From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Apr 4 09:44:09 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id JAA19664; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:44:06 +1200 Received: from intro.peace.co.nz (intro.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.227]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id JAA19649 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:44:01 +1200 Message-ID: <3ACA4421.AA74E4A1@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 09:44:01 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Sprinting (an aside) From: Martin Dickson 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: No DEF might be a reasonable alternative -- other than the +5 (I think) for being a moving target under the Ranged rules -- and magic.

(Also fits in with Ian's preference for a system that allows a defined amount of Energy to be divided amongst weapons, shields and movement).  :)

---

"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:

 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.

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400
  -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Apr 4 11:49:51 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id LAA20292; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:49 +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 LAA20282 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:44 +1200 Received: from adara (203-109-204-197.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.204.197]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id LAA03981 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:41 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp4.ihug.co.nz: Host 203-109-204-197.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.204.197] claimed to be adara Message-ID: <002901c0bc98$fa68d8c0$010a0a0a@adara.ihug.co.nz> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:51 +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: Yes I [Ian here for a change, who hopes the following actually holds together through the mirth] quite agree. "May" indicates a conscious option. I will go back to using DQ2 rules, which strictly prohibit passive resistance for unconscious or stunned entities. This is great news for mages. DQ2 section 31, first sentence: "A character who is a target of a spell may resist the effects of that spell if he is conscious and unstunned." It goes on: "A [passive] Resistance Check is an automatic function". I guess that means we do not need to use up an action to do so, but must still be conscious and unstunned. It goes further "It is implemented any time the character's player states that he wishes to resist a resistable (sic) spell which is about to take effect on him". This clearly allows a character to choose either to resist a specific spell, or not to resist that specific spell. It appears to me that some misguided gods must have CHANGED the rules, because DQ June 8 2000 (7.8 Magic Resistance; Passive Resistance) does not mention conscious nor unstunned in this manner, to quote: "Passive Resistance is an automatic bodily function which occurs regardless of whether an entity is conscious or not." which implies that stunned entities (being in a slightly better state than unconscious ones) get a passive resistance. What wimps passed this change ??? We should begin the inquisition now !!! We will use our most effective tactic - surprise. And our other most effective tactic - fear. And several others...oops. Well surprise might not be possible. Hmm, may be we'll start with those who aren't on the email list. Yeh that would work. (calms down - these frog pills are great_) DQ2000 acquires a bit more internal consistency (see, this email is not a _completely_ negative slight on the authors of DQ2000) if you rearrange the sentences, to quote 7.8 Passive Resistance again: "When a spell that is passively resistible impacts on an entity, the entity may attempt to resist the effects of the spell.....At the start of a pulse, an entity may choose to not resist. For the remainder of the pulse, the entity may not passively resist any spells, unless the become stunned or unconscious." end quote. Hence for DQ2000, the term "may" is not to be used on a case by case basis, but on a pulse by pulse basis. I actually agree with this as a GM because I find some PCs can only be hit [due to evading bonus to defence] when they are executing a pass action. The *change* was deliberately made to be tough on characters. This may seem unreasonable for those players whose PCs are better suited for "Femme Fatale" but it seems to me that we are diluting all the 'that hurts' gritty bits and turning the game into a garden walk for new age wimps. (note this is less challenging than a "womble hunt" (applause for Struan). BTW, did anyone else spot the inversion [from DQ2] for unconsious and stunned characters? Now they always do a Passive Resistance check. Gosh, the [younger] gods are kind to unfortunates. I can just see the scene, mages shift fire power away from unconscious PCs, else the [in game] Gods (please note the capitalization) will be angered. So now, because of a rules inversion between DQ2 and DQ2000 we are discussing 'can a PC choose not to resist each spell as they come in' when in DQ2 it was blindingly obvious to a dead mouse. ANSWER: by the rules as written [DQ2000]: No, characters cannot choose to Not Passively Resist for an individual spell. The only option for Characters that is strictly within the [current and written] rules is to not passively resist for an entire pulse. SOLUTION Stop PCs from evading and let anyone choose not to resist on a spell by spell basis. This may not follow a discrete logic path, but hey, I am after a game effect, not a doctorate. Ian PS, one of my favorite bits of DQ2 is 27.6 "If a character moves, attacks, attempts to remain aware of his surroundings (by, say, listening for intruders) or even [if the player] speaks to another player or the GM about something not related to a point of information about the spell, the preparation is interrupted and the character must begin over again. (sic)" PPS, Full Power to Phasers...[Maximise Offence] (damn the evading rules, smite them, smite them now, smite them good). DQ2 - the only coherent version of the game. -----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 Wed Apr 4 11:49:51 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id LAA20284; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:45 +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 LAA20267 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:41 +1200 Received: from adara (203-109-204-197.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.204.197]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id LAA03969 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:49:38 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp4.ihug.co.nz: Host 203-109-204-197.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz [203.109.204.197] claimed to be adara Message-ID: <002801c0bc98$f8481ba0$010a0a0a@adara.ihug.co.nz> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:25:06 +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] Sprinting (an aside) 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: Every time I have encountered this, it has been with no non-magical defense (just like being stunned for defense purposes). As Martin says, keeping the -5 penalty to strike chance for ranged fire (rather than +5 to defense, which is normally effectively the same, so we all tend to think of it like that) seems right, especially if the sprinter is _not_ running directly at the firer. Even if the target is only moving at full TMR _directly_ towards the firer, if the target is within point-blank range (literally, the target is so close to the firer that the firer does not have to allow for gravity drop in taking aim) you could argue that the -5 penalty should not be applied. Not a matter to lay out in the rules really, just common sense in applying them. Willpower check not to drop the bow could be needed of course! This doesn't help the mage firing off Bolts (NOT the crossbow sort) at the berserk PC charging them. Ian suggests making it easier to 'intercept' sprinting characters, something like a free hit from any non-engaged figure they pass within two hexes of (need to warn the players of this when they ask if they can sprint). Probably don't want to define it too much, if PCs try to 'squeeze through' the GM can do whatever makes sense or roll a dice. This would tend to increase the distance sprinters have to cover to rush the mage. A certain amount of flexibility in what the 'receiving' figure can do in response also makes sense. Anyway, full power forward sheilds, and damn the Romulans! Errol -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2001 09:45 Subject: Re: [dq] Sprinting (an aside) >No DEF might be a reasonable alternative -- other than the +5 (I think) for being a moving target under the Ranged rules -- and magic. >(Also fits in with Ian's preference for a system that allows a defined amount of Energy to be divided amongst weapons, shields and movement). :) > >--- > >"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > 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. >-- > > _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com >_/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 > Product Specialist Phone: +64-9-373-0400 > -- 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 Wed Apr 4 12:16:27 2001 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.sig.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id MAA20496; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:16:25 +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 MAA20481 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:16:20 +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 2001040412170793:34038 ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:17:07 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.6 December 14, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:13:58 +1200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on akl-notes.aj.co.nz/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 04/04/2001 12:14:01, Serialize complete at 04/04/2001 12:14:01, Itemize by SMTP Server on akl-notes2/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 04/04/2001 12:17:07, Serialize by Router on akl-notes2/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 04/04/2001 12:17:09, Serialize complete at 04/04/2001 12:17:09 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00017321CC256A24_=" 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 00017321CC256A24_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Ian wrote: It appears to me that some misguided gods must have CHANGED the rules, because DQ June 8 2000 (7.8 Magic Resistance; Passive Resistance) does not mention conscious nor unstunned in this manner, to quote: "Passive Resistance is an automatic bodily function which occurs regardless of whether an entity is conscious or not." This was a voted in change from DQ2. I can't remember when, but it has been in play for years now. (my guess is that it was between 1995 and 1997 when we were working on many minor changes). Rosemary --=_alternative 00017321CC256A24_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Ian wrote:
It appears to me that some misguided gods must have CHANGED the rules,
because DQ June 8 2000 (7.8 Magic Resistance; Passive Resistance) does not
mention conscious nor unstunned in this manner, to quote:

"Passive Resistance is an automatic bodily function which occurs regardless
of whether an entity is conscious or not."
This was a voted in change from DQ2.  I can't remember when, but it has been in play for years now. (my guess is that it was between 1995 and 1997 when we were working on many minor changes).
Rosemary --=_alternative 00017321CC256A24_=-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --