I am, with increasing urgency, looking for somewhere to live. Ideal
would be a single person apartment in the Mt Eden/Sandringham area for
around $180-220 pw.  I'll consider flatting with people. Please send
e-mail if you know of something suitable. (Beware of the '"reply" sends
to DQ mail list' feature.)

Michael W. (michaelw@peace.co.nz)


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

Hi,
I'm tidying up the bestiary (making it more readable, fixing a few typos,
etc.) as part of preparing to put out an updated unofficial GMs Guide. If
there are any fixes wanted (and I don't mean giving Centaurs their readiness
points back), please let me know. (Fixes to) typos welcome, along with other
stuff.

Andrew


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

And of course, I can't resist making changes to the bestiary...

The only content change is to move a few creatures around, so we can find
them easier - all the sentient humanoids together, all the enchanted
whot-sits together, etc. So merfolk move from fish, phoenix move from birds
to fantastics, etc. I've found it a lot easier to find the creatures.

This wouldn't be a content change, except that some peole can affect certain
creature categories (say Lizards and Kindred). Their magics will work
differently. This affects wierd talents primarily. I figure if someone's
really upset, they can get their talent changed to "speak to lizards &
kindred, _and_ basilisks". The only magic that I know is affected is
Illusory Animal, but some of the air/water/earth/witch speak /control/summon
creatures may be affected as well. It would move the sentient or very
magical creatures outside their spells, which is probably a good thing
anyway.

I also found a few creatures that didn't have base chances or damages
recorded for one of their attacks (e.g. earth elemental BC, some creature's
horn attack damage, dragons' crush&roll), and threw in arbitary BCs/damages.

If anyone cares, scream.

I'll have a draft GM guide available shortly so people can decide whether
its worth swapping to.

Andrew


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

At 11:22 7/01/02 +1300, you wrote:
>And of course, I can't resist making changes to the bestiary...
>
>The only content change is to move a few creatures around, so we can find
>them easier - all the sentient humanoids together, all the enchanted
>whot-sits together, etc. So merfolk move from fish, phoenix move from birds
>to fantastics, etc. I've found it a lot easier to find the creatures.
>
>This wouldn't be a content change, except that some peole can affect certain
>creature categories (say Lizards and Kindred). Their magics will work
>differently. This affects wierd talents primarily. I figure if someone's
>really upset, they can get their talent changed to "speak to lizards &
>kindred, _and_ basilisks". The only magic that I know is affected is
>Illusory Animal, but some of the air/water/earth/witch speak /control/summon
>creatures may be affected as well. It would move the sentient or very
>magical creatures outside their spells, which is probably a good thing
>anyway.
>
>I also found a few creatures that didn't have base chances or damages
>recorded for one of their attacks (e.g. earth elemental BC, some creature's
>horn attack damage, dragons' crush&roll), and threw in arbitary BCs/damages.
>
>If anyone cares, scream.

Just one point of interest...

One concern I have had is the lack of definition for a number of "missing" 
creatures, common in fantasy, often used by GMs, but absent from the 
bestiary. This includes such GM favourites as ghouls, ghasts and mummies, 
missing from the undead listings. As a GM I find it awkward when players 
have expectations of creatures which have behaved in one way for another 
GM, and are quite different in my corner of the DQ-verse. Furthermore, I 
deplore the duplication of effort as multiple GMs write up their own 
versions of each critter. It would be so much easier just to look it up in 
the bestiary.

In short, can we add to the bestiary. Please.... I've got all these 
monsters lurking on my computer's hard drive, and they need somewhere to go....

Jacqui


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

My feeling is that their aren't many "standard" beasties that are missed
out. I'd rather prune the orangutan, giant amoeba and phoenix, and maybe add
a few perennial favourites (mummies, some dinosaurs, drow? seem to be
common). I've already added human, shapechanger, and the anti-devils
(seraphs, etc.).

Adding every monster ever encountered by any party would be a big mistake.

Oh, and Martin pointed out that beastmasters would be affected by moving
wierd creatures to their own category. On reflection, it seems like another
good reason to do it.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]

Just one point of interest...

One concern I have had is the lack of definition for a number of "missing" 
creatures, common in fantasy, often used by GMs, but absent from the 
bestiary. This includes such GM favourites as ghouls, ghasts and mummies, 
missing from the undead listings. As a GM I find it awkward when players 
have expectations of creatures which have behaved in one way for another 
GM, and are quite different in my corner of the DQ-verse. Furthermore, I 
deplore the duplication of effort as multiple GMs write up their own 
versions of each critter. It would be so much easier just to look it up in 
the bestiary.

In short, can we add to the bestiary. Please.... I've got all these 
monsters lurking on my computer's hard drive, and they need somewhere to
go....

Jacqui


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
> 
> Just one point of interest...
> 
> One concern I have had is the lack of definition for a number 
> of "missing" 
> creatures, common in fantasy, often used by GMs, but absent from the 
> bestiary. This includes such GM favourites as ghouls, 

point taken, but ghouls are there (at least on the online version).


> ghasts 
> and mummies, 
> missing from the undead listings. As a GM I find it awkward 
> when players 
> have expectations of creatures which have behaved in one way 
> for another 
> GM, and are quite different in my corner of the DQ-verse. 

As a player, some variation in the characteristics and behaviour of undead
seems reasonable, even if different examples share the same generic true
name. A vague write-up is probably better than none (for those types that
people stumble across reasonably often), however.


> Furthermore, I 
> deplore the duplication of effort as multiple GMs write up their own 
> versions of each critter. It would be so much easier just to 
> look it up in 
> the bestiary.
> 
> In short, can we add to the bestiary. Please.... I've got all these 
> monsters lurking on my computer's hard drive, and they need 
> somewhere to go....
> 
> Jacqui
> 

What are you doing about habitat types in light of Ranger v2.1 and the (dare
I mention it) Encounter Table?

Cheers
Errol


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

> >And of course, I can't resist making changes to the bestiary...

Thanks -- definitely needs work.  And, further to Jackie's comments

> One concern I have had is the lack of definition for a number of "missing"
> creatures, common in fantasy, often used by GMs, but absent from the
> bestiary. This includes such GM favourites as ghouls, ghasts and mummies,
> missing from the undead listings. As a GM I find it awkward when players
> have expectations of creatures which have behaved in one way for another
> GM, and are quite different in my corner of the DQ-verse. Furthermore, I
> deplore the duplication of effort as multiple GMs write up their own
> versions of each critter. It would be so much easier just to look it up in
> the bestiary.

It's also awkward when you have the GTN of something and it behave *very* differently from the
standard creature.  If GMs are significantly rewriting a creature from the bestiary standard, could
they consider renaming it?  For example, in the current campaign the party was up against things
called "True-Ghouls" -- I had no idea what we could expect of them, but that's fine because the
consumer was not mislead by the label on the package.

It can be tiresome constantly coming across nondescript species (with all the penalties for
unencountered & unknown names) -- but that is better than encountering something, say, that looks
like a Dog, has the GTN of Dog, and breathes fire the way a Dog doesn't.

As an aside to Rosemary:   Could you perhaps flag/mark/asterisk/etc items on the True-Names list
which do appear in the Bestiary [or, alternatively, which do not appear there -- which ever is
easier to update]

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


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

Habitat types have been updated to reflect the new ranger categories.

A simple encounter table now lists the common & uncommon creatures for each
terrain type, and lets the GM decide (randomly or by application of common
sense) how many of what creature, if any, may be encountered. While
generating this table, I also made giant amoeba rare, not uncommon. Those
who like ghouls in every field may continue to use the DQ 2 tables.

A new (almost unchanged) reactions table is also included, which now caters
to both (extremely different) uses of reactions modifiers.

Errol, you are spoiling all the surprises.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Errol Cavit [mailto:ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz]

What are you doing about habitat types in light of Ranger v2.1 and the (dare
I mention it) Encounter Table?

Cheers
Errol


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