After watching overstrengthing in action it appears to be a little less
balanced than in previous rule editions.

In the game I am in at the moment we have someone overstrengthing their
weapon to gain +5 damage. However there does not appear to be any downside
at all associated with this bonus. Previously there was an enhanced chance
of the weapon being broken which balanced the bonus's associated with
overstrengthing.

I would like to see a return of balance to this and to facilitate such I
believe a 1 or 2% increase to the chances to fumble the weapon per extra
point of damage may be a reasonable solution.

Mandos
/s


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

This is one good reason not to over-legalise this area. I want different
things in aerial combat than Jim does - I think what I want works in my
games, and what he wants must work in his games. As long as they are
reasonably consistent in their own context, that is OK.

Personally, I enjoy running combat grids with 25 foot or 100 yard hexes,
with armies and cities in the background.

I can see combat styles where you want low-mobility, and possibly I'll use
Jim's ideas in a combat I want to run like that.

Why not keep it undefined.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----

If flying is to run the way it stands, then dragons are no threat to a
party in the open. They can always outrun the beast. Is this what you
want?

Do you want players to be able to have adventures where they have
dogfights?

Do you want flight to be simply transport?


Just work out what you want, then work out why it works the way it does.


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

Jim Arona wrote:

> This and Martin's tract are the same thing, with differing sentiment, and
> neither of them really do much that is useful

Strange.  I read Stephen's post and thought that it was a) nothing like what I'd
written and b) not terribly helpful and c) missed all of Jim's good points.  Oh
well, I guess YMMV.

> I WISH you guys would just focus for a moment on the issue, and not the
> crap.

The issue appears to be two fold.  1)  Flying as it stands, if played according to
the rules in 29.3 etc. is overly powerful or completely useless depending on
precise interpretation.  2) The rules are contradictory and don't integrate flying
correctly.

> If flying is to run the way it stands, then dragons are no threat to a party in
> the open. They can always outrun the beast. Is this what you
> want?

No.  But... if the party is in the open, and wish to outrun a dragon, that'll come
down to straight miles per hour, and have nothing to do with TMR, so I don't see
how that is germane.

> Do you want players to be able to have adventures where they have dogfights?

Occasionally.  Having a party in the air ambushed by flying enemies was
interesting to run (in a particular game), fitted well with what was going on, and
made the party feel much less safe in the air. I wouldn't want to do it all the
time.

> Do you want flight to be simply transport?

No.  I think it should integrate closely and simply with the rest of the game.  I
believe you are correct in stating that TMR is the way to go.  If you'd taken the
time to actually read what I wrote you'd see that a) I agree with you.  Unusual I
know, but in this case I happen to completely agree with your comments regarding
slower being better and the use of TMR in combat; and b) I was suggesting ways
that flight could be integrated correctly without arbitrarily using a PC's foot
TMR when flying.

> Ignore the drivel, concentrate on the germane.

Ok, the germane.  Flying doesn't currently integrate well with combat... for all
the reasons you stated.  A much slower speed in combat for flyers is good.  TMR is
already part of combat and should be used. The _only_ place I disagree with you is
in _how_ that TMR is calculated.  I don't think we should use foot TMR.  I don't
think the Elf should fly faster or the Dwarf slower, etc., etc.  I think we should
define a reasonable TMR for flyers and then find a simple way of deriving that
from the flying spells or writing it into the flying spells.  Two TMRs is how DQ
works for animals/monsters and NPCs with two forms of movement, why wouldn't we
want to do the same thing if an entity had a second movement mode temporarily.

The animal/moster examples were to show what the designers felt were reasonable
speeds, to set a bit of a framework for how fast is OK, and how fast is too fast.

The point of the various calculations was to open a discussion on whether remove
the catapult effect common to magical flying and using the Movement Rate and TMR
rules as they stand would give us numbers we liked.  Personally I think they still
come out too high... so we'd have to do something else. The reason for this
discussion is that _we_ added the zero or maximum speed only rule, and in doing so
removed the possibility of using the standard rules to calculate TMR.  I thought
that a sensible thing was to consider removing our rule addition and see if it
solved the problem... it doesn't quite... but I think it could very well point the
way to a simple and consistent solution.

> It's not even a question of my personal preference, or Martin's, or
> Stephen's.
>
> Just work out what you want, then work out why it works the way it does.

I worked out what I wanted.  I want a Flying TMR.  Not the current 1.5 hexes per
Pulse per mph in 29.3.  Not just using foot TMR for flyers.  I want a flying TMR
for magical wings in just that same way that a Devil, Imp, Pegasus, Gargoyle,
Dragon, Gryphon, etc., etc., has a Running speed & TMR and a Flying speed & TMR.
I thought I'd covered that in the first part of the post.

The second part was discussing how we could easily get it to work that way with
numbers we feel to be reasonable... reasonable in this context meaning numbers
that feel equitable (don't penalize flying dwarves, do benefit highly skilled
flyers) and fit well with the desired result of making the flying fit properly
into combat with slowed down speeds.

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 whoever is interested, Lisa is holding a baby shower for Helen on
Saturday the 18th of August at 2pm. Bring a plate for afternoon tea.

Guests of all genders welcome.

The address is 33b Methuen Road (St, Ave whatever) New Windsor.

If you want to contact Lisa, it's 820 2556.

Kelsie


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

It's not about whether you agree with me or not...

I was actually asking the questions that I posed because they're some of
the bigger issues you're likely to see. It doesn't matter much what
someone answers...

I'm saying that the attention to the wording of the rule is avoiding the
point.

Work out what you want.

Then, fit the rule to the game. 

I know you agree with me, Martin. But, it's not the point. It doesn't
matter that Stephen prefers to run flight another way.

Identifying what stories we, as DMs, want to tell is far more important
than examining a rule to some kind of Zen enlightenment. I'm afraid I'm
too basic for those kinds of subtleties.

I suspect most people are.

Martin Dickson wrote:
> 
> Jim Arona wrote:
> 
> > This and Martin's tract are the same thing, with differing sentiment, and
> > neither of them really do much that is useful
> 
> Strange.  I read Stephen's post and thought that it was a) nothing like what I'd
> written and b) not terribly helpful and c) missed all of Jim's good points.  Oh
> well, I guess YMMV.
> 
> > I WISH you guys would just focus for a moment on the issue, and not the
> > crap.
> 
> The issue appears to be two fold.  1)  Flying as it stands, if played according to
> the rules in 29.3 etc. is overly powerful or completely useless depending on
> precise interpretation.  2) The rules are contradictory and don't integrate flying
> correctly.
> 
> > If flying is to run the way it stands, then dragons are no threat to a party in
> > the open. They can always outrun the beast. Is this what you
> > want?
> 
> No.  But... if the party is in the open, and wish to outrun a dragon, that'll come
> down to straight miles per hour, and have nothing to do with TMR, so I don't see
> how that is germane.
> 
> > Do you want players to be able to have adventures where they have dogfights?
> 
> Occasionally.  Having a party in the air ambushed by flying enemies was
> interesting to run (in a particular game), fitted well with what was going on, and
> made the party feel much less safe in the air. I wouldn't want to do it all the
> time.
> 
> > Do you want flight to be simply transport?
> 
> No.  I think it should integrate closely and simply with the rest of the game.  I
> believe you are correct in stating that TMR is the way to go.  If you'd taken the
> time to actually read what I wrote you'd see that a) I agree with you.  Unusual I
> know, but in this case I happen to completely agree with your comments regarding
> slower being better and the use of TMR in combat; and b) I was suggesting ways
> that flight could be integrated correctly without arbitrarily using a PC's foot
> TMR when flying.
> 
> > Ignore the drivel, concentrate on the germane.
> 
> Ok, the germane.  Flying doesn't currently integrate well with combat... for all
> the reasons you stated.  A much slower speed in combat for flyers is good.  TMR is
> already part of combat and should be used. The _only_ place I disagree with you is
> in _how_ that TMR is calculated.  I don't think we should use foot TMR.  I don't
> think the Elf should fly faster or the Dwarf slower, etc., etc.  I think we should
> define a reasonable TMR for flyers and then find a simple way of deriving that
> from the flying spells or writing it into the flying spells.  Two TMRs is how DQ
> works for animals/monsters and NPCs with two forms of movement, why wouldn't we
> want to do the same thing if an entity had a second movement mode temporarily.
> 
> The animal/moster examples were to show what the designers felt were reasonable
> speeds, to set a bit of a framework for how fast is OK, and how fast is too fast.
> 
> The point of the various calculations was to open a discussion on whether remove
> the catapult effect common to magical flying and using the Movement Rate and TMR
> rules as they stand would give us numbers we liked.  Personally I think they still
> come out too high... so we'd have to do something else. The reason for this
> discussion is that _we_ added the zero or maximum speed only rule, and in doing so
> removed the possibility of using the standard rules to calculate TMR.  I thought
> that a sensible thing was to consider removing our rule addition and see if it
> solved the problem... it doesn't quite... but I think it could very well point the
> way to a simple and consistent solution.
> 
> > It's not even a question of my personal preference, or Martin's, or
> > Stephen's.
> >
> > Just work out what you want, then work out why it works the way it does.
> 
> I worked out what I wanted.  I want a Flying TMR.  Not the current 1.5 hexes per
> Pulse per mph in 29.3.  Not just using foot TMR for flyers.  I want a flying TMR
> for magical wings in just that same way that a Devil, Imp, Pegasus, Gargoyle,
> Dragon, Gryphon, etc., etc., has a Running speed & TMR and a Flying speed & TMR.
> I thought I'd covered that in the first part of the post.
> 
> The second part was discussing how we could easily get it to work that way with
> numbers we feel to be reasonable... reasonable in this context meaning numbers
> that feel equitable (don't penalize flying dwarves, do benefit highly skilled
> flyers) and fit well with the desired result of making the flying fit properly
> into combat with slowed down speeds.
> 
> 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 --

At 09:15 9/08/01 +1200, you wrote:
>Ok, the germane.  Flying doesn't currently integrate well with combat... 
>for all
>the reasons you stated.  A much slower speed in combat for flyers is 
>good.  TMR is
>already part of combat and should be used. The _only_ place I disagree 
>with you is
>in _how_ that TMR is calculated.  I don't think we should use foot TMR.  I 
>don't
>think the Elf should fly faster or the Dwarf slower, etc., etc.  I think 
>we should
>define a reasonable TMR for flyers and then find a simple way of deriving that
>from the flying spells or writing it into the flying spells.  Two TMRs is 
>how DQ
>works for animals/monsters and NPCs with two forms of movement, why 
>wouldn't we
>want to do the same thing if an entity had a second movement mode temporarily.
>
>The animal/moster examples were to show what the designers felt were 
>reasonable
>speeds, to set a bit of a framework for how fast is OK, and how fast is 
>too fast.
>
>The point of the various calculations was to open a discussion on whether 
>remove
>the catapult effect common to magical flying and using the Movement Rate 
>and TMR
>rules as they stand would give us numbers we liked.  Personally I think 
>they still
>come out too high... so we'd have to do something else. The reason for this
>discussion is that _we_ added the zero or maximum speed only rule, and in 
>doing so
>removed the possibility of using the standard rules to calculate TMR.  I 
>thought
>that a sensible thing was to consider removing our rule addition and see if it
>solved the problem... it doesn't quite... but I think it could very well 
>point the
>way to a simple and consistent solution.

I think your reasoning is quite elegant and can see how it will lead to a 
reasonable solution. What I really don't want to see is a result where 
fliers abruptly slow down to "tactical speed" when they approach anything 
solid. Been there, done that - it's how TSR managed intership combat in 
Spelljammer, and they had trouble explaining it - something about helms 
interfering with each other. Suggesting that approaching something solid 
interferes with the magic so fliers are forced down to their running TMR is 
even less supportable.

However, a solution where flyers have a TMR based on the type and rank of 
the spell, and the individual's agility and skill in flying, now that makes 
sense. Flight speed would then presumably be continuously variable between 
the TMR and the speed stated for the spell. Or is that not your intent?

Jacqui


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

Jacqui Smith wrote:

> What I really don't want to see is a result where fliers abruptly slow down to
> "tactical speed" when they approach anything
> solid.

"Solid" is pretty odd, but then "combat" is rather arbitary too, and this is
essentially what happen with figures who are running too.  The running movement
rate for humans is 250 yards per minute; the TMR for the same figure is 5 (25 ft /
pulse = 100 yards per minute).  For all creatures in the bestiary TMR = 40% of
movement speed... including flyers.  Why?  Dunno... but making combat easier to run
is probably the best reason... plus "fluff" reasons about moving slower when
there's danger around.

Given that SPI were primarily a Wargaming company might also have something to do
with it.  Miniatures rules often allow longer moves or "march" moves or double
moves or whatever when troops are not near the enemy and smaller moves when they
are.  Wild speculation of course... and it doesn't really matter why... but we
should be consistent throughout so that the systems integrate.

The TMR in "combat" restriction can be taken to ludicrous extremes by a GM, but
need not be.  I remember a story about the "great dwarven battle charge" where two
dwarves who were separated from the party when it went into combat spent the entire
evening racing towards the hex-sheet at TMR 2.  Obviously a silly interpretation of
the TMR in combat rules.  It would probably have been nicer all round to give them
full movement until either the edge of the hex map (or some other point at which
the GM decided they were close to the enemy) and then reduced their speed to TMR.

>  Flight speed would then presumably be continuously variable between the TMR and
> the speed stated for the spell. Or is that not your intent?

Yep... or more likely 1/2 TMR.  The only reason for a limit like this is to prevent
hovering.  If we don't care then 0 move is OK, otherwise a really simple slowest
speed.  Since flyers must be able to move 1/2 TMR to cast that would seem a
reasonable minimum.

--

 _/_/  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 --

On Thursday, August 9, 2001, at 10:56  AM, Kelsie McArthur wrote:

> To whoever is interested, Lisa is holding a baby shower for Helen on
> Saturday the 18th of August at 2pm. Bring a plate for afternoon tea.

I noticed in the paper today that Mother Care in Newmarket is having a 
closing down sale this friday saturday and sunday - might be a good 
place to look for gifts :-)

clare


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

I was under the impression that each +1 damage increased the break chance by
5%.  When did this change?

Scott

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> After watching overstrengthing in action it appears to be a little less
> balanced than in previous rule editions.
>
> In the game I am in at the moment we have someone overstrengthing their
> weapon to gain +5 damage. However there does not appear to be any downside
> at all associated with this bonus. Previously there was an enhanced chance
> of the weapon being broken which balanced the bonus's associated with
> overstrengthing.
>
> I would like to see a return of balance to this and to facilitate such I
> believe a 1 or 2% increase to the chances to fumble the weapon per extra
> point of damage may be a reasonable solution.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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