1) Iron Golems 7'+ are out by a foot (7' = 735, 8'=960, etc).

2) Iron golems are far too light. Iron is ~ 9 times heavier than flesh, 4
times heavier than stone.

3) I'd be happier with:
Clay: Height Cubed * 1.5
Iron: Height Cubed * 10
Rag & String: Height * 2
Stone: Height Cubed * 2
Wood: Height Cubed * .5
Which encourages smaller golems for PCs and huge creatures only for
stationary bad guys, as well as being "truer" for proportional humanoids.

But the numbers are OK.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2001 5:05 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Binder Ammendments: Golem Weights


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 --

I mention it to Mike Haycock last Friday, and he said that the version he
was playtesting was actually one of Jon's older version, and that he wanted
to go for the more recent versions which had a more shamanistic feel to it.
 He was  keen to lift the moratorium for more characters to start to get
impeteous for finalising the college.  

I also like the shamanistic feel of runes on foreheads etc, and the rune
portal to places of power bits, so would vote for accepting the tweaked
college for inclusion to the rules under playtest banner, with more
characters starting in it.

Regards,
Sally

At 11:13 14/08/01 +1200, you wrote:
>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 --
>


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

I agree that effective ranks above 10 are OK for specialists and racial
bonus, but this causes problems in the time taken to 'Identify Local
Inhabitants'.

"A ranger can identify the types of
entities living in an area from the traces they
leave behind (tracks, game paths, grazing
signs, prey remains etc). This takes 120
minutes (- 10 /Rank) and gives them an idea
of the variety of animals in the area (eg. the
primary carnivore is a pack of wolves; there
is a large herd of red deer, and a flock of
pigeons)."

120 minutes less 13 x 10 is .....???

I feel that this time is too rank dependent in any case, as it will take
time just to move around an 'area'. Higher ranked rangers will take less
time to evaluate what they find, and make fewer mistakes, but it will still
take time to look around, and check the places where there may be evidence.
There is no provision for getting this wrong (as part of the desire to
reduce the number to dice rolls?), so accuracy can't be made rank dependent
instead. Presumably GM's will vary the amount of info they give out in
accordance with ranger rank, and the requirements of the plot.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz <RMansfield@aj.co.nz>
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
> Date: Tuesday, 14 August 2001 16:37
> Subject: Re: [dq] New Ranger Skill
> 
> 
> >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 --
> >
> >
> 
>


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

The correct way to interpret this rule is to realise that time is not a
one-way arrow in DQ - Astrology is one other skill that takes this into
Account. At High ranks, the identify skill becomes quasi-magical.
e.g.

An Elvish ranger approaches a forest, and ten minutes before she enters the
forest, she says "there are wolves, red deer and basilisks in this forest".
Of course, if she approaches the forest and gets no idea of the inhabitants,
she knows (with Zen understanding) that she must wait outside until she
receives her flash of understanding, and enter the forest ten minutes after
that.

Of course, this can come as a shock - an elven ranger is flying, and
receives a precog about the inhabitants of a forest. Shortly afterwards, she
is driven out of the sky by angry griffons, and crash-lands in the forest
below. Even if she teleports elsewhere when the griffons attack, her
knowledge of the forest predestines her to appear in _a_ forest.

Hopefully that clarifies some of the more significant implications of this
rule.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Errol Cavit [mailto:ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2001 11:45 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] New Ranger Skill


I agree that effective ranks above 10 are OK for specialists and racial
bonus, but this causes problems in the time taken to 'Identify Local
Inhabitants'.

"A ranger can identify the types of
entities living in an area from the traces they
leave behind (tracks, game paths, grazing
signs, prey remains etc). This takes 120
minutes (- 10 /Rank) and gives them an idea
of the variety of animals in the area (eg. the
primary carnivore is a pack of wolves; there
is a large herd of red deer, and a flock of
pigeons)."

120 minutes less 13 x 10 is .....???

I feel that this time is too rank dependent in any case, as it will take
time just to move around an 'area'. Higher ranked rangers will take less
time to evaluate what they find, and make fewer mistakes, but it will still
take time to look around, and check the places where there may be evidence.
There is no provision for getting this wrong (as part of the desire to
reduce the number to dice rolls?), so accuracy can't be made rank dependent
instead. Presumably GM's will vary the amount of info they give out in
accordance with ranger rank, and the requirements of the plot.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz <RMansfield@aj.co.nz>
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
> Date: Tuesday, 14 August 2001 16:37
> Subject: Re: [dq] New Ranger Skill
> 
> 
> >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 --
> >
> >
> 
>


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

"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:

> The correct way to interpret this rule is to realise that time is not a
> one-way arrow in DQ...

Nor indeed in some other fantasy based rule systems.  We might assume that two
way time arrows are part of the RPG fantasy sub-genre.  For example in Castle
Falkenstein it is possible for a PC with sufficiently high skill in the
Tinkering ability to complete a project bfore they begin it.  The rules are
unfortunately silent on the paradox reprocussions that would occur should the
Tinker, having see the outcome of their proejct, stubbornly refuse to begin it.

> Of course, this can come as a shock - an elven ranger is flying, and receives
> a precog about the inhabitants of a forest. Shortly afterwards, she is driven
> out of the sky by angry griffons, and crash-lands in the forest below. Even if
> she teleports elsewhere when the griffons attack, her knowledge of the forest
> predestines her to appear in _a_ forest.

True, and the precog will refer to the inhabitants of the forest in which she
ends up, so, for instance, if the Ranger was flying towards forest #1 and
precoged the existence of only small furry animals she might be particularly
surprised by the gryphons flying up from the trees to attack and think that
somehow her precog had failed.  Teleporting away from the gryphons however she
will find herself in forest #2, the home of the small furry animals previously
seen.

--

 _/_/  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 --