If what you are trying to achieve is to ensure that a party has a specific
item that was given out previously and passed over then you are better off
having the guild loan/give it to the party based on an astrology reading.
This tool is most amusing when the item is wierd and has no particular
relevance at all - "Perhaps this spatula of doom is the only weapon that can
kill the bad guy?    Not sure about that, it says here that it only affects
dairy products...".


Making passed-over items available to all guild members means that the GM
will have to write-up all of the items they give out, not just the ones the
party wants.

If it is to happen then it should be purchase not loan and the option to
purchase should be immediate.  If it is not bought in the session within
which it is returned then it is gone.
The price should be inflated (200% of valuation) and fixed.  No auctions.
The profit goes to the guild not the party.
The GM who gives out the items owns the process, if they don't want to do it
or can't be bothered then it doesn't happen.
The mechanism should be simple and easy.  Probably something like an Email
to dq-pub listing the items and their inflated purchase price.  The first
response to the GM gets the item, provided that the GM doesn't decide that
the item is too inappropriate for the character and their level.  Note the
GM's decision is arbitrary and final.
Players who were on the adventure may not purchase the items for their other
characters.
Characters may not borrow from the guild to purchase items in this fashion,
if you don't have the cash (or guild script) then too bad.

Is this sounding like too much hassle yet?

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Friday, 30 March 2001 09:29
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	[dq] Passed over items
> 
> 
> hi there all,
> 
> does anyone care for this idea?
> 
> It may be that the guild can 'loan' gear out to players...(I can just hear
> the debreif. Security Officer: "oh, so you lost it. Well I know what you
> will be doing for teh next x weeks".)
> 
> Ian
> 
> >Has any thought ever been given to GM's providing a list of treasure
> items
> >'passed over' by adventurers for purchase by others (at Guild valuation
> plus
> >5 or 10% say). I realise that it is fairly common for GMs to generate
> items
> >with the party in mind, but even these are sometimes passed up for money
> or
> >other reasons. This could be the 'critical mass' for a passable (if
> somewhat
> >thin) market in items, rather than relying on knowing the right players.
> >This so easy to justify in game terms, that I'm not going to bother. I'm
> >open to suggestions regarding real-life implementation.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

>Making passed-over items available to all guild members means that the GM
>will have to write-up all of the items they give out, not just the ones the
>party wants.
>
>If it is to happen then it should be purchase not loan and the option to
>purchase should be immediate.  If it is not bought in the session within
>which it is returned then it is gone.
>The price should be inflated (200% of valuation) and fixed.  No auctions.
>The profit goes to the guild not the party.
>The GM who gives out the items owns the process, if they don't want to do it
>or can't be bothered then it doesn't happen.
>The mechanism should be simple and easy.  Probably something like an Email
>to dq-pub listing the items and their inflated purchase price.  The first
>response to the GM gets the item, provided that the GM doesn't decide that
>the item is too inappropriate for the character and their level.  Note the
>GM's decision is arbitrary and final.
>Players who were on the adventure may not purchase the items for their other
>characters.
>Characters may not borrow from the guild to purchase items in this fashion,
>if you don't have the cash (or guild script) then too bad.
>
>Is this sounding like too much hassle yet?

No.

Seems rather good to me. I'd be keen to do this.

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Could someone explain to me (in small words) why any GM would want to do
this except in the case of a specific item needed for their adventure? Or
what advantage it gives to the campaign?

I'm obviously missing something.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
<snip>
>Is this sounding like too much hassle yet?

No.

Seems rather good to me. I'd be keen to do this.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This idea for  passed over items being available later is silly. If an
itemwas passed over its gone, finito. If the GM wants to create a story line
making it available again thats his businesses.
Presumably a PC passed over a chance to acquire an item for some other
reason - another item, cash, lack of purchasing power, a zillion other
reasons.
Having a pool of passed over items means a PC can acquire wealth and
influence without making choices - "No the guilds got it, I'll just borrow
for a while."
Added to the obvious rule elides people are trying to create by suggesting
such a pool is available, its also lots of extra work for the GMs.

Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Passed over items


> Could someone explain to me (in small words) why any GM would want to do
> this except in the case of a specific item needed for their adventure? Or
> what advantage it gives to the campaign?
>
> I'm obviously missing something.
>
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> <snip>
> >Is this sounding like too much hassle yet?
>
> No.
>
> Seems rather good to me. I'd be keen to do this.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
Or
>what advantage it gives to the campaign?
>
>I'm obviously missing something.
>
>Andrew
>
Every session, the Guild clearly gets its hands on a selection of magic
items (that characters in each part don't want/can't afford). The people
most likely to want to buy these (characters not in the party concerned)
have no mechanism to buy these. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the
guild will sell these (possibly to members before the general public),
probably for cash only.

Currently the only way that characters not in the party can get their hands
on these are:
A GM keeps the write-up hanging around, and lends it to a later party for a
specific reason; or
A party member who doesn't want it, but a) has the cash and b) thinks they
can offload for more than guild valuation (or would like cash vs script or
whatever) could buy at treasure split and sell to players/characters they
know. If the player doesn't know other players with the cash and attitude,
their characters will never hear about that sword that would suit them just
fine, and that the guild would be happy to sell to them.

If a GM doesn't want the anyone outside the party to get the item, fine. If
they haven't done a write-up (because no-one in the party can use the
two-handed sword they got) and can't be bothered, fine. But if the item is
there, it will be available to everyone, and it doesn't depend on the player
knowing someone else who says over a coffee sometime 'hey, Fred the Basher
now has two neat swords, does Elron the Smasher want to buy it?'

Cheers
Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I agree that having the stuff (other than what a GM specifically wants)
hanging around longer than the next guild meeting is far too much hassle.
Not so much a pool as 'one chance to buy'.

Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Schmidt <p.schmidt@xtra.co.nz>


>This idea for  passed over items being available later is silly. If an
>itemwas passed over its gone, finito. If the GM wants to create a story
line
>making it available again thats his businesses.
>Presumably a PC passed over a chance to acquire an item for some other
>reason - another item, cash, lack of purchasing power, a zillion other
>reasons.
>Having a pool of passed over items means a PC can acquire wealth and
>influence without making choices - "No the guilds got it, I'll just borrow
>for a while."
>Added to the obvious rule elides people are trying to create by suggesting
>such a pool is available, its also lots of extra work for the GMs.
>
>Paul


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

OK, in-game, its sensible to have a Ye Olde Magicke Iteme Shoppe. So is
giving 5 magic items to all adventurers on their second adventure, sending
medium parties out on low adventures, free special knowledge spells, and
many other practises that disrupt our game.

Why should anyone get anything from a game they didn't play in? How does
that help us GMs & players? How does it help the story / campaign? It
certainly hinders the campaign for the reasons that Paul pointed out.


Andrew
-----Original Message-----
Or
>what advantage it gives to the campaign?
>
>I'm obviously missing something.
>
>Andrew
>
Every session, the Guild clearly gets its hands on a selection of magic
items (that characters in each part don't want/can't afford). The people
most likely to want to buy these (characters not in the party concerned)
have no mechanism to buy these. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the
guild will sell these (possibly to members before the general public),
probably for cash only.

Currently the only way that characters not in the party can get their hands
on these are:
A GM keeps the write-up hanging around, and lends it to a later party for a
specific reason; or
A party member who doesn't want it, but a) has the cash and b) thinks they
can offload for more than guild valuation (or would like cash vs script or
whatever) could buy at treasure split and sell to players/characters they
know. If the player doesn't know other players with the cash and attitude,
their characters will never hear about that sword that would suit them just
fine, and that the guild would be happy to sell to them.

If a GM doesn't want the anyone outside the party to get the item, fine. If
they haven't done a write-up (because no-one in the party can use the
two-handed sword they got) and can't be bothered, fine. But if the item is
there, it will be available to everyone, and it doesn't depend on the player
knowing someone else who says over a coffee sometime 'hey, Fred the Basher
now has two neat swords, does Elron the Smasher want to buy it?'

Cheers
Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

7.8 Passive Resistance states:

1. At the start of a pulse, an entity may choose
to not resist. For the remainder of the pulse, the
tity may not passively resist any spells, unless they
become stunned or unconscious. While choosing to
not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action.


7.9 includes:

1a    An entity may actively resist a spell during combat
by implementing a pass action. They may lower pas-
sive resistance during any pass action.


This is not quite how I recall it being discussed.

I thought the rule is:

2. Choosing not to passively resist is a pass action.

Compare and contrast.

1. means that the character can do two things (not actively resist and
something like prepare weapon ). It means you can lower your resistance
whilst preparing a spell, but not whilst casting one.


1a     Argh! A rules lawyer may interprete that as "choose a pass action and
wait there's more!!! I will throw in an active resistance as well." "but
wait, for first time customers, I'll also let you lower your passive
resistance." Can we get the phasing correct please...so that an active
resistance is [always] termed a pass action. [i know 7.8 states that 'In
combat, Active Resistance is a Pass Action." but this phasing needs to be
repeated everywhere, as i cannot find every occurance on the night (still
waiting for them electronic books <g>)]

2. means that the character can only do one thing (not actively resist). It
would require the list of Pass Actions of 3.8 to be expanded to include
"choosing not to Passively Resist". Possibly this should be in Magical Pass
Actions (see next post).


Advice please

Ian


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I thought Active Resistance was limited to mages but cannot find the
limitation in the rules.

Active Resistance is a Magical Pass Action.

Are Magical Pass Actions restricted to Mages only ?


cheers Ian


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Anyone can actively resist.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In practice it is more effective when the non-mages do it. &nbsp;The only reason it is a 'magical' pass action is to clear set the other types of stuff that can be done at the same time in combat.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
I thought Active Resistance was limited to mages but cannot find the<br>
limitation in the rules.<br>
<br>
Active Resistance is a Magical Pass Action.<br>
<br>
Are Magical Pass Actions restricted to Mages only ?<br>
<br>
<br>
cheers Ian<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">(Ignoring the English that got into the rules) ...</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp;I've always seen in play that 'not resisting' is not an action and therefore doesn't effect anything else you might choose to do. &nbsp;The only limitation on passive resistance I've seen is that if you choose not to resist then you are 'not resisting' all magic trying to impact on you that pulse. &nbsp;(and even then some GM's let you selectively 'not resist' only a particular spell)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In contrast Actively Resisting has always been an action.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rose</font>

In the old days (i.e. before I hacked general magic about a bit), Active
resistance used to be an evade action (in at least one place). We can make
it a "magical evade" again if you want, but in practise, it would have the
same limitations as now except that some people will be able to move 1-2
more hexes. Also, some people will want to "evade", meaning wiggle their
sword for a defence bonus and actively resist (only those who interpret
active resistance as a stackable pass action currently).

I agree with everything that Rosemary said, but then its her turn to cook
tonight.

Clarification of 7.9 from "by implementing a" to "as" is fine with me.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood [mailto:adara@ihug.co.nz]

7.8 Passive Resistance states:

1. At the start of a pulse, an entity may choose
to not resist. For the remainder of the pulse, the
tity may not passively resist any spells, unless they
become stunned or unconscious. While choosing to
not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action.


7.9 includes:

1a    An entity may actively resist a spell during combat
by implementing a pass action. They may lower pas-
sive resistance during any pass action.


This is not quite how I recall it being discussed.

I thought the rule is:

2. Choosing not to passively resist is a pass action.

Compare and contrast.

1. means that the character can do two things (not actively resist and
something like prepare weapon ). It means you can lower your resistance
whilst preparing a spell, but not whilst casting one.


1a     Argh! A rules lawyer may interprete that as "choose a pass action and
wait there's more!!! I will throw in an active resistance as well." "but
wait, for first time customers, I'll also let you lower your passive
resistance." Can we get the phasing correct please...so that an active
resistance is [always] termed a pass action. [i know 7.8 states that 'In
combat, Active Resistance is a Pass Action." but this phasing needs to be
repeated everywhere, as i cannot find every occurance on the night (still
waiting for them electronic books <g>)]

2. means that the character can only do one thing (not actively resist). It
would require the list of Pass Actions of 3.8 to be expanded to include
"choosing not to Passively Resist". Possibly this should be in Magical Pass
Actions (see next post).


Advice please

Ian


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>(Ignoring the English that got
into the rules) ...</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>&nbsp;I've always seen in play
that 'not resisting' is not an action and therefore doesn't effect anything
else you might choose to do.&nbsp; The only limitation on passive resistance
I've seen is that if you choose not to resist then you are 'not resisting'
all magic trying to impact on you that pulse.&nbsp; (and even then some
GM's let you selectively 'not resist' only a particular spell)</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
Ditto. I&nbsp;like it this way, although the selective non-resistance is
a bit generous. (I've benefited from it on occasion.) I&nbsp;have also
seen it played that people completely not used to magic don't know how
to drop their resistence.
<p>A couple of question:&nbsp;If you are sprinting (2x TMR, no defence)
does this also mean no passive resistence? I&nbsp;think I&nbsp;remember
it being played like that at least once. If you are not getting the 'selective
non-resistence' rule, can you still get it on spells you cast yourself?
(E.g. resist other spells, but not resist your own quickness?)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>In contrast Actively Resisting
has always been an action.</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</html>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On Monday, April 2, 2001, at 04:04  PM, RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote:

>
> (Ignoring the English that got into the rules) ...
>  I've always seen in play that 'not resisting' is not an action and 
> therefore doesn't effect anything else you might choose to do.  The 
> only limitation on passive resistance I've seen is that if you choose 
> not to resist then you are 'not resisting' all magic trying to impact 
> on you that pulse.  (and even then some GM's let you selectively 'not 
> resist' only a particular spell)

How I tend to play it (which isn't how it is written in the rules I 
don't believe):

You can freely decide not to passively resist all magic for a pulse.
You can freely decide to passively resist all magic for a pulse (the 
default).
You can chose whether to passively resist each incoming spell by taking 
a pass action.

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<!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=832474104-02042001>There 
are no rules on "sprinting" - e.g. moving 2xTMR for one action. GMs who allow it 
vary in their limitations. I have tried the counter-intuitive "no resistance" to 
make it only a sensible action when out of direct line-of-fire of the enemy, as 
without it,&nbsp;sprint becomes a teleport ability.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT size=2><FONT 
  face=Tahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Michael Woodhams 
  [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]<BR></FONT><SPAN 
  class=832474104-02042001><FONT color=#0000ff 
  face=Arial>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT size=2><SPAN 
  class=832474104-02042001>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT>If you are sprinting (2x TMR, no 
  defence) does this also mean no passive resistence? I&nbsp;think 
  I&nbsp;remember it being played like that at least once. 
</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

I don't see the confusion on these...
If you choose not to resist in a particular pulse then you may only perform
pass actions during that pulse.
Active resistance is a pass action.  More specifically it is a magical pass
action which means that high agility types can't actively resist while
hacking someone to pieces.
In theory you could choose not to resist in a pulse and then as your pass
action Actively resist a caster.  This means that their cast chance is
reduced (assuming that it's actively resistable) but if it works then you
get no resistance.  You also have no resistance to any other caster who
targets you.

How this is actually played varies a lot!  Mainly because quickness is
resistable and while everyone wants to have it take effect, nobody wants to
not resist for an entire pulse.
Option 1) Make quickness un-resistable and play the rules as stated.
Option 2) Implement one of the alternatives which is currently played - the
one Clare mentioned would get my vote.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 2 April 2001 15:56
> 
> 7.8 Passive Resistance states:
> 
> 1. At the start of a pulse, an entity may choose
> to not resist. For the remainder of the pulse, the
> tity may not passively resist any spells, unless they
> become stunned or unconscious. While choosing to
> not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action.
> 
> 
> 7.9 includes:
> 
> 1a    An entity may actively resist a spell during combat
> by implementing a pass action. They may lower pas-
> sive resistance during any pass action.
> 
> 
	[Stephen Martin]  snip
>  
> 
> Ian
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

from Errol, who is not influenced by either
a) Ian is currently cooking my dinner or
b) Ian will be GM'ing me in 3 weeks (GURPS), and hasn't OK'ed my character
yet

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz>

>I don't see the confusion on these...


There are two main bits of confusion
1. Whether active resistence is a pass action in its own right - the combat
section is ambiguous on this, while the general magic section clearly says
that it is a pass action. Every one is clear on the result when they read
both bits of the rules, but the combat section should be made clear (<no
comment> ;-))

2. Passive resistence - general confusion due to the rules not being
crystal-clear, and there being a lot of 'soft' versions of the rules in use
by many (most?) GMs.

>If you choose not to resist in a particular pulse then you may only perform
>pass actions during that pulse.
>Active resistance is a pass action.  More specifically it is a magical pass
>action which means that high agility types can't actively resist while
>hacking someone to pieces.
>In theory you could choose not to resist in a pulse and then as your pass
>action Actively resist a caster.  This means that their cast chance is
>reduced (assuming that it's actively resistable) but if it works then you
>get no resistance.  You also have no resistance to any other caster who
>targets you.
>


Agreed that this is want the rules say

>How this is actually played varies a lot!  Mainly because quickness is
>resistable and while everyone wants to have it take effect, nobody wants to
>not resist for an entire pulse.
>Option 1) Make quickness un-resistable and play the rules as stated.

>Option 2) Implement one of the alternatives which is currently played - the
>one Clare mentioned would get my vote.

Clare's (OK, Clare posted it, I have no idea if she is claiming copyright)
gets my vote

>
>Cheers, Stephen.
>


I volunteer to draft up the implementation of what the God's decide. Of
course, this would require a Gods' Meeting to happen.

Cheers
Errol




>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
>> Sent: Monday, 2 April 2001 15:56
>>
>> 7.8 Passive Resistance states:
>>
>> 1. At the start of a pulse, an entity may choose
>> to not resist. For the remainder of the pulse, the
>> tity may not passively resist any spells, unless they
>> become stunned or unconscious. While choosing to
>> not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action.
>>
>>
>> 7.9 includes:
>>
>> 1a    An entity may actively resist a spell during combat
>> by implementing a pass action. They may lower pas-
>> sive resistance during any pass action.
>>
>>
> [Stephen Martin]  snip
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I like the game effect, but it is past counter-intuative, and is just
"yuck!" If an unconcious person passively resists, then how can you not PR
without wanting (not) to?

Errol
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001 16:46
Subject: Re: [dq] Sprinting (an aside)


>There are no rules on "sprinting" - e.g. moving 2xTMR for one action. GMs
>who allow it vary in their limitations. I have tried the counter-intuitive
>"no resistance" to make it only a sensible action when out of direct
>line-of-fire of the enemy, as without it, sprint becomes a teleport
ability.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
>
> If you are sprinting (2x TMR, no defence) does this also mean no passive
>resistence? I think I remember it being played like that at least once.
>
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood <adara@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Monday, 2 April 2001 17:43
Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist


>from Errol, who is not influenced by either
>a) Ian is currently cooking my dinner or
>b) Ian will be GM'ing me in 3 weeks (GURPS), and hasn't OK'ed my character
>yet
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz>
>
>>I don't see the confusion on these...
>
>
>There are two main bits of confusion
>1. Whether active resistence is a pass action in its own right - the combat
>section is ambiguous on this, while the general magic section clearly says
>that it is a pass action. Every one is clear on the result when they read
>both bits of the rules, but the combat section should be made clear (<no
>comment> ;-))
>
>2. Passive resistence - general confusion due to the rules not being
>crystal-clear, and there being a lot of 'soft' versions of the rules in use
>by many (most?) GMs.
>
>>If you choose not to resist in a particular pulse then you may only
perform
>>pass actions during that pulse.
>>Active resistance is a pass action.  More specifically it is a magical
pass
>>action which means that high agility types can't actively resist while
>>hacking someone to pieces.
>>In theory you could choose not to resist in a pulse and then as your pass
>>action Actively resist a caster.  This means that their cast chance is
>>reduced (assuming that it's actively resistable) but if it works then you
>>get no resistance.  You also have no resistance to any other caster who
>>targets you.
>>
>
>
>Agreed that this is want the rules say
>
>>How this is actually played varies a lot!  Mainly because quickness is
>>resistable and while everyone wants to have it take effect, nobody wants
to
>>not resist for an entire pulse.
>>Option 1) Make quickness un-resistable and play the rules as stated.
>
>>Option 2) Implement one of the alternatives which is currently played -
the
>>one Clare mentioned would get my vote.
>
>Clare's (OK, Clare posted it, I have no idea if she is claiming copyright)
>gets my vote
>
>>
>>Cheers, Stephen.
>>
>
>
>I volunteer to draft up the implementation of what the God's decide. Of
>course, this would require a Gods' Meeting to happen.
>
>Cheers
>Errol
>
>
>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
>>> Sent: Monday, 2 April 2001 15:56
>>>
>>> 7.8 Passive Resistance states:
>>>
>>> 1. At the start of a pulse, an entity may choose
>>> to not resist. For the remainder of the pulse, the
>>> tity may not passively resist any spells, unless they
>>> become stunned or unconscious. While choosing to
>>> not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action.
>>>
>>>
>>> 7.9 includes:
>>>
>>> 1a    An entity may actively resist a spell during combat
>>> by implementing a pass action. They may lower pas-
>>> sive resistance during any pass action.
>>>
>>>
>> [Stephen Martin]  snip
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>
>>
>>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>>
>>
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --