Additional to Jim and Andrew's comments...

There are some spells in the Binder college which only affect Golems, if
it's not a golem then it's not a valid target.

Also it explicitly states in the Binder college that Golems are both Objects
and Entities for the purposes of being targeted by magic.
There are some specific rules about charm, sleep, etc. too but I can't
remember exactly what they are.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Friday, 23 February 2001 21:37
> 
>     D    golems (another animate)
> 



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

Agree with Clare, apply basic magic rules first, then worry about
understanding them.

Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Clare West <clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001 19:12
Subject: Re: [dq] stacking/queuing query - HEALTH WARNING



On Sunday, February 25, 2001, at 05:18 PM, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

<snip>




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

If we can get technical, then some spells should have "spell" or "magic" as
a target - counterspells are the obvious one - for dissipation, countering
wards, (phantasm or spectral warrior), sleep, etc.

However, we can live without these distinctions.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 26 February 2001 11:00 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Classes of target


Additional to Jim and Andrew's comments...

There are some spells in the Binder college which only affect Golems, if
it's not a golem then it's not a valid target.

Also it explicitly states in the Binder college that Golems are both Objects
and Entities for the purposes of being targeted by magic.
There are some specific rules about charm, sleep, etc. too but I can't
remember exactly what they are.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Friday, 23 February 2001 21:37
> 
>     D    golems (another animate)
> 



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



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

On reading the rules I agree with Kelsie:

I do NOT agree to changing the rules on this.

I prefer the automatic specific grevious that the Rules currently give the
Succubi,
over using normal 5% 'spec Grev' rules.

Quote (old rules with succubi as part of summoning - v2  c.1985 Page 66)
"Succubi may attempt to bite during Close Combat with a Base Chance of 40%.
Their bite does +2 damage to fatigue each Pulse. This drain continues so
long as they continue to bite (they need not make another Strike chance).
The ... They never inflict specific Grevious Injuries, but may do Endurance
damage.... Rank of 1 to 10 for the bite...."

my interpretation:
While in close, a succubi may do a bite attack [40 + MD + 4 times rank +
Assassin bonus % strike chance] doing D +2 (plus 1 per four full ranks)
damage. This automatically has a special type of Specific Grevious injury,
namely a 'bleeder' that continues doing the same amount of damage to fatigue
each successive pulse that the succubi continues to bite/leech/suck (without
need for repeated strike checks). The first pulse damage may be to endurance
on a roll of less than 15% of strike chance (as per normal).
Other attacks, claws, envenomed weapons etc, are resolved as per normal,
with potential for Spec Grev which receive the Assassin bonus.

Opinion
Succubi have an auto-spec grev that is rather tasty.<g>
Poor GMing should not be a reason for 'dumbing down' the game...

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001 17:15
Subject: [dq] Rules stuff


>Kelsie pointed out that Succubi can't inflict specific grevious's on other
>people according to their description. As this is one of the most common
>things that I've seen/felt them do, is there any problem with changing this
>?
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>





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

Thanks Ian, that makes a lot more sense that when I first scanned the rules.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood [mailto:adara@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 26 February 2001 10:15 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Rules stuff


On reading the rules I agree with Kelsie:

I do NOT agree to changing the rules on this.

I prefer the automatic specific grevious that the Rules currently give the
Succubi,
over using normal 5% 'spec Grev' rules.

Quote (old rules with succubi as part of summoning - v2  c.1985 Page 66)
"Succubi may attempt to bite during Close Combat with a Base Chance of 40%.
Their bite does +2 damage to fatigue each Pulse. This drain continues so
long as they continue to bite (they need not make another Strike chance).
The ... They never inflict specific Grevious Injuries, but may do Endurance
damage.... Rank of 1 to 10 for the bite...."

my interpretation:
While in close, a succubi may do a bite attack [40 + MD + 4 times rank +
Assassin bonus % strike chance] doing D +2 (plus 1 per four full ranks)
damage. This automatically has a special type of Specific Grevious injury,
namely a 'bleeder' that continues doing the same amount of damage to fatigue
each successive pulse that the succubi continues to bite/leech/suck (without
need for repeated strike checks). The first pulse damage may be to endurance
on a roll of less than 15% of strike chance (as per normal).
Other attacks, claws, envenomed weapons etc, are resolved as per normal,
with potential for Spec Grev which receive the Assassin bonus.

Opinion
Succubi have an auto-spec grev that is rather tasty.<g>
Poor GMing should not be a reason for 'dumbing down' the game...

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 25 February 2001 17:15
Subject: [dq] Rules stuff


>Kelsie pointed out that Succubi can't inflict specific grevious's on other
>people according to their description. As this is one of the most common
>things that I've seen/felt them do, is there any problem with changing this
>?
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>-- 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 --

While we are looking at various minor fixes to the Rulebook, thought I would
suggest that at least the basics of 'Light and Dark Aspect' should be
included in the Celestial College write-up. I would also like to propose a
minor change to how this is currently written.

Any comments on the below gratefully received.


Currently the only mention in the rulebook outside of statements in
Celestial talent, spell and ritual descriptions restricting their effect is
a single sentence in the college intro: 'Most entities are aligned with
either Light or Dark, and Celestial Magics will often only affect entities
of the opposed aspect.' I have included the main part of the "Light and Dark
Aspect" section of the GM's Guide below.

As it is the primary responsibility of the player to understand how their
college works (at least in 'normal' circumstances), it would seem
appropriate to include the hard-and-fast rules from the extract below in the
college. A new section after the lighting modifiers table (at the end) would
seem easiest, with a reference to it in the intro. As a bonus, there is 3/4
of a page blank on the final page, so no repagination is required.

A case could (and has) been put to include this info as part of character
generation, as it a property that all characters have.

I counter this with the following points:
- While it would be nice if all PCs kept a note of their Light/Dark aspect
on their character sheets, realistically it won't happen, and you can work
it
out by asking three questions. I always check the PC's aspects at the start
of an adventure, as a firefight is a bad time find out that you made a wrong
assumption. For instance, shapechangers trying to hide their nature need to
be watched for.
- Almost all creatures have this property, not just PC races. Things that
don't have this property should be noted, along with 'interesting' stuff
like undead. As there is no bestiary in the rulebook, stuff about non-PC
races would need to be in character gen.
- Only Celestials (and possibly GMs using Celestials) care about this, why
clutter up the rest of the rulebook.

I will gladly draft the few paragraphs needed, assuming I'm not told to shut
up and go away. Mind you if that's what you think, you probably didn't get
this far.

If anyone thinks that it is worth the effort the stuff in the GM's guide
could be
better written. I will have a go if there is a general clamour (I'm safe
then <g>).


I propose one change to the substance of the extract below:
After "Should a character or NPC fall into one or more of
the following categories, they are considered Light
aspected." add (on new line)
"Those with Solar aspects".

This only impacts less than 5% of PC races, and is consistent with the
treatment of Lunars as dark aligned. It is also what I previously understood
the situation to be, and I was a little surprised when I saw it for the
first
time today in the GM's guide.




Extract from GM Guide:
6 Light and Dark Aspect
The College of Celestial Magics is an elemental
College. They are involved in the study and manip-ulation
of the fifth and sixth Elements : Light; and
Darkness (there is a philosophical disagreement as
to whether Darkness is in fact a true element, or is
just the absence of Elemental Light; but that argu-ment
is outside the scope of is discussion).

This Elemental connection understood, it is very
easy to see that the so-called “Dark and Light
alignment” is no more than a form of elemental as-pect,
in much the same way that someone might
have the aspect “Autumn Air” or “Summer Fire”.
To avoid the confusion that arises from the use of
the term “alignment” (definition: place in relation
of agreement or alliance with others), the word as-pect
(in it’s astrological sense) should be used.

There is no direct connection between the posses-sion
of a Light or Dark aspect and the self-styled
“Powers of Light and Darkness”. Persons of Light
aspect are not necessarily “good” nor persons of
Dark aspect “evil”. The aspect refers only to the
persons position with regard to the Elements of
Light and Dark. It is possible that uneducated
plebs may confuse darkness and evil, as night time
may be associated with strange doings and the un-known.

Crepuscular (i.e., of twilight; appearing or active
in twilight) should be considered Dark aspected in
the same way as Celestial Shadow Weavers.

Should a character or NPC fall into one or more of
the following categories, they are considered Dark
aspected.
Nocturnal or Crepuscular creatures
Those with Lunar aspects (including
Shapechangers)
The following Adepts:
– Celestial Dark Mages
– Celestial Shadow Weavers

Should a character or NPC fall into one or more of
the following categories, they are considered Light
aspected.
Celestial Star Mages
Celestial Solar Mages

The order of precedence among these categories,
from lowest to highest is:
Creature
Aspect
College
For example, a human (light), who is Lunar as-pected
(dark), becomes a Star Mage (light) and are
thus light aspected. Should they lose their college,
they would become dark aspected again.

Regards
Errol




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