Could you all please e-mail me your ideas for initiative calculations and 
quickness adjustments, I'm sure that there are some really good ideas out 
there that have been used, that can serve as a replacement for the current 
rules.

Thanks,

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)




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

Below is a re-transmission of an Invisibility/Witchsight proposal I sent 
out a while ago.....

It was pointed out to me that Invis has a much higher EM than Walking 
Unseen so it should be a harder nut to crack with Witchsight - which also 
explains the exception in the current writeup. With this in mind, here is 
my revised idea to get around witchsight seeing everything.

1) Against Walking Unseen/Blending. If the Rank of Witchsight is greater 
than or equal to the Rank in Walking Unseen, then the target can be seen 
with a slight blue sheen. If the Rank of Witchsight is less than the Rank 
in Walking Unseen then nothing is seen.

2) Against Invisibility. If the Rank of Witchsight is >= twice the rank of 
Invisibility then the target can be seen otherwise nothing is seen. This is 
modified by 1 for each point of perception above 15 (10 for the Celestial 
spell) that the viewer has. For example, someone with Rank 10 Witchsight 
can see up to and including Rank 5 Invisibility. But if they have a 
perception of 18 they can see up to Rank 8, if using a talent, and Rank 13 
if using the spell.

This should give motivation for ranking both the spell and perception. A 
similar perception modifier could be added to the Walking Unseen/Blending 
case but I felt it might make things too easy.

Comments?

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)






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

It's been pointed out to me that the price of crossbows in the rulebook is 
low, probably by a factor of 10.

Currently the bow prices are:
	Self bow		20
	Short bow		20
	Long bow		25
	Composite bow		80
	Giant bow		80

	Crossbow		15
	Heavy crossbow		20

I would have thought that crossbows would be more expensive than longbows 
as they take longer to make and require more intricate work and materials.

Comments?

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)
  




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

The one I've always run and been run under is the normal initiative
calculation with combat order being the following

1>    Quickened first action
2    non - quickened
3    quickened second action.

This has always seemed to work for me

scott

Keith Smith wrote:

> Could you all please e-mail me your ideas for initiative calculations and
> quickness adjustments, I'm sure that there are some really good ideas out
> there that have been used, that can serve as a replacement for the current
> rules.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
> (phaeton@ihug.co.nz)
>
> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --




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

>
>I would have thought that crossbows would be more expensive than longbows
>as they take longer to make and require more intricate work and materials.
>
>Comments?
>
>Keith


I would imagine that it would (partially) depend on the relative scarcity of
the wood required to make a half-way decent long bow. I'm guessing that
crossbows are less fussy about the wood (or other material) used. I'm would
also think that the skills used in making long bows are not identical to
those used in making crossbows. Also, didn't a really good long bow tend to
be made for the individual user?

Or I could be wrong on any or all of the above.

Cheers
Errol




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

No the prices are about right.

Only certain types of wood make good longbows whereas a crossbow can be made
out of practically anything.  A longbow also takes a lot of shaping and
bending whereas a xbow can almost be "mass" manufactured in comparison.

scott

Keith Smith wrote:

> It's been pointed out to me that the price of crossbows in the rulebook is
> low, probably by a factor of 10.
>
> Currently the bow prices are:
>         Self bow                20
>         Short bow               20
>         Long bow                25
>         Composite bow           80
>         Giant bow               80
>
>         Crossbow                15
>         Heavy crossbow          20
>
> I would have thought that crossbows would be more expensive than longbows
> as they take longer to make and require more intricate work and materials.
>
> Comments?
>
> Keith
> (phaeton@ihug.co.nz)
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --




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

scott whitaker wrote:
> 
> The one I've always run and been run under is the normal initiative
> calculation with combat order being the following
> 
> 1>    Quickened first action
> 2    non - quickened
> 3    quickened second action.
> 
> This has always seemed to work for me

And, it's predictable and BORING



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

Keith Smith wrote:
> 
> Below is a re-transmission of an Invisibility/Witchsight proposal I sent
> out a while ago.....
> 
> It was pointed out to me that Invis has a much higher EM than Walking
> Unseen so it should be a harder nut to crack with Witchsight - which also
> explains the exception in the current writeup. With this in mind, here is
> my revised idea to get around witchsight seeing everything.

There is no particular reason to make it harder to see Invisible
characters. At Rank 16, the spell has the advantage of allowing the
subject to attack and not lose their concealment. And, the spell allows
the caster to make objects invisible, too. 
I really don't see that there needs to be more encouragement to rank the
spells and talents mentioned. Whatever the EM, a character is going to
want to want to advance their ranks, unless they choose not to.



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

> > The one I've always run and been run under is the normal initiative
> > calculation with combat order being the following
> >
> > 1>    Quickened first action
> > 2    non - quickened
> > 3    quickened second action.
> >
> > This has always seemed to work for me
>
> And, it's predictable and BORING

It's the helpful and constructive critisism that makes this game the joy
that it is.

Mandos
/s




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

Price and skill wise, longbows are considerably harder to use and buy.
This is becuase:

a) It takes at least two years to make a good longbowman, and most were
trained from childhood
b) Seasoning the wood for a longbow takes 2-3 years and  obtaining wood
suitable wood can be a problem in most climates.

By contrast Genoese and Florientien crossbowman were trained in the use of
the weapon for two weeks, and were then considered profficient. Equally the
bows could be made of almost any type of wood and metal parts were
manufactured in mass, usually in Italy or Germany.

The advantage of longbows are range and rate of fire. The advantage of
crossbows was speed of manufacture and quick deployment of trained personal.
Both had excellent penetration.




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

I agree with Jim,

the rules work and are easy.

We do not need to achieve ballance between colleges.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Saturday, 3 February 2001 15:29
Subject: Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 2


>
>
>Keith Smith wrote:
>>
>> Below is a re-transmission of an Invisibility/Witchsight proposal I sent
>> out a while ago.....
>>
>> It was pointed out to me that Invis has a much higher EM than Walking
>> Unseen so it should be a harder nut to crack with Witchsight - which also
>> explains the exception in the current writeup. With this in mind, here is
>> my revised idea to get around witchsight seeing everything.
>
>There is no particular reason to make it harder to see Invisible
>characters. At Rank 16, the spell has the advantage of allowing the
>subject to attack and not lose their concealment. And, the spell allows
>the caster to make objects invisible, too.
>I really don't see that there needs to be more encouragement to rank the
>spells and talents mentioned. Whatever the EM, a character is going to
>want to want to advance their ranks, unless they choose not to.
>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>




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

I agree with Scott, leave price as is

Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: scott whitaker <kharsis@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Saturday, 3 February 2001 14:52
Subject: Re: [dq] Price of crossbows


>No the prices are about right.
>
>Only certain types of wood make good longbows whereas a crossbow can be
made
>out of practically anything.  A longbow also takes a lot of shaping and
>bending whereas a xbow can almost be "mass" manufactured in comparison.
>
>scott
>
>Keith Smith wrote:
>
>> It's been pointed out to me that the price of crossbows in the rulebook
is
>> low, probably by a factor of 10.
>>
>> Currently the bow prices are:
>>         Self bow                20
>>         Short bow               20
>>         Long bow                25
>>         Composite bow           80
>>         Giant bow               80
>>
>>         Crossbow                15
>>         Heavy crossbow          20
>>
>> I would have thought that crossbows would be more expensive than longbows
>> as they take longer to make and require more intricate work and
materials.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Keith
>> (phaeton@ihug.co.nz)
>>
>>
>> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>
>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>




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

I partly dis agree with Jim,

It may be boring but is atleast easy for the GM.

Unfortunately, this means that NPCs either go first or go last, and it is
very hard to mix it up a bit, without heaps of magic.

I would like to see some proposals to vary the calculation, maybe
introducing some new factors, such as weapon weight or working in formation.
    These should not be difficult even for the numerically challenged (or
'thick' as we in the trade calls them), as they only need to be calculated
once.

Overall, the current plethora of trials on this subject suggest that there
is a widely perceived problem with initiative. I would not like a huge
arguement on who's solution is best.

I would much prefer to end up with a range of options for GM to choose from,
much like the backfire table.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Saturday, 3 February 2001 15:12
Subject: Re: [dq] Initiative/Quickness


>
>
>scott whitaker wrote:
>>
>> The one I've always run and been run under is the normal initiative
>> calculation with combat order being the following
>>
>> 1>    Quickened first action
>> 2    non - quickened
>> 3    quickened second action.
>>
>> This has always seemed to work for me
>
>And, it's predictable and BORING
>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>






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