson <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] New draft of Namer College available

> Re - Trueseeing - I still think the spell is a problem if it "sees
through" illusions 

> /\/\ark

-- to unsubscribe see http://www --

Subject[dq-announce] Articles required for Seagate Times
FromKeith Smith
DateMon, 04 Dec 2000 12:58:55 +1300
It's time to put quill to parchment (or whatever media you care to use) and 
get those articles rolling in. We especially want news of what has been 
happening to adventuring parties and also what has been going on in the 
world. Articles on the current state of the Dark Circle, Seagate/Cazala and 
the Spawn are especially required However we are still after our regular 
stuff such as:
	What's Hot & What's Not

Could we please have all your contributions by Friday evening/early 
Saturday morning at the latest.



-- to unsubscribe see http://www --

Subject[dq-announce] DQ Rule books
DateMon, 4 Dec 2000 14:10:33 +1300
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I've been asked to print out a rule book for the Guild meeting so I thought I'd see if anyone else wanted one at the same time.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Email me if you do.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>