Messages for 14 June 2001

Subject	[dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:48:45 +1200
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Hi All, <p>Subsequent to Namer v2.04 being accepted at the last god's meeting Jon McSpadden has raised with me some concerns of his about the two new talents; Expel Magic and Quick Cast. <p>His concerns largely revolve around the talents removing powers that Namers already have, and then allowing them to buy the power back.  This will be a conversion issue with existing Namers, (and a bit of a sticky one in the cae of Quick Cast), but has more impact on a beginning Namer.  The -20% to Cast Chance when casting Counterspells in a single Pulse (the result of having T3 at Rank 0) reduces the functionality of a beginning Namer in a considerable way -- and I don't recall anyone claiming that beginning Namers were overpowered.  :)   The value of this is 15,750 EP and given the restrictions on Ranking talents would probably require 5 or 6 Adventures to buy off. <p>The concern with Expel was more that by adding a chance of the magic being Expelled (rather than it being automatic), some stored items, specifically those that are possessions, will effectively gain two resistance checks, one for the Expel, and then their wielder's MR. <p>After some discussion with Jon here is my proposed and preferred solution:  Expel magic is re-worded slighting to give the stored magic a resistance rather than having an expulsion chance (just a matter of flipping the formula), and a note is added that possessions only get one check, but use their best one.  For Quick Cast the EM and BC mod are removed, leaving it as a talent, but an unrankable one.  Making it a talent ensures that it stands out in the College and is covered by standard rules (it is a Talent like all others). <p>Please have a look over these small modifications and let me know what you think. <br>  <p><b>Expel Magic (T2)</b> <br><i>Experience Multiple:</i> 75 <br><i>Resist:</i> May only be passively resisted <br><i>Target: </i>Object, Area, Volume <br><i>Effects:</i> This talent allows the Namer to dissipate a magical spell stored in a Ward, Magical Trap, Potion, or Invested Item. In order to use this talent, the Namer must specify the name of the spell to be affected and cast the appropriate Counterspell on the target with the specific intent of dissipating the stored magic. The chance of the stored magic <u>resisting destruction is 50% [(+3/Rank of the target magic) (-3/Rank with this Talent)].</u>  If successful all of the magic of the same type stored within the target is destroyed. The appropriate Counterspell is the one that affects the magic stored not the storing magic. For example, a Ward of Enchanted Sleep would require the use of an E&E General Knowledge Counterspell.  <u>Objects that are possessions only gain one resistance check but may use the better of the value above or their wielder's Magic Resistance.</u> <p><b>Quick Cast (T3)</b> <br><i>Effects:</i> Namers may cast any Counterspell that they know without preparing it first. <br>  <p>Cheers, <br>Martin <br>-- <p> _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com <br>_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401 <br>       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400 <br> </html> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Clare West
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:59:32 +1200
On Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 09:48 AM, Martin Dickson wrote: > Expel Magic (T2) > Experience Multiple: 75 > Resist: May only be passively resisted > Target: Object, Area, Volume > Effects: This talent allows the Namer to dissipate a magical spell > stored in a Ward, Magical Trap, Potion, or Invested Item. In order to > use this talent, the Namer must specify the name of the spell to be > affected and cast the appropriate Counterspell on the target with the > specific intent of dissipating the stored magic. The chance of the > stored magic resisting destruction is 50% [(+3/Rank of the target > magic) (-3/Rank with this Talent)]. If successful all of the magic of > the same type stored within the target is destroyed. The appropriate > Counterspell is the one that affects the magic stored not the storing > magic. For example, a Ward of Enchanted Sleep would require the use of > an E&E General Knowledge Counterspell. Objects that are possessions > only gain one resistance check but may use the better of the value > above or their wielder's Magic Resistance. > > Quick Cast (T3) > Effects: Namers may cast any Counterspell that they know without > preparing it first. I think these two modifications are good, most especially the first one. The second is of less concern to me - either way is fine. clare (Statement of conflict of interest, I play a low level namer) -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Namer Scry Shield (S-8)
From	Noel Livingston
Date	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Will this be able to stop locate ? ===== cheers noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	"Mandos Mitchinson"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:23:31 +1200
> Quick Cast (T3) > Effects: Namers may cast any Counterspell that they know without preparing it first. I would like to see the Talent stay the same and it be dealt with in a conversion document. My reasons are as follows. Namers come in two types, the fighter and the mage pretty much. I would see the fighter Namer as a way to get a collage without the investment in MA that the other collages require. The addition of a penalty to casting is in most cases only going to effect the Fighter Namers in any serious way. The Mage Namers are going to rank it up pretty quickly and with talents it is a damn quick thing to do. I think it makes something of a divide between the styles of Namer and adds additional choices to the ranking path of a new character. IMO anything that adds choice and promotes thought about the ranking can only add benifit to the game. On the same line of thought choice wise, getting the player to make a choice between casting normally or using the quick cast with a penalty again adds to the game. While I would be happy with either result I do think these are things that should be considered rather than assuming that we should make the collage as close as possible to the way it currently is. On a related matter, I also feel the push to constantly power up collages during rewrites is something we should be trying to avoid happening and in this case a depowering is a good start to looking more reasonably at the collage rewrite process. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer Scry Shield (S-8)
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:59:36 +1200
Noel Livingston wrote: > Will this be able to stop locate ? A bit ambiguous -- but I'd say no. 1) The intent of Scry Shield is to prevent magical inspection of an area, and stop surveillance, etc. This feels different from Locate which simply points the direction to the desired target but niether provides detailed information or extended the Adept's senses in some way. 2) It's probably more interesting if it doesn't. A Locate will reveal the Evil King's location within the council room, but a Wizard's Eye will fail 'cos a Scry shield is up. This give the GM more opportunity to get the party and the Evil King in the same approximate location but without the party being able to reveal all of the secrets without opening the door -- both of which are better for the game (IMHO). Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:14:43 +1200
Being able to cast in one pulse is going to be a priority to any Namer. It gives them more options, lets them do more, makes them more effective/powerful. Fighter/Namer or Caster/Namer both will want this ability. And neither of them will want a reduction in their BC, you have to fight and claw for every point of BC your not going to throw that away if you have a choice in the matter. So end result, all Namers will rank this talent as fast as possible. Making it rankable delays them in achieving the capability. Giving it an EM is almost like an XP penalty for choosing to be a Namer. If Namers were currently unable to cast CS in one pulse then this could be a 2-300 EM talent that they all rank to a greater or lesser degree. Because they already have this ability, adding it as a rankable talent is like charging them for being a normal Namer. Also as a comment on the Fighter vs Caster balance, something which takes xp and not much time (like a talent) is quicker and easier to rank for Fighters than for Casters. Spells cost lots of xp and not much time. Weapons cost lots of time and not much xp. If you want to add something which penalises Fighter/Mages then make it a low EM ritual which makes you better at magic. Casters will easily rank it in parallel to their spell and other ritual ranking, Fighters will need to choose between it and their weapons. Purification comes to mind as a perfect example of this. Though of course this is also easier for those that play a character occasionally rather than every session. Cheers, Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mandos Mitchinson [SMTP:mandos@nz.asiaonline.net] > Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 11:24 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion > > > Quick Cast (T3) > > Effects: Namers may cast any Counterspell that they know without > preparing > it first. > > I would like to see the Talent stay the same and it be dealt with in a > conversion document. > > My reasons are as follows. > > Namers come in two types, the fighter and the mage pretty much. > > I would see the fighter Namer as a way to get a collage without the > investment in MA that the other collages require. The addition of a > penalty > to casting is in most cases only going to effect the Fighter Namers in any > serious way. The Mage Namers are going to rank it up pretty quickly and > with > talents it is a damn quick thing to do. > > I think it makes something of a divide between the styles of Namer and > adds > additional choices to the ranking path of a new character. IMO anything > that > adds choice and promotes thought about the ranking can only add benifit to > the game. On the same line of thought choice wise, getting the player to > make a choice between casting normally or using the quick cast with a > penalty again adds to the game. > > While I would be happy with either result I do think these are things that > should be considered rather than assuming that we should make the collage > as > close as possible to the way it currently is. > > On a related matter, > > I also feel the push to constantly power up collages during rewrites is > something we should be trying to avoid happening and in this case a > depowering is a good start to looking more reasonably at the collage > rewrite > process. > > Mandos > /s > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	"Mandos Mitchinson"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:49:08 +1200
All the points you have raised are valid and are definalty worth considering in this. I would like to take a small sidestep here just to look at a small issue that appears regularly in the discussions we have. > Being able to cast in one pulse is going to be a priority to any > Namer. It gives them more options, lets them do more, makes > them more effective/powerful. Fighter/Namer or Caster/Namer both > will want this ability. > And neither of them will want a reduction in their BC, you have > to fight and claw for every point of BC your not going to throw > that away if you have a choice in the matter. > So end result, all Namers will rank this talent as fast as > possible. Making it rankable delays them in achieving the > capability. Giving it an EM is almost like an XP penalty for > choosing to be a Namer. While what is said here is all a valid way of looking at the issue the one thing we tend to forget is that this is supposition based on how you would play a Namer of either variety. We do have to consider that players may not look at it like this and may wish to rank things differently. If all currently generated Namers were given Rank 20 and all new namers started with this option we could guage what happens. If we assume that everyone will rank it ASAP till it hits 20 and write the collage accordingly we may miss out on seeing what impact it really has. It is hard to look at depowering anything that has been around for so long, it is going against what people are used to and it makes it theoretically harder for a new character. However I feel regardless of what we do for current characters that this is a good change to make. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:13:48 +1200
While I'm not sure about the specific benefits in this case, I agree with the underlying design criterion that Mandos raised - it is very hard to take anything away and easy to add things to a college, and so we rarely design a spell effect to be reduced. This includes removing spells or reducing the power of a spell. This is purely because we are all players. (e.g. The Purification change took three different votes over three years before people let it through, beause they were worried about low MR). You may be able to take away the non-penalty quick cast by bribing people with ~10 new specials. ------------------------------ An alternative way of implementing the same Quick Cast effect which changes the emphasis of Stephen's objections and doesn't hurt bunny namers is: Effect: This Talent allows the Adept to cast counterspells without preparation. All aspects of the counterspell (including Base Chance) must be cast at the lower of the Talent's and Spell's ranks. At rank 0, the namer can cast their rank 0 counterspells fine. As they gain a number of counterspells at Rank 6, they can put their talent up to Rank 6. Current Namers can get the talent to Rank 6-10 cheaply, and the few Namers with many CS's over Rank 10 will tend to be high characters with masses of spare EP. This is a "less-penalising" version of the old write-up, but still provides some of the same features - which were presumably desirable, otherwise Martin would not have added them. ------------------------------ However, a flat talent allowing quick casting is much simpler, and simple mechanisms are better. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:mandos@nz.asiaonline.net] It is hard to look at depowering anything that has been around for so long, it is going against what people are used to and it makes it theoretically harder for a new character. However I feel regardless of what we do for current characters that this is a good change to make. Mandos -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	"Mandos Mitchinson"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:20:53 +1200
> An alternative way of implementing the same Quick Cast effect > which changes > the emphasis of Stephen's objections and doesn't hurt bunny namers is: > > Effect: > This Talent allows the Adept to cast counterspells without > preparation. All > aspects of the counterspell (including Base Chance) must be cast at the > lower of the Talent's and Spell's ranks. > > At rank 0, the namer can cast their rank 0 counterspells fine. As > they gain > a number of counterspells at Rank 6, they can put their talent up > to Rank 6. > Current Namers can get the talent to Rank 6-10 cheaply, and the few Namers > with many CS's over Rank 10 will tend to be high characters with masses of > spare EP. > > This is a "less-penalising" version of the old write-up, but > still provides > some of the same features - which were presumably desirable, otherwise > Martin would not have added them. I think this is an excellent compromise. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] stealth
From	Noel Livingston
Date	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
If wearing clothes with cloth armour underneath +5 Stealth, If the cloth armour is taken off and you just wear clothes +0Stealth. Does this seem right. eg..Courtier whips dark blanket off bed, wraps it about his pasty white body, leaps from window and hides in the darkness(+0 Stealth), vs if wearing cloth armour +5 Stealth. I would like to propose no armour to have +5 Stealth as well, although how artisan bonus would apply to clothes I am unsure of. ===== cheers noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:42:59 +1200
"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > Effect: > This Talent allows the Adept to cast counterspells without preparation. All > aspects of the counterspell (including Base Chance) must be cast at the > lower of the Talent's and Spell's ranks. Sold! (To me at least...) > However, a flat talent allowing quick casting is much simpler, and simple > mechanisms are better. True as a rule. Simple mechanisms are better unless there is an advantage conferred by the complexity. I think you have demonstrated same. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] stealth
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:53:30 +1200
The oddest thing about this little anomaly is that 0 is not the basic modifier, +5 is. This conflicts with the general concept that if I do nothing odd then my BC should be as listed. <sigh> Problems of altering a system in use... if this were a new ruleset, I would suggest that the BC of Stealth be changed to: 5 + Whatever it is at the moment, and an additional Stealth penalty of -5 levied against each armour (Cloth becomes 0, Leather -5, etc).... Skin (or clothes) becomes zero by default. --- Noel Livingston wrote: > If wearing clothes with cloth armour underneath +5 > Stealth, If the cloth armour is taken off and you just > wear clothes +0Stealth. Does this seem right. > ... > I would like to propose no armour to have +5 Stealth > as well, although how artisan bonus would apply to > clothes I am unsure of. -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] stealth
From	"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:19:27 +1200
Martin - are you saying that clothes (and nakedness) _do_ have a +5 bonus? I thought that cloth armour was intended to be quieter than normal clothes? Armours can be improved in stealth to a max of +5%. I thought cloth armour had that built in, as a sneaky sort of armour, while clothing was for other purposes, and thus didn't have the stealth bonus. ------------- Also, the stealth skill says: "An adventurer may use their stealth ability only if ... they are appropriately clad (e.g. not in plate armour or luminescent clothing) .." However, Plate armour gives a stealth penalty of -15 to -30. Your average person (human, PS 15) will lose -5 to -8 agility as well, reducing their stealth by -30 to -54 depending on the armour. If their stealth is normally ~40-60, they effectively can't stealth. Is that sufficient to cover the general "not in plate armour" clause - what about those people with higher stealth or ultra-light plate? Those people out there who wear plate, can you move quietly, or is the "clank-clank" a reality? Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com] Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 1:54 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] stealth The oddest thing about this little anomaly is that 0 is not the basic modifier, +5 is. This conflicts with the general concept that if I do nothing odd then my BC should be as listed. <sigh> Problems of altering a system in use... if this were a new ruleset, I would suggest that the BC of Stealth be changed to: 5 + Whatever it is at the moment, and an additional Stealth penalty of -5 levied against each armour (Cloth becomes 0, Leather -5, etc).... Skin (or clothes) becomes zero by default. --- Noel Livingston wrote: > If wearing clothes with cloth armour underneath +5 > Stealth, If the cloth armour is taken off and you just > wear clothes +0Stealth. Does this seem right. > ... > I would like to propose no armour to have +5 Stealth > as well, although how artisan bonus would apply to > clothes I am unsure of. -- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] stealth
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:37:06 +1200
"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > Martin - are you saying that clothes (and nakedness) _do_ have a +5 bonus? Errmmm.... what I wrote... I think... is that _if_ clothes and nakedness have a +5 bonus then if would be ideal (although not necessarily simple) to modify the Stealth and Armour values to make the basic modifer 0 rather than +5. (Clear as mud?). -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] stealth
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:52:23 +1200
Putting words in Noel's mouth... I believe that his original query/concern was that wearing Cloth Armour is more stealthy than wearing clothes or nothing. So the default is no-bonus. If you put Cloth armour on then you get stealthier. If you put most any other armour on then you get less stealthy. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Dickson [SMTP:martin.dickson@peace.com] > Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 14:37 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] stealth > > "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > > Martin - are you saying that clothes (and nakedness) _do_ have a +5 > bonus? > > Errmmm.... what I wrote... I think... is that _if_ clothes and nakedness > have a > +5 bonus then if would be ideal (although not necessarily simple) to > modify the > Stealth and Armour values to make the basic modifer 0 rather than +5. > (Clear > as mud?). > > Martin > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	jimarona@ihug.co.nz
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:54:44 GMT
> "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > > Effect: > > This Talent allows the Adept to cast counterspells without preparation. All > > aspects of the counterspell (including Base Chance) must be cast at the > > lower of the Talent's and Spell's ranks. > > Sold! (To me at least...) > > > However, a flat talent allowing quick casting is much simpler, and simple > > mechanisms are better. > > True as a rule. Simple mechanisms are better unless there is an advantage > conferred by the complexity. I think you have demonstrated same. > > Cheers, > Martin Yeah, well I don't. I mean, I don't mind that there are some changes to the Namer college...but, what is this change trying to achieve? Is there something wrong with Namer's being able to cast Counterspells without preparing them? If there is, what is it? If there isn't anything wrong with it, then what is the current rule change trying to achieve? Because, if it doesn't achieve anything, then it's a waste of time writing it, and an even bigger waste of time voting on it. All I can see is that this might offer some sort of game rules elegance. Am I missing something? -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Stealth
From	Noel Livingston
Date	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
So if you wear cloth armour with clothes over them you have +0 Stealth ( due to the clothes) but if you take your clothes off you get +5 Stealth ( cloth armour alone ) ===== cheers noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:12:13 +1200
Hi Jim, jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote: > ...what is this change trying to achieve? Is there something wrong with Namer's > being able to cast Counterspells without preparing them? Nope. There isn't. IMHO. > If there isn't anything wrong with it, then what is the current rule change > trying to achieve? Right... the way it went was this: Make Namer ability to cast CS without preparing a Talent so that: 1) it was easy to find/obvious, etc. 2) it was covered by consistent rules i.e. the same as other talents. However, having do that there was a pressure to make a reason to Rank it, with the result that the talent ended up like Concealed Casting, basically a lowered BC to do something odd (cast quickly, cast without waving hands, etc). Jon subsequently raised a concern that unlike concealed casting this was taking away a current Namer ability and would unreasonably disadvantage beginner namers. > Because, if it doesn't achieve anything, then it's a waste of time writing it, > and an even bigger waste of time voting on it. There is still an advantage to it being a talent. Making it an unrankable talent is the simplest solution. (Gives the advantages with no added complexity, etc). Mandos wasn't as keen for reasons of up-powering as stated, Andrew suggested a compromise. Andrew's suggestion covers Jons concerns (as far as I can see) whilst also addressing Mandos' comments and giving a reason to Rank the talent, but more slowly and as the character ranks their CS. > All I can see is that this might offer some sort of game rules elegance. Am I > missing something? Not really... and I will admit to a desire for rules elegance... it's a weakness, sorry. Making it an unrankable talent is still the easiest solution (and has zero conversion implications). Regards, Martin -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Stealth
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:15:20 +1200
Not to be overly picky, but as a rule one wears cloth armour _over_ clothes... just as one then wears plate armour over the cloth. (Cloth armour = padded gambeson's and the like to prevent your armour cutting into you). Wearing clothes over padded armour makes one look like the Michelin man. :) Noel Livingston wrote: > So if you wear cloth armour with clothes over them you have +0 Stealth > ( due to the clothes) but if you take your clothes off you get +5 > Stealth ( cloth armour alone ) > -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Stealth
From	RMansfield@aj.co.nz
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:13:29 +1200
<br> <br> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Andrew wrote:</font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">I thought that cloth armour was intended to be quieter than normal clothes?<br> Armours can be improved in stealth to a max of +5%. I thought cloth armour<br> had that built in, as a sneaky sort of armour, while clothing was for other<br> purposes, and thus didn't have the stealth bonus.<br> -------------</font> <br> <br> <br> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">So if you wear cloth armour with clothes over them you have +0 Stealth ( due to </font> <br><font size=2 face="Courier New">the clothes) but if you take your clothes off you get +5 Stealth ( cloth armour alone )<br> <br> =====<br> cheers noel<br> </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yup, Noel this is how it works.  Random clothing is not as quiet as cloth armour.  Which if you look at the long robes, floppy sleeves, silly shoes etc common in medieval pictures kind of makes sense (but sanity suggests that your average serf probably wore a simple tunic and bare feet to work).  But any one who has worn corduroy will believe the rule.</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Aren't rules fun.  </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rose</font>

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:40:31 +1200
Martin Dickson wrote: > Making it an unrankable talent is still the easiest solution (and has zero conversion > implications). > Addendum: Following a quick (and I think deserved) slap upside the head from Jim, please assume that I am reverting to "simple = good". :) -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	"Mandos Mitchinson"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:54:35 +1200
> > Making it an unrankable talent is still the easiest solution > (and has zero conversion > > implications). > > > > Addendum: Following a quick (and I think deserved) slap upside > the head from Jim, > please assume that I am reverting to "simple = good". The simplest solution would be for us all to have the same character with no choices, paths or options at all. Simple is not alweays the best option. It will however suffice in this case as the easiest option to choose. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Evil namer stuff possible
From	Noel Livingston
Date	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sealing (R 5) If a party is off plane and in an inn for the night and this is cast will they immediately wake and have to flee the inn and vicinity, possibly leaving goods behind at full tmr, no defense, giving rear attacks to the waiting assasins etc..... Forbidding (S-6) If this is placed across a road will humans in a carrige change from living to formally living to enable their passage through it, while making wet sounds against the back of said carrige ? It has no thinkness so if you land on top of one will you be sliced in two / diced if multiple ones ? If you make a bridge with one and then actively don't resist can you and only your race cross it ? Can it be used to stop such things as ASH (the tree) and so stop arrows made of ash or whatever wood you put in the forbidding ? Can it stop such things as lice to delouse peasants flocks and sheep herds ? Can it be used to strip clothes / etc off people (formally living sheep) ? Can it be used to make halflings ill who have had a feast ...cream buns ? From the sublime to the ridiculous i know but one must ask ===== cheers noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:36:53 +1200
Noel Livingston wrote: > Sealing (R 5) > If a party is off plane and in an inn for the night and this is cast > will they immediately wake and have to flee the inn and vicinity, > possibly leaving goods behind at full tmr, no defense, giving rear > attacks to the waiting assasins etc..... Yes, and maybe. They would certainly have to leave the area. As for speed, the Ritual says: "attempt to leave the area as quickly as possible" which the GM could decide was "panic and flee" although that is not what the wording is, being more akin to Fire Alarm instructions. Also, any Adventurer worth their salt should have their gear packed and ready to go at a moments notice -- after all, who knows when the pub will start to burn down. :) However, I tend to agree that they wouldn't get to put armour on, and it would make an interesting ambush tactic. > Forbidding (S-6) > If this is placed across a road will humans in a carrige change from > living to formally living to enable their passage through it, while > making wet sounds against the back of said carrige ? Hmmm... I think what you're asking is will the horse and carriage pass through, and the human passengers get crushed at the back of the carriage. Possible I suppose. It might be better to assume they get forced through the wall and take damage from it. > It has no thinkness so if you land on top of one will > you be sliced in two / diced if multiple ones ? Says "thin", doesn't say, no thickness. Personally I'd bounce them off one side or the other with damage. > If you make a bridge with one and then actively don't > resist can you and only your race cross it ? Obeys the rules for insubstantial walls -- long edge affixed to ground, etc. Can't make a bridge. > Can it be used to stop such things as ASH (the tree) > and so stop arrows made of ash or whatever wood you > put in the forbidding ? Mmmm... maybe? Actually it looks like there may be a missing word in the spell, specifically "entity". The intention was certainly to prevent entities passing, not arrows, and indicated by: "To those whose names are contained therein...". > Can it stop such things as lice to delouse peasants flocks and sheep > herds ? Guess so. The lice do count as possessions (they would go Invis with the peasant) and will get to resist. You did say delouse flocks of peasants? :) > Can it be used to strip clothes / etc off people (formally living > sheep) ? Ditto comments about entities. > Can it be used to make halflings ill who have had a feast ...cream > buns ? What's the GTN of a Cream Bun? :) No. > >From the sublime to the ridiculous i know but one must ask Fair 'nuff. I like the Sealing ambush idea. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible - Writeups Attached...
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:41:48 +1200
RE: Sealing Perhaps change such that entities that are in an area sealed against them will desire to leave and must make Willpower checks of increasing difficulty every minute they try to do something other than leave by the most expedient route. And as for the being woken, yes absolutely, but I don't think it needs to be specified in the write-up. RE: Forbidding Oooo you are evil :} First up the easy ones - it only affects entities. Formerly living is an object. A Bridge - probably not. I like the idea but in DQ most people rule that walls are vertical by definition and may not be created lieing down. Slicing falling people in half - no. You fall one side or the other. Lice - yeah I guess so. Even if Lice don't have their own GTN, they would probably fall under a GTN of insect or bug. New class of character is created: Namer/Drencher. The carriage where they can't see it coming and they would get crushed against or through the back of the carriage - OW! Another new class: Namer/Coachman-Assassin. :) Seriously though not sure about this one. Cheers, Stephen. -------------------------- Sealing (R 5) Range: 20 feet (+20/Rank) Duration: 1 day (+1/Rank) Experience Multiple: 300 Base Chance: 20% (+4/Rank) Cast Time: 1 hour Resist: May not be resisted. Target: Area Materials: None. Actions: Chanting and inscribing symbols Concentration Check: Standard Effects: This Ritual seals an area against entities from a single, specific, named plane. The name of the plane must be known to the Adept, and the name of the plane that the Adept is currently occupying cannot be used. No entity whose plane of origin has been sealed against can voluntarily enter the sealed area. They will stop at the boundary and refuse to go any further. Any entity taken into the area against their will (or without their knowledge, e.g. unconscious) will attempt to leave the area as quickly as possible. If an attempt is made to summon an entity from the named plane into the area the summoning will fail. Forbidding (S-6) Range: 10 feet (+10/Rank) Duration: 10 minutes (+10/Rank) Experience Multiple: 250 Base Chance: 30% Resist: Passive Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap Target: Area Effects: This spell creates a thin, invisible wall, 10 feet high and 20 feet long. The Adept may increase either height or length by 1 foot per Rank. This barrier obeys all of the usual rules for insubstantial walls. A single Generic or Individual true name is crafted into the forbidding. To those whose names are contained therein, or if seen by means of Witchsight or similar, the wall appears bluish and crackling with magical energy. If a Generic True Name is in the forbidding, then to those named who fail to resist upon initial contact the forbidding is completely solid to them and they are unable to pass through it. If they resist, the barrier is insubstantial, as it is those those who are not named by it. If an Individual True name is placed in the forbidding then in addition to the Generic effects, the entity must resist each contact with the barrier or suffer [D-4] +1/Rank damage, even if they are able to pass through wall because they initially resisted. > -----Original Message----- > From: Noel Livingston [SMTP:arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 15:58 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible > > Sealing (R 5) > If a party is off plane and in an inn for the night > and this is cast will they immediately wake and have > to flee the inn and vicinity, possibly leaving goods > behind at full tmr, no defense, giving rear attacks to > the waiting assasins etc..... > > Forbidding (S-6) > If this is placed across a road will humans in a > carrige change from living to formally living to > enable their passage through it, while making wet > sounds against the back of said carrige ? > > It has no thinkness so if you land on top of one will > you be sliced in two / diced if multiple ones ? > > If you make a bridge with one and then actively don't > resist can you and only your race cross it ? > > Can it be used to stop such things as ASH (the tree) > and so stop arrows made of ash or whatever wood you > put in the forbidding ? > > Can it stop such things as lice to delouse peasants > flocks and sheep herds ? > > Can it be used to strip clothes / etc off people > (formally living sheep) ? > > Can it be used to make halflings ill who have had a > feast ...cream buns ? > > From the sublime to the ridiculous i know but one must > ask > > > ===== > cheers noel > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:52:44 +1200
The spell only does damage if an ITN is used. And it says that it is effectively solid if you fail to resist and you cannot pass through. Perhaps state that the entity considers the wall to be solid and will not pass through. If however they are physically forced through then they will take D + 2 per rank damage. Or something like that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Dickson [SMTP:martin.dickson@peace.com] > Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 16:37 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible > > Noel Livingston wrote: > > > Forbidding (S-6) > > If this is placed across a road will humans in a carrige change from > > living to formally living to enable their passage through it, while > > making wet sounds against the back of said carrige ? > > Hmmm... I think what you're asking is will the horse and carriage pass > through, and the human passengers get crushed at the back of the > carriage. Possible I suppose. It might be better to assume they get > forced through the wall and take damage from it. > > > It has no thinkness so if you land on top of one will > > you be sliced in two / diced if multiple ones ? > > Says "thin", doesn't say, no thickness. Personally I'd bounce them off > one side or the other with damage. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible
From	"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)"
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:59:04 +1200
To make it less deadly, you could treat the carriage as (partially) a possession of the person, and instantly, inertialessly come to a halt, along with other passengers and the horses. Sort of like turning off your wings or a rock leaving TK range. Or you could just inflict arbitary rank-dependant damage. Or you could look at the impact being equivalent to falling - impact at speed X with a solid wall. Much worse than a car accident - no crumple zones. I'd expect death for most non-adventurers. There is no nice solution for inflicting damage here except BDE, so I'd either leave it at BDE (i.e. don't say anything), or at no damage - useful for aircraft carriers with small decks. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz] Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 4:53 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible The spell only does damage if an ITN is used. And it says that it is effectively solid if you fail to resist and you cannot pass through. Perhaps state that the entity considers the wall to be solid and will not pass through. If however they are physically forced through then they will take D + 2 per rank damage. Or something like that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Dickson [SMTP:martin.dickson@peace.com] > Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2001 16:37 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible > > Noel Livingston wrote: > > > Forbidding (S-6) > > If this is placed across a road will humans in a carrige change from > > living to formally living to enable their passage through it, while > > making wet sounds against the back of said carrige ? > > Hmmm... I think what you're asking is will the horse and carriage pass > through, and the human passengers get crushed at the back of the > carriage. Possible I suppose. It might be better to assume they get > forced through the wall and take damage from it. > > > It has no thinkness so if you land on top of one will > > you be sliced in two / diced if multiple ones ? > > Says "thin", doesn't say, no thickness. Personally I'd bounce them off > one side or the other with damage. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:07:30 +1200
"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > There is no nice solution for inflicting damage here except BDE, so I'd > either leave it at BDE (i.e. don't say anything), or at no damage - useful > for aircraft carriers with small decks. That would make it rather like Runewall -- hit the wall and "bounce" back. (And I'm completely in favour of BDE and/or arbitrary damage). Like the idea of using it to catch flyers coming into land on ships... 'course if they resist... :) -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	[dq] True Form (R-6)
From	Noel Livingston
Date	Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Will this remove god given or wished gift/curse stuff, in effect restoring people to their natural forms. ===== cheers noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/ -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] True Form (R-6)
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:02:43 +1200
Noel Livingston wrote: > Will this remove god given or wished gift/curse stuff, > in effect restoring people to their natural forms. Define "True": True Form is certainly the right flavour of magic for removing "wished gift/curse stuff", it'll depend partially on power of the wish and what is now the entities true form. GM determination. Guidelines: You're born human, that's your true form. A witch turns you into a toad, that's a curse, and True Form will work just fine. A god turns you into a centaur... what's your true form now? Human? Centaur? What's your GTN? If your GTN is still Human then R-6 could work -- if the GM rules that the power was sufficient to overcome the god's gift. (I'd usually tend towards, "No"... but it might be a very small god). :) OK... other case... god gives you wings... (I can think of two PCs in this camp...). Case 1: The wings are real. If they got cut off they could be regenerated back, etc... they are in all ways real wings. I'd say R-6 wouldn't work, the wings are now the PCs true form. Case 2: The wings are magical extensions -- effectively a partial polymorph. R-6 could force the PC back into their original form, but it wouldn't remove the polymorph talent, so they could just produce new wings. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible
From	"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?="
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:29:41 +1200
hi there, I go away for a day and my inbox fills up. <g> to the point Martin - why is the wall 'thin' ? I have forgotten the game reason My immediate thought is: make the wall 5 feet thick, but only the innner 'thin' bit is solid. the rest is 'soft' on teh outside going to 'crunchy' in the middle. (sort of the opposite of an eskimo in an igloo - at least to the bear. (apologies to Garry Larsen)) So an entity gets a fuzzy 'it is harder to walk this way', culminating in 'ouch'. (assuming can't see it due to the fog <mg>) This meets the ANother Decision to Reduce Endurance Wipeout (or ANDREW) regulations on crumple zones. Ian PS - I hope and assume <mg> means "malicious grin" PPS - what is BDE ?? -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@peace.com> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz> Date: Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:07 Subject: Re: [dq] Evil namer stuff possible >"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > >> There is no nice solution for inflicting damage here except BDE, so I'd >> either leave it at BDE (i.e. don't say anything), or at no damage - useful >> for aircraft carriers with small decks. > >That would make it rather like Runewall -- hit the wall and "bounce" back. (And >I'm completely in favour of BDE and/or arbitrary damage). > >Like the idea of using it to catch flyers coming into land on ships... 'course >if they resist... :) > >-- > > _/_/ 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 --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	Jim Arona
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:10:29 +1200
Martin Dickson wrote: > > Not really... and I will admit to a desire for rules elegance... it's a weakness, > sorry. > > Making it an unrankable talent is still the easiest solution (and has zero > conversion implications). > Just don't see why you're wasting your time on something so unimportant. But, it's your time. Enjoy. I hope that the time it takes to get people to agree on this won't mean other issues that actually have an impact don't get lost. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion
From	"=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?="
Date	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:14:16 +1200
Martin, My first reaction when I saw the Quick Cast Talent was "yep, having that ability as a (rankable) Talent makes a lot of sense. It will cause a stink at conversion though". The only real issue is existing 'users' I don't think compromise (for lower of rank in talent or CS) is a good term - 'a more elegant solution' seems much more appropriate. I don't thank that it is at all complex - if i pulse cast, I'm at the talent's rank. I'm very likely to a CS at this rank, so the required stats are already on my character sheet. I think it will be ranked to Rk 6 very quickly, and slowly after that. Cheers Errol -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@peace.com> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz> Date: Thursday, 14 June 2001 15:10 Subject: Re: [dq] Namer talent discussion >Hi Jim, > >jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote: > >> ...what is this change trying to achieve? Is there something wrong with Namer's >> being able to cast Counterspells without preparing them? > >Nope. There isn't. IMHO. > >> If there isn't anything wrong with it, then what is the current rule change >> trying to achieve? > >Right... the way it went was this: Make Namer ability to cast CS without preparing >a Talent so that: >1) it was easy to find/obvious, etc. >2) it was covered by consistent rules i.e. the same as other talents. > >However, having do that there was a pressure to make a reason to Rank it, with the >result that the talent ended up like Concealed Casting, basically a lowered BC to >do something odd (cast quickly, cast without waving hands, etc). Jon subsequently >raised a concern that unlike concealed casting this was taking away a current Namer >ability and would unreasonably disadvantage beginner namers. > >> Because, if it doesn't achieve anything, then it's a waste of time writing it, >> and an even bigger waste of time voting on it. > >There is still an advantage to it being a talent. Making it an unrankable talent >is the simplest solution. (Gives the advantages with no added complexity, etc). >Mandos wasn't as keen for reasons of up-powering as stated, Andrew suggested a >compromise. Andrew's suggestion covers Jons concerns (as far as I can see) whilst >also addressing Mandos' comments and giving a reason to Rank the talent, but more >slowly and as the character ranks their CS. > >> All I can see is that this might offer some sort of game rules elegance. Am I >> missing something? > >Not really... and I will admit to a desire for rules elegance... it's a weakness, >sorry. > >Making it an unrankable talent is still the easiest solution (and has zero >conversion implications). > >Regards, >Martin > >-- > > _/_/ 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 --