My understanding is:
1) +0%
2) +0%
3) -10%. The natural light does not create a penalty for the darkness to
alleviate, the darkness creates the penalty, and can't alleviate itself.

If the natural circumstances don't give you a bonus, you can only neutralise
penalties with light/darkness. However, you can receive penalties due to
light/darkness.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Errol Cavit [mailto:errolgc@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 20 January 2001 11:26 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Celestial Shadow Query


Hi all

While I was away overseas, there were changes made to the Celestial College 
modifiers, and the way the Light and Dark spells work. Reading the new 
write-ups carefully (as opposed to quickly) for the first time, I would like

to seek confirmation that my understanding of the situation is correct.

My character is a normal (for the purposes of the question) Celestial Shadow

mage. Relevant quotes from the college write-up are:

19.3 Lighting condition modifiers
... Magical forms of the elements (light and dark) may at best neutralize 
any penalties suffered due to the natural elements. ...
Shadow Weavers must be within a shadow that has a defined edge within the 
vicinity (...), and Star mages must be in direct light from point sources, 
otherwise the lighting condition modifier is -25%.

19.5
Darkness (G-3)
....
It will not aid in providing bonuses for casting purposes, though it will 
neutralize penalties due to natural light, to a maximum of 5% + 1%/rank. The

volume counts as direct shadow for Star & Shadow mages.
...

19.9 Celestial Lighting Modifier Table
various mods based on light level, ranging from -20 to +25 for Shadow, plus 
'cannot cast'.

My understanding:
Being in a magical darkness means that I am in a shadow, so the -25% from 
19.3 does not apply. Calculate the Lighting condition modifier as

Table entry for amount of natural light
plus
5% + 1% per rank

The end result is reduced to 0 if it is positive.

Examples and possible special situation:
Simple example:
Sunny day in the middle of flat grassland, the rest of the party are too 
lazy or busy to hold up a cloak to cast a shadow for you. With a Rk10 
darkness (cast at 55% BC btw, +30 for rank, -25 because you aren't in a 
shadow), later spells are (-10 + (5+10)) = +5%, tough luck, it's 0%

Slightly trickier example:
In the middle of a chamber underground, lit by torches around all the walls,

but not in a shadow (having just been magically whisked here by yourself, 
rest of the party are slacking off as  per usual).
Using the Rk 10  darkness again, its (+10 + (5+10)) = +25%, tough luck, it's

0%.
The kinder interpretation is to leave it at the natural modifier of 10%, 
with the darkness counting as a shadow. This doesn't seem reasonable to me, 
you are using the magic to make the shadow in order to avoid the -25%, so 
you are limited to 0% end result.

Tricky example:
Due entirely to your own planning and cunning, you are set up perfectly. 
With a tree between you and the party's campfire, you are about to let one 
of the attacking fools have it with a backfire. A combat spell with a +25% 
bonus, it doesn't happen that often. Then some jerk puts a rank 19 darkness 
down on your location. Thanks to your Night Vision, you can still see the 
target in the 2% light level.

Do you still have the +25% due to natural light level (and in a natural 
shadow), or are you stuck with the -10% from the magic light level + (5+19) 
for rank, giving 0%?

Explanation of any faults in the above logic or understanding gratefully 
received.

Cheers
Errol

PS none of the above comments should be taken as criticisms of the actions 
(or inactions) of my current party - especially Amelia, who is fixing my 
"massive chest wound" while we are at the bottom of an 80' pit.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=152021819-21012001>The 
close-formation tactics&nbsp;are another simple tool for competant GMs who wish 
to vary the details of a combat for their party. A GM always has to balance (or 
at least be aware of) the party's capabilities. However, as most fighters I play 
with or GM have 140-160 strike chance, it is hard to introduce a challenge to 
them without (excessive) magic.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=152021819-21012001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=152021819-21012001>Could 
people try to be a little more positive or constructive in their attitude to 
other ideas, players &amp; GMs, or keep their opinions to themselves until they 
are a little less depressed?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=152021819-21012001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=152021819-21012001>And 
what's a goober?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=152021819-21012001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=152021819-21012001>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <BLOCKQUOTE 
  style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>ah, but William, once you have ideas for unit formation 
    tactics, then you have guidelines for how to treat them once they have 
    broken formation.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>William's reply</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>Rules to cover such things would be all well and good for 
    a wargame but we must face the cold, hard truth that most players cannot 
    work out thier TMR, defence, initiative and have the tatical capabilities of 
    a moldy lemon.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>Applying 'reality' to a combat system where it takes one 
    minute to cover 100 yards (60 hexes) is doomed to failure. </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;I want characters to be able to be heroes and the 
    rules should favour heroic endevour and not recreations of medival battles. 
    If that is your cup of hot water I suggest the SCA or a metal weapons 
    club.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;I am aware of what the 'omni-weapons' (battleaxe, 
    hand+half, glaive) would do to such formations. Please, lets make other 
    weapon choices&nbsp;even more redundant.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>I also realised that 'pleb' means different things and 
    that to some it means Rk4 in optimal weapons granting the 100 or so defence. 
    This is why a fighter even with a good weapon will have a dull time of 
    it.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>"Oh, a 32,&nbsp;I guess I miss the 
guardsman."</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>What a screamingly fun time. Lets convince PCs that unless 
    they are totally min-maxed for combat that they are complete goobers whose 
    figure only contributes&nbsp;in keeping the hex grid down.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>William</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While I agree with Andrew that any new tool is useful
for running a game, I cannot help but feel that some tools actually take
the game in a less than useful direction, pretty much in line with William's
comments.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is handy to have rules that allow a DM to work
out mass combat. On the other hand, role-playing games are not about military
conflict resolution. They're about telling stories.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We use rules of whatever kind to:
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1) Allow the DM to draw a swift conclusion on what
has, or is about to happen
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2) Provide an open platform that explains the mechanics
of a particular consequence. In other words, rules tell players and DMs
how the world works.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; We also use rules to do these things, which are
less than positive.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1) To allow DMs to deny any responsibility for harm
that may befall a player character. If a pc suffers horribly as a result
of poor throw of the dice, or because the rules of the game, then the DM
can say that they have no responsibility for that harm.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2) Assiduous attention to rules leads to situations
where the player or the DM can finesse, applying a rule in a way that it
was never intended to cover, but is not explicitly denied by the game.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3) Most importantly, the more rules there are, the
less story there is. Every time a rule is added to cover a situation, then
the excercise of the game becomes more like a board game, and less like
a narrative.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I suppose it comes down to a choice between which
rules you think are important enough that players and DMs need to know
what the world thinks about them. In my opinion, massed combat is the sort
of thing that is liable to be of at least passing consequence to an adventurer,
however screwed the rest of the system is.
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, it seems to me that massed combat
would never have developed in the way that we expect, given that almost
any ducal property and higher is liable to have an air force, completely
invalidating walls, castles and keeps as the preeminent defensive force
for a fantasy roleplaying game, set in what some people laughingly call
the Middle Ages.
<br>&nbsp;
<p>"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<span class=152021819-21012001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>The
close-formation tactics are another simple tool for competant GMs who wish
to vary the details of a combat for their party. A GM always has to balance
(or at least be aware of) the party's capabilities. However, as most fighters
I play with or GM have 140-160 strike chance, it is hard to introduce a
challenge to them without (excessive) magic.</font></font></font></span><span 
class=152021819-21012001></span><span class=152021819-21012001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Could
people try to be a little more positive or constructive in their attitude
to other ideas, players &amp; GMs, or keep their opinions to themselves
until they are a little less depressed?</font></font></font></span><span 
class=152021819-21012001></span><span class=152021819-21012001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>And
what's a goober?</font></font></font></span><span 
class=152021819-21012001></span><span 
class=152021819-21012001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Andrew</font></font></font></span>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<blockquote 
  style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">&nbsp;<font size=-1>ah,
but William, once you have ideas for unit formation tactics, then you have
guidelines for how to treat them once they have broken formation.</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;<font size=-1>William's
reply</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>Rules to cover such things would be all
well and good for a wargame but we must face the cold, hard truth that
most players cannot work out thier TMR, defence, initiative and have the
tatical capabilities of a moldy lemon.</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>Applying
'reality' to a combat system where it takes one minute to cover 100 yards
(60 hexes) is doomed to failure.</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>&nbsp;I want
characters to be able to be heroes and the rules should favour heroic endevour
and not recreations of medival battles. If that is your cup of hot water
I suggest the SCA or a metal weapons club.</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>&nbsp;I
am aware of what the 'omni-weapons' (battleaxe, hand+half, glaive) would
do to such formations. Please, lets make other weapon choices even more
redundant.</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>I also realised that 'pleb' means
different things and that to some it means Rk4 in optimal weapons granting
the 100 or so defence. This is why a fighter even with a good weapon will
have a dull time of it.</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>"Oh, a 32, I guess I
miss the guardsman."</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>What a screamingly fun time.
Lets convince PCs that unless they are totally min-maxed for combat that
they are complete goobers whose figure only contributes in keeping the
hex grid down.</font>&nbsp;<font size=-1>William</font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

</body>
</html>