From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 08:39:11 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id IAA08282; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:39:09 +1200 Received: from akl-notes2.aj.co.nz (akl-notes.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with SMTP id IAA08267 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:39:07 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: mae.sub.net.nz: Host akl-notes.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165] claimed to be akl-notes2.aj.co.nz Received: from akl-notes.aj.co.nz ([192.168.4.165]) by akl-notes2.aj.co.nz (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 2001040308395454:31321 ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:39:54 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.6 December 14, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:36:48 +1200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on akl-notes.aj.co.nz/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/04/2001 08:36:49, Serialize complete at 03/04/2001 08:36:49, Itemize by SMTP Server on akl-notes2/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/04/2001 08:39:54, Serialize by Router on akl-notes2/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/04/2001 08:39:56, Serialize complete at 03/04/2001 08:39:56 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0071655ACC256A22_=" X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0071655ACC256A22_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear. Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address that problem. Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work' otherwise. I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling). On this specific topic 1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically Quickness. 2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up. Before we go any further can anyone identify any other IN GAME issues (as opposed to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused). Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Martin >I don't see the confusion on these... >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 --=_alternative 0071655ACC256A22_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear.

Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address that problem.  Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work' otherwise.

I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling).


On this specific topic
1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically Quickness.
2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up.   Before we go any further can anyone identify any other IN GAME issues (as opposed to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused).

Rosemary




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

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



>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
--=_alternative 0071655ACC256A22_=-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 08:40:28 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id IAA08315; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:40:28 +1200 Received: from akl-notes2.aj.co.nz (akl-notes.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with SMTP id IAA08307 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:40:26 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: mae.sub.net.nz: Host akl-notes.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165] claimed to be akl-notes2.aj.co.nz Received: from akl-notes.aj.co.nz ([192.168.4.165]) by akl-notes2.aj.co.nz (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 2001040308411361:31325 ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:41:13 +1200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:38:07 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on akl-notes.aj.co.nz/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/04/2001 08:38:08, Itemize by SMTP Server on akl-notes2/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/04/2001 08:41:13, Serialize by Router on akl-notes2/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 03/04/2001 08:41:15, Serialize complete at 03/04/2001 08:41:15 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear. Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address that problem. Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work' otherwise. I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling). On this specific topic 1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically Quickness. 2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up. Before we go any further can anyone identify any other IN GAME issues (as opposed to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused). Rosemary -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Martin >I don't see the confusion on these... >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 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 12:42:54 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id MAA09669; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:42:47 +1200 Received: from kakapo.cs.auckland.ac.nz (kakapo.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.34.10]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id MAA09653 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:42:39 +1200 Received: from clare (clare.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.108.110]) by kakapo.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with ESMTP id MAA14801; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:42:19 +1200 (NZST) (sender clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz) Message-ID: <200104030042.MAA14801@kakapo.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:41:07 +1200 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v387) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.387) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq-pub] House Warming and Engagement Party From: Clare West To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: To celebrate moving into our new flat, and (belatedly) our engagement we would like to invite you all to visit us sometime during the afternoon and evening of Saturday April 7. Activities will depend on who is here when but planned to include: BBQ around dinner time (byo meat) Chocolate Fondue around dessert time Board games cards whatever other silliness people want to indulge in Where: 31A Savoy Road Glen Eden Ph: 818 8926 When: Saturday April 7, noon til late BYOB hope to see you all there, clare and Nick -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-pub-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 16:14:18 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id QAA13279; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:14:07 +1200 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id QAA13258 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:14:02 +1200 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p162-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.162]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id QAA04906 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:13:34 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p162-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.162] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <3AC95021.EFB78C42@ihug.co.nz> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:22:57 +1200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist From: Jim Arona To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote: > > I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear. > > Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then > address that problem. Too many of the discussions at the moment are > people being picky on language - and fixing language is fine when > being done in conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work' > otherwise. > > I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to > 'clarify' a rule and the result has been far more confusion than the > original rule (as GM's remember the discussions and not the final > ruling). > > On this specific topic > 1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not > resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, > specifically Quickness. No. That's an interpretation that other people have put on the matter. The rules state that an entity may resist passively. The word 'may' is a modal auxialiary verb, indicating that the entity has the choice. They may choose not to. It is entity discretionary. There are, however, situations where the DM may rule that the entity has no idea that a beneficial spell is being cast, and so cannot waive their resistance to THAT SPECIFIC SPELL. That is a DM call. There is no need to make it into a rule. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 17:10:22 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id RAA13651; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:20 +1200 Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id RAA13636 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:17 +1200 Received: from adara (203-109-201-172.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.201.172]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id RAA31714 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:14 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp4.ihug.co.nz: Host 203-109-201-172.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.201.172] claimed to be adara Message-ID: <007001c0bbfc$98146500$010a0a0a@adara.ihug.co.nz> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:03:43 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?=" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: Could you please state exactly what part of the rules you are quoting here. The first sentence of 'Passive Resistance' in 7.8 'Magic Resistance' does indeed state "When a spell that is passively resistible impacts on an entity, the entity may attempt to resist the effects of the spell." This would imply that any passive resistance is optional. This is contradicted by several sentences later in the same paragraph, including "While choosing to not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action", as well as the definitions section of 7.1 'Introduction to Magic'. The rulebook could certainly be clearer. If you ignore the 'may' in the first sentence, the rulebook still seems illogical to me. You are not able to lower passive resistance while moving full TMR, but you can while moving two hexes, changing facing, and preparing a spell (as preparing is a pass action). Cheers Errol -----Original Message----- From: Jim Arona To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Tuesday, 3 April 2001 16:16 Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist > >No. That's an interpretation that other people have put on the matter. >The rules state that an entity may resist passively. >The word 'may' is a modal auxialiary verb, indicating that the entity >has the choice. >They may choose not to. It is entity discretionary. >There are, however, situations where the DM may rule that the entity has >no idea that a beneficial spell is being cast, and so cannot waive their >resistance to THAT SPECIFIC SPELL. >That is a DM call. There is no need to make it into a rule. > > >-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 17:10:25 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id RAA13666; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:24 +1200 Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id RAA13653 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:21 +1200 Received: from adara (203-109-201-172.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.201.172]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id RAA31719 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:18 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp4.ihug.co.nz: Host 203-109-201-172.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.201.172] claimed to be adara Message-ID: <007101c0bbfc$9a56b3e0$010a0a0a@adara.ihug.co.nz> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:10:44 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] [dq] From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?=" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: From Errol -----Original Message----- From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz > >I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear. > In the case of active resistance, the point in question appears in two different sections of the rules. One section is clear on what happens (7.8 states that 'In combat, Active Resistance is a Pass Action." ) while the other is unclear (3.8 "An entity may actively resist a spell during combat by implementing a pass action"). Changing the wording of the unclear section to agree with the clear section (at the next convenient opportunity) seems the logical step. This does not involve changing the rules, only making the rules easier to understand (especially for a beginning player). Is there some problem with this? Passive resistance (and 'dropping' it) is a different problem. Most GMs do not play the rules as written. (My perception is that most of those GMs 'break' the rules in similar ways, BTW). In a environment where rule changes are meant to be done by consensus (or large majority) THIS IS A PROBLEM in itself. It probably says something about the change procedure as well. Players should be able to expect that the rules will be generally be played as written (and available to them). It is the same logic that goes with 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - part of this is that all laws and regulations are available for everyone to inspect. The fact that most GMs play differently from the rules implies that either: a. most GMs are ignorant of the rules (which I don't think applies in this case) or b. most GMs think the rules are 'broken' >Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address >that problem. See above >Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being >picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in >conjunction with other fixe[s] but is just 'make work' otherwise. > Ian and I apologize for having the time to read the rules (for various reasons, not with the express purpose of finding every inconsistency) and saying "hey, there is meant to be a new rulebook around the middle of the year, lets fix the language so that anyone can pick up the rulebook and fairly easily understand what is most likely to happen when they play DQ". Fixing language so that everyone who reads the rulebook is clear on the rules is not make-work. It is, after all, the purpose of the rulebook. >I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a >rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as >GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling). > In the case of confusion over stun recovery, this was more a consequence of there not being a record of the final ruling, (so that it is not possible to check that the rulebook reflects the ruling), rather than the desire that the rulebook be clarified. I am not able to comment on any other instances of confusion over 'clarifications'. >On this specific topic >1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not >resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically >Quickness. Yes, this is the real issue. Quickness is the main instance of a beneficial spell that is cast in combat. There are others which occur less often. One approach is to change Quickness so that it is not resistible (basically by decree for gameplay reasons, not basing it only any specific in-game logic (is there one?)), and say tough luck for strength of stone, 'friendly counterspells', and any other 'beneficial' magics that can be resisted. (whether GMs take much notice of the effect on 'other beneficial magics' is a consideration). Another approach is to review the resistibility of all spells in light of gameplay reasoning (or come up with a in-game logic that closely matches the desired gameplay result) - presumably 'compliance' would not be too much of an issue if there was reasonable agreement on what is 'beneficial magic.' A third is to change rules on lowering passive resistance to be in (roughly) line with what is (generally) played. Or we could let the current situation of widespread 'non-compliance' (sorry, this is the terminology I've used in my work life) continue, perhaps with two or three 'options' like we are moving towards on initiative. >2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up. Before >we go any further [i.e. before making any firm proposals to change the rules on lowering resistance (Errol)] can anyone identify any other IN GAME issues (as opposed >to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused). > Agreed. A related issue that some of us have been discussing (in connection with the counterspell re-write in conjunction with Namer re-write) is resisting counterspells intended to remove spell effects (eg Damnum Minatum, Sleep). I do not believe that this impacts on what is being discussed on-list. Any actual proposed changes to is area will be proposed and discussed in the normal way. Cheers Errol >Rosemary > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Martin > >>I don't see the confusion on these... > > > >>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. >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Apr 3 17:30:57 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id RAA13810; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:30:52 +1200 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id RAA13795 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:30:48 +1200 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p162-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.162]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id RAA15496 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:30:47 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p162-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.162] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <3AC96239.587E631C@ihug.co.nz> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 17:40:09 +1200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist From: Jim Arona To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Unsubscribe-All: Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood wrote: > > Could you please state exactly what part of the rules you are quoting here. > > The first sentence of 'Passive Resistance' in 7.8 'Magic Resistance' does > indeed state > "When a spell that is passively resistible impacts on an entity, the entity > may attempt to resist the effects of the spell." This is the original rule in the published book. > > This would imply that any passive resistance is optional. This is > contradicted by several sentences later in the same paragraph, including > "While choosing to not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action", as > well as the definitions section of 7.1 'Introduction to Magic'. This was a supposed clarification by us lot. > > The rulebook could certainly be clearer. We had no need to change it. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --