Could we have some input from the silent majority please? Those that have
played, played with, and GM'd our few examples especially please. Ask at
this week's games for those that don't read the list?


My personal opinion is that 

1) the old college should be removed

and

2) new college is encouraged to be playtested. I don't think putting either
of the new versions in the rulebook is a good idea at this stage.

This will provide some pressure to iron out problems within the next year,
say (aim to vote on making then-current college probationary at June 2002
Guild meeting, for inclusion in next reprint)

Cheers
Errol


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

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0080225CCC256AA7_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

1) I agree. 

2) Official play test is good.  Make copies of the play test version 
easily available ie. distribute at the meeting and put it on a web site.
Since even Ross wants to tweak 'Keisha's version' I also don't think it 
should go into the rule book yet.

Rosemary



Could we have some input from the silent majority please? Those that have
played, played with, and GM'd our few examples especially please. Ask at
this week's games for those that don't read the list?


My personal opinion is that 

1) the old college should be removed

and

2) new college is encouraged to be playtested. I don't think putting 
either
of the new versions in the rulebook is a good idea at this stage.

This will provide some pressure to iron out problems within the next year,
say (aim to vote on making then-current college probationary at June 2002
Guild meeting, for inclusion in next reprint)

Cheers
Errol


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



--=_alternative 0080225CCC256AA7_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1) I agree. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2) Official play test is good. &nbsp;Make copies of the play test version easily available ie. distribute at the meeting and put it on a web site.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Since even Ross wants to tweak 'Keisha's version' I also don't think it should go into the rule book yet.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Could we have some input from the silent majority please? Those that have<br>
played, played with, and GM'd our few examples especially please. Ask at<br>
this week's games for those that don't read the list?<br>
<br>
<br>
My personal opinion is that <br>
<br>
1) the old college should be removed<br>
<br>
and<br>
<br>
2) new college is encouraged to be playtested. I don't think putting either<br>
of the new versions in the rulebook is a good idea at this stage.<br>
<br>
This will provide some pressure to iron out problems within the next year,<br>
say (aim to vote on making then-current college probationary at June 2002<br>
Guild meeting, for inclusion in next reprint)<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Errol<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 0080225CCC256AA7_=--


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

The college is in play in the world, there needs to be a version in the rule
book.

Even if the new version isn't perfect the majority opinion is that it's
better.  So lets put it in the rules with the Probationary Tag.  And then
lets make extra emphasis on the fact that there will be variations in
playetest and this will NOT be the final version but it will be close.
Rather than "May be some changes" lets say "WILL be some changes".

The world is not going to end if an imperfect version goes into the rules,
and I hope we can trust our players and GMs to be mature and not exploit any
holes they find.


-----Original Message-----
From: Errol Cavit [mailto:ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2001 11:13 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Rune - plea for comment


Could we have some input from the silent majority please? Those that have
played, played with, and GM'd our few examples especially please. Ask at
this week's games for those that don't read the list?


My personal opinion is that 

1) the old college should be removed

and

2) new college is encouraged to be playtested. I don't think putting either
of the new versions in the rulebook is a good idea at this stage.

This will provide some pressure to iron out problems within the next year,
say (aim to vote on making then-current college probationary at June 2002
Guild meeting, for inclusion in next reprint)

Cheers
Errol


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

Stephen Martin wrote:

> So lets put it in the rules with the Probationary Tag...

Let's put it in with a new *Playtest* tag....

> And then lets make extra emphasis on the fact that there will be variations in
> playetest and this will NOT be the final version but it will be close. Rather
> than "May be some changes" lets say "WILL be some changes".

Yep... and make update version available as needed... errata/update sheets at
Guild meetings?

--

 _/_/  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 --

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0083B53BCC256AA7_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Errol pointed out that if the new Ranger is approved at the Gods meeting 
it won't be included in the new rule book.  I presume he intends for it to 
go into play test / probationary for a year (which is normal for new 
colleges but many skill changes went straight into play).

From the lack of comment on my posting the final version (4/7/2001) I have 
assumed it is likely to be voted in. 
If it does go into play test or what ever it would be useful to have 
copies available at the Guild meeting - but I need to know in advance so I 
can include it in the copy run for the other changes.

Conversion
I'd like to see existing Rangers able to freely choose a new environment 
when the new skill comes into play as it makes much more difference than 
in the old skill.

Elves
Elves currently get a reduction to Ranger EP costs by 50% if they 
specialize in Woods. 
What about changing this to "when an elf is in a forested area their 
ranger base chances and formulas are calculated as if they were 1 rank 
higher."?
This would  come into effect in forested Highlands, Jungle and Woods 
environments and be regardless of (or stack with) the elf's chosen primary 
environment.
Comments?


Rosemary
--=_alternative 0083B53BCC256AA7_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Errol pointed out that if the new Ranger is approved at the Gods meeting it won't be included in the new rule book. &nbsp;I presume he intends for it to go into play test / probationary for a year (which is normal for new colleges but many skill changes went straight into play).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">From the lack of comment on my posting the final version (4/7/2001) I have assumed it is likely to be voted in. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If it does go into play test or what ever it would be useful to have copies available at the Guild meeting - but I need to know in advance so I can include it in the copy run for the other changes.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Conversion</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'd like to see existing Rangers able to freely choose a new environment when the new skill comes into play as it makes much more difference than in the old skill.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Elves</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Elves currently get a reduction to Ranger EP costs by 50% if they specialize in Woods. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">What about changing this to &quot;when an elf is in a forested area their ranger base chances and formulas are calculated as if they were 1 rank higher.&quot;?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This would &nbsp;come into effect in forested Highlands, Jungle and Woods environments and be regardless of (or stack with) the elf's chosen primary environment.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Comments?</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
--=_alternative 0083B53BCC256AA7_=--


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

At 11:53 14/08/01 +1200, you wrote:
>Elves currently get a reduction to Ranger EP costs by 50% if they 
>specialize in Woods.
>What about changing this to "when an elf is in a forested area their 
>ranger base chances and formulas are calculated as if they were 1 rank 
>higher."?
>This would  come into effect in forested Highlands, Jungle and Woods 
>environments and be regardless of (or stack with) the elf's chosen primary 
>environment.

Will they be able to exceed an effective rank of 10?
What happen with existing highly ranked Elven woods rangers? Will they have 
to re-rank?

Jacqui


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

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0007A8ABCC256AA8_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Jacqui wrote:
Will they be able to exceed an effective rank of 10?

Their rank DOES NOT change - merely their formulas are  X /(rank+1) 
instead of X / rank (same as in the skill itself)

What happen with existing highly ranked Elven woods rangers? Will they 
have 
to re-rank?
Nothing - they keep existing ranks, but the ongoing cost of ranking ranger 
is same as everyone else.

Rosemary
--=_alternative 0007A8ABCC256AA8_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Jacqui wrote:<br>
Will they be able to exceed an effective rank of 10?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Their rank DOES NOT change - merely their formulas are &nbsp;X /(rank+1) instead of X / rank (same as in the skill itself)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">What happen with existing highly ranked Elven woods rangers? Will they have <br>
to re-rank?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Nothing - they keep existing ranks, but the ongoing cost of ranking ranger is same as everyone else.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
--=_alternative 0007A8ABCC256AA8_=--


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

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>Elves</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>Elves currently get a reduction
to Ranger EP costs by 50% if they specialize in Woods.</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>What about changing this to "when
an elf is in a forested area their ranger base chances and formulas are
calculated as if they were 1 rank higher."?</font></font></blockquote>
Interesting -- it's both a reduced benefit and (I think) a reduced pressure.&nbsp;
With 50% discount there is presumably a logical pressure to gain the skill
(ditto Courtier, or Thief for halflings) that helps define the Elven character
and at the same time makes them less unique.&nbsp; (Bearing in mind the
Elf is paying EM 1.2 for their "package" of abilities, and an un-used benefit
is a cost with no gain).&nbsp; This pressure seems lower to me with an
extra Rk rather than an EP disc.
<p>The value of the extra rank is in part determined by its upper limit;
as Jacqui asked, can it exceed 10?&nbsp; If the skill stats support it
allowing effective Rk 11 for a Rk 10 Elven Ranger in Woods would seem reasonable...
effectively that says that not only are Elven rangers generally better
in woods, but that at the top end they are the best in the world.
<p>Cheers,
<br>Martin
<p>PS: Presumably the little hairy ones would get the same mod too: "If
a dwarf character is a Ranger specialising in mountains or caverns, they
pay half the EP cost necessary to advance ranks"?
<p>--
<p>&nbsp;_/_/&nbsp; Peace Software New Zealand Ltd&nbsp;&nbsp; Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
<br>_/&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Martin Dickson&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fax&nbsp; : +64-9-373-0401
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Product Specialist&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Phone: +64-9-373-0400
<br>&nbsp;</html>


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

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 001937E5CC256AA8_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Yes they can get effective ranks over 10 and it stacks if they have the 
environment as well.  So they could get to +3 ranks : - ) 
I'd forgotten about Dwarves, oops.   But yes changing both is what I would 
intend.

Rosemary





Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@peace.com>
Sent by: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz
14/08/2001 13:33
Please respond to dq

 
        To:     dq@dq.sf.org.nz
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dq] New Ranger Skill


RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote: 
Elves 
Elves currently get a reduction to Ranger EP costs by 50% if they 
specialize in Woods. 
What about changing this to "when an elf is in a forested area their 
ranger base chances and formulas are calculated as if they were 1 rank 
higher."?
Interesting -- it's both a reduced benefit and (I think) a reduced 
pressure.  With 50% discount there is presumably a logical pressure to 
gain the skill (ditto Courtier, or Thief for halflings) that helps define 
the Elven character and at the same time makes them less unique.  (Bearing 
in mind the Elf is paying EM 1.2 for their "package" of abilities, and an 
un-used benefit is a cost with no gain).  This pressure seems lower to me 
with an extra Rk rather than an EP disc. 
The value of the extra rank is in part determined by its upper limit; as 
Jacqui asked, can it exceed 10?  If the skill stats support it allowing 
effective Rk 11 for a Rk 10 Elven Ranger in Woods would seem reasonable... 
effectively that says that not only are Elven rangers generally better in 
woods, but that at the top end they are the best in the world. 
Cheers, 
Martin 
PS: Presumably the little hairy ones would get the same mod too: "If a 
dwarf character is a Ranger specialising in mountains or caverns, they pay 
half the EP cost necessary to advance ranks"? 

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


--=_alternative 001937E5CC256AA8_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Yes they can get effective ranks over 10 and it stacks if they have the environment as well. &nbsp;So they could get to +3 ranks : - ) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'd forgotten about Dwarves, oops. &nbsp; But yes changing both is what I would intend.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Martin Dickson &lt;martin.dickson@peace.com&gt;</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">14/08/2001 13:33</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to dq</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Re: [dq] New Ranger Skill</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Elves</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Elves currently get a reduction to Ranger EP costs by 50% if they specialize in Woods.</font><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
What about changing this to &quot;when an elf is in a forested area their ranger base chances and formulas are calculated as if they were 1 rank higher.&quot;?</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Interesting -- it's both a reduced benefit and (I think) a reduced pressure. &nbsp;With 50% discount there is presumably a logical pressure to gain the skill (ditto Courtier, or Thief for halflings) that helps define the Elven character and at the same time makes them less unique. &nbsp;(Bearing in mind the Elf is paying EM 1.2 for their &quot;package&quot; of abilities, and an un-used benefit is a cost with no gain). &nbsp;This pressure seems lower to me with an extra Rk rather than an EP disc. </font>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">The value of the extra rank is in part determined by its upper limit; as Jacqui asked, can it exceed 10? &nbsp;If the skill stats support it allowing effective Rk 11 for a Rk 10 Elven Ranger in Woods would seem reasonable... effectively that says that not only are Elven rangers generally better in woods, but that at the top end they are the best in the world. </font>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Cheers, <br>
Martin </font>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">PS: Presumably the little hairy ones would get the same mod too: &quot;If a dwarf character is a Ranger specialising in mountains or caverns, they pay half the EP cost necessary to advance ranks&quot;? </font>
<p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- </font>
<p>
<p>
--=_alternative 001937E5CC256AA8_=--


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

This isn't worthy of lengthy discussion, if nobody raises a problem with
these weights within a week then please include them in the next rules
edition and we'll formally vote to confirm them at the next meeting.

Cheers, Stephen.

Clay Golems
3'	72
4'	128
5'	200
6'	288
7'	392
8'	512
9'	648

Iron Golems
4'	240
5'	375
6'	540
7' 	960
8'	1215
9'	1500

Rag & String Golems
0.5'	1
1.0'	2
1.5'	3
2.0'	4
2.5'	5

Stone Golems
5'	325
6'	468
7'	637
8'	832
9'	1053
10'	1300
11'	1573
12'	1872

Wood Golems
2'	24
3'	54
4'	96
5'	150
6'	216
7'	294
8'	384
9'	486


For those interested these numbers are based on formula that worked out to
about the right numbers:
Clay: Height Squared * 8
Iron: Height Squared * 15
Rag & String: Height * 2
Stone: Height Squared * 13
Wood: Height Squared * 6


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