> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> 
> > There are a number of 'binary' magics (either work or 
> don't, as opposed to
> > made of two parts) in the game. Some are seen as 'a good 
> thing', and don't
> > cause any major problems (eg Wings, Lesser Enchantment) in 
> normal use.
> 
> 
> This is true, but then that wasn't raised as an issue. Binary 
> attack spells
> that render an opponent incapable of responding are, though.
> >
>

Andrew has mentioned non-take-out spells at least twice. I have found the
ruling easy to apply,  to add flavour, and act to remind players that having
a Giant in the party means more than having a big FT and EN bucket around.
It seems to be a useful approach to suggest to GMs, and to re-inforce to
players that odd things can happen if you are trying to do stuff to big
things.

The binary take-out spells probably deserve individual attention. I
understand that this has happened in some cases previously (anyone's
counterspells can remove effect of Sleep and Damn Min). These appear to have
reduced the perceived problems, rather than remove them (based on others
comments).
I doubt that an approach that is acceptable for Sleep (for instance) would
be worth the effort to set up and apply for the various utility spells
around.

Cheers
Errol


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

>
> The binary take-out spells probably deserve individual attention. I
> understand that this has happened in some cases previously (anyone's
> counterspells can remove effect of Sleep and Damn Min). These appear to
have
> reduced the perceived problems, rather than remove them (based on others
> comments).
> I doubt that an approach that is acceptable for Sleep (for instance) would
> be worth the effort to set up and apply for the various utility spells
> around.


I don't think anyone particularly wants to. I think that they want to
address binary take out spells.

Some binary effects are either too minor, to tricky to work out, or too
fiddly to administer to change. Take out spells, however, are not like that.
They usually have a major effect on the game, but they are relatively simple
to administer.


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

Binary take-out spells are a bit of a problem, but I feel damage spells are
too. What we need is "suffering" spells that make a aware that their
character is inconvenienced/suffering - these can create a far better
reaction and change of behaviour in players than damage or take-out spells.

Taking 10 points from a bolt of fire/sword/fall/lifedrain is ho-hum, in the
same way as feeling woozy or losing 3 pulses  or an entire night from a
sleep spell. Its rare to see an agony spell do more than give a strike
chance penalty and slowness to the lucky rollers and send the rest home -
agony should be Agony for the characters, and change their behaviour, not
just their tactics. The "I've taken 40 Endurance points, time for a healing
potion" attitude is heroic, but comic-book - characters hardly ever fall
down & writhe in pain, beg for mercy, run away from the fight (alone), etc.
These seem the likely role-played effects of the brutal magic/combat system.

What we need is magic that changes how the characters interact with the
world, not that stops them interacting or takes off a number of points that
will eventually stop them interacting.

How, I don't know. Maybe moving away from numbers. When a concussion is -3
AG,MD,PC,EN, its a stat loss. When they can't focus and are woozy, its a
role-playing thing. 

----------------

Everyone, thanks for the feed-back on "Magic & multi-hex" - I'll continue to
use my rule of thumb for multi-hex creatures and magic.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [dq] Magic & multi-hex

I don't think anyone particularly wants to. I think that they want to
address binary take out spells.


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