Hi,
As a GM, I play that binary spells & rituals only work on multi-hex
creatures if they are of sufficient rank - 3 full ranks per hex. This was
"taught" to me when I started DQ, and I like it. Some GMs play a similar
rule, some don't.

The major effect is that sleep, mental attack, incinerate, and other instant
death spells can't take out a multi-hex creature as easily - they require
ranks. It may only require Rank 9 to affect a giant, but a remarkable number
of PC utility and takeout spells are below this rank, even in medium+ games.
It gives more durability to big creatures. This already happens with damage
spells, through them having more endurance / fatigue, so any rank bolt of
energy will affect a big creature - it just takes more spells to kill it.

The "rule" on this says:
Interpretations
Most of the magic in DQ is designed to be flexible in application, and up to
the interpretation of the GM within the guidelines laid down by the Gods.
The effects and procedures are meant to apply to humanoid entities of human
size. An Incinerate Spell that would fry a human would do little more than
discomfort a Dragon. To close every loophole and explain every application
would be impossible. Therefore, these matters of interpretation have been
left to your GM, in the context of their game and the atmosphere that they
are trying to promote.

Now thats a fine general rule, and is one that is applied by every GM as
they adjuicate effects that were never forseen. However, having a common
rule of thumb for affecting big creatures may be a good thing. I've had
players shrug and say "of course" or "I didn't expect it to work", and
others be surprised/offended that their rank 1 spells don't affect big
things. If players have a common expectation of whether their magic should
work _in_general_, it would help.

If people are keen on the 1 hex/3 full ranks (or similar) rule, can we agree
to it, or if people are against it, thoughts on how I should play rank 1
sleep on a troll/dragon/kraken would be appreciated.

Andrew


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

I think this is more of an issue of what you want the game to do.

Realistically, the rule that says that a spell with a binary effect can only
effect a creature if it has 3 ranks for every hex that the creature occupies
does not actually solve the problem. It just delays any particular need to
solve it for a little while.

The issue is that a spell  that reduces a resource of an NPC is more
dramatic than one that can take out that monster in the first exchange. In
other words, if you are faced with a spell that renders an opponent
unconscious if they fail to resist that magic then that is clearly more
powerful than a spell that reduces the NPC's FT or EN, so long as the damage
doesn't knock out or kill the NPC. The EN and FT the NPC, the more valuable
the sleep spell.

At the same time, the drama inherent in binary spell effects is much less.
If you render your opponent unconscious  or dead before he can do anything
to you, then of course it's something you will be keen on. HOwever, it's
pretty boring if this sort of thing regularly happens.

Damage spells are more interesting in terms of drama because they provide a
means of counting down to the point where the NPC is no longer active, and
because you can heal the damage, the NPC can recover in the middle of a
fight.

Obviously, some spells can only be represented in terms of a binary effect.
Some things are to tedious to administer in any other way than binary, as
well. And, some things are too minor to worry about one way or another.

However, effects that stop an opponent from acting are pretty powerful, and
probably should be changed so that they are not so instantly nasty. As I
say, if the only thing you do is say that you can only target a creature
with a binary spell that has greater than or equal to 3 times the number
ranks than the creature occupies in hexes, then you are simply delaying the
problem, not solving it.

But
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: [dq] Magic & multi-hex


> Hi,
> As a GM, I play that binary spells & rituals only work on multi-hex
> creatures if they are of sufficient rank - 3 full ranks per hex. This was
> "taught" to me when I started DQ, and I like it. Some GMs play a similar
> rule, some don't.
>
> The major effect is that sleep, mental attack, incinerate, and other
instant
> death spells can't take out a multi-hex creature as easily - they require
> ranks. It may only require Rank 9 to affect a giant, but a remarkable
number
> of PC utility and takeout spells are below this rank, even in medium+
games.
> It gives more durability to big creatures. This already happens with
damage
> spells, through them having more endurance / fatigue, so any rank bolt of
> energy will affect a big creature - it just takes more spells to kill it.
>
> The "rule" on this says:
> Interpretations
> Most of the magic in DQ is designed to be flexible in application, and up
to
> the interpretation of the GM within the guidelines laid down by the Gods.
> The effects and procedures are meant to apply to humanoid entities of
human
> size. An Incinerate Spell that would fry a human would do little more than
> discomfort a Dragon. To close every loophole and explain every application
> would be impossible. Therefore, these matters of interpretation have been
> left to your GM, in the context of their game and the atmosphere that they
> are trying to promote.
>
> Now thats a fine general rule, and is one that is applied by every GM as
> they adjuicate effects that were never forseen. However, having a common
> rule of thumb for affecting big creatures may be a good thing. I've had
> players shrug and say "of course" or "I didn't expect it to work", and
> others be surprised/offended that their rank 1 spells don't affect big
> things. If players have a common expectation of whether their magic should
> work _in_general_, it would help.
>
> If people are keen on the 1 hex/3 full ranks (or similar) rule, can we
agree
> to it, or if people are against it, thoughts on how I should play rank 1
> sleep on a troll/dragon/kraken would be appreciated.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

I agree with Jim, but...

Given we have binary take-out spells, big or tough creatures should be
harder to take out. Tough creatures do it with MR (still binary). Maybe big
creatures do it with cumulative effects - after two casts of sleep, the
troll is yawning and its orc allies are concentrating bow-fire on the e&e to
stop their close-assault weapon from collapsing. Or maybe, it takes a Rank
15+ spell to take the troll out, or a double-effect?

After the entire party trigger their incinerate investeds, the dragon is
awake & smoking gently. I see a small potential for drama in the aftermath.

And non-take-out spells - flight, armour of earth, waterbreathing etc.? It's
not so critical to have these affect all people, not just little ones, but
it can be desirable. Watching a giant run beneath a party as they fly along
on low-ranked flying is amusing, once or twice. It also makes multi-hex
creatures a danger to mages, not just people avoiding trampling. It gives an
incentive to rank utility spells - your Speak to Animals might get to rank 9
because you really needed to speak to an elephant.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]

I think this is more of an issue of what you want the game to do.

Realistically, the rule that says that a spell with a binary effect can only
effect a creature if it has 3 ranks for every hex that the creature occupies
does not actually solve the problem. It just delays any particular need to
solve it for a little while.

The issue is that a spell  that reduces a resource of an NPC is more
dramatic than one that can take out that monster in the first exchange.


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

> Given we have binary take-out spells, big or tough creatures should be
> harder to take out. Tough creatures do it with MR (still binary). Maybe big
> creatures do it with cumulative effects - after two casts of sleep, the
> troll is yawning and its orc allies are concentrating bow-fire on the e&e to
> stop their close-assault weapon from collapsing. Or maybe, it takes a Rank
> 15+ spell to take the troll out, or a double-effect?

Well, I suggest that requiring certain ranks to make targets legal doesn't 
solve your problem, it simply delays it.

Obviously, only binary spells that instantly take out opponents are a major 
worry. Spell effects that inflict penalties, or that only last a pulse or two 
are not as worrying in general.

Unconsciousness, instant death, paralysing effects are all much more difficult 
to deal with, since you are either one thing or another, at least as far as the 
game is concerned. 

Perhaps it might be better to eschew binary effects of that nature altogether, 
and move to other, more graduated effects.

> After the entire party trigger their incinerate investeds, the dragon is
> awake & smoking gently. I see a small potential for drama in the aftermath.
> 
> And non-take-out spells - flight, armour of earth, waterbreathing etc.? It's
> not so critical to have these affect all people, not just little ones, but
> it can be desirable. Watching a giant run beneath a party as they fly along
> on low-ranked flying is amusing, once or twice. It also makes multi-hex
> creatures a danger to mages, not just people avoiding trampling. It gives an
> incentive to rank utility spells - your Speak to Animals might get to rank 9
> because you really needed to speak to an elephant.
> 
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> 
> I think this is more of an issue of what you want the game to do.
> 
> Realistically, the rule that says that a spell with a binary effect can only
> effect a creature if it has 3 ranks for every hex that the creature occupies
> does not actually solve the problem. It just delays any particular need to
> solve it for a little while.
> 
> The issue is that a spell  that reduces a resource of an NPC is more
> dramatic than one that can take out that monster in the first exchange.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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