> -----Original Message-----
> From: stephen_martin@clear.net.nz [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2002 6:23 p.m.
>

> As far as DQ is concerned climbing is climbing.  Skill in it 
> certainly helps.

?????
Which is why there are two totally different skills (thief only applying to
structures, and ranks in the two skills don't interact), and different ways
of deciding how often to make rolls?

What has been there before may or may not have been good or logical, but
making that kind of statement doesn't add to the discussion.

<snip>

> Differentiating between Climbing of buildings and climbing of 
> everything else
> seems to me to be adding un-necessary complexity.  If we 
> wanted realism then
> Climbing could become a major skill of its own with sub-areas 
> based on what
> you are climbing, what gear you are using, who else you're 
> climbing with etc.

If you are going to differentiate between different types of climbing,
natural vs. man-made would seem to be the most obvious split to me. I'm
guessing that knowing how structures are made is something that can both be
taught, and will be useful when climbing them. I also like the ability for a
thief to stealth climb in some fashion.

> 
>  It is a skill very applicable to certain types of Thief and 
> it seems reasonable
> they should be better at it.  And the rest can be dealt with 
> by GM modifiers.
> 

So this issue seems to be whether thieves have their own formula, or a bonus
to the normal climbing roll (only applicable to structures?).

Logically, adding a bonus for thief (if they have taken the thief climbing
option) to climbing seems better to me. I don't think it is substantially
more difficult to work out the BC. You already have your (adventuring)
climbing BC worked out, and you work out your thief bonus (2xrank, 4x rank,
whatever) to be applied if relevant.

> 
> 
> >
> >My aims with the skill was to make thief a primarily urban 
> experiance and I
> 
> >wanted to limit the thief climbing ability to an urban area.
> >
> >
> >Mandos
> >/s

Regarding the formula, including PC is very good, and should go in the
Adventuring climbing too. Can anyone think of any justification in keeping
the "-structure height in feet/10 (round down)" bit in Adventuring climbing?
If the climb is above a huge drop the GM can throw in a "subtract (30 - WP)"
or something, if it is windy at the top of the 200' structure throw in -10
to -20 for those portions of the climb.

All IMEO of course :-)
Errol


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

<P>Long climbs are tiring to do, Muscle fatiuge setting in as you get up the face of the wall.
<P>But I don't know if that justifies having a height related part written into the formulae.
<P>That feels to me to be more of a GM assigned modifier in relation to other conditions &amp; how strong they are &amp; how much gear they are carrying etc.
<P>&nbsp;
<P>The thing of Thieves getting a bonus to climbing structures sounds good to me though.
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Regarding the formula, including PC is very good, and should go in the<BR>Adventuring climbing too. Can anyone think of any justification in keeping<BR>the "-structure height in feet/10 (round down)" bit in Adventuring climbing?<BR>If the climb is above a huge drop the GM can throw in a "subtract (30 - WP)"<BR>or something, if it is windy at the top of the 200' structure throw in -10<BR>to -20 for those portions of the climb.<BR><BR>All IMEO of course :-)<BR>Errol<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p><br><hr size=1>
<a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/?http://www.yahoo.promo.com.au/hint/" target=_blank><b>Yahoo! Hint Dropper</b></a><br>
- Avoid getting hideous gifts this Christmas with Yahoo! Hint Dropper!

Am I being completely obscure????

My desire is for ONE climbing skill REGARDLESS of the STRUCTURE.

Thieves (with Climbing) should be better at climbing in general.  NOT better
at man-made structures only.

I am IN FAVOUR of Thieves being able to Stealth-Climb, just some discussion
on the method of resolving success/failure.

I AM AGAINST ONE SKILL FOR CLIMBING MAN-MADE STRUCTURES AND ANOTHER FOR CLIMBING
EVERYTHING ELSE.
If you want the reasons for this then please re-read my previous Emails.  But
the essence of them is simplicity!  If you want to climb there is ONE base chance
for it based on your stats and skills.  If the surface or conditions make it
easier or harder then this is handled by the GM applying a modifier.

I apologise for shouting but after beating my head against the wall the blood
dripping from my bleeding forehead is stinging my eyes.


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stephen_martin@clear.net.nz [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2002 6:23 p.m.
>>
>
>> As far as DQ is concerned climbing is climbing.  Skill in it 
>> certainly helps.
>
>?????
>Which is why there are two totally different skills (thief only applying to

>structures, and ranks in the two skills don't interact), and different ways

>of deciding how often to make rolls?
>
>What has been there before may or may not have been good or logical, but
>making that kind of statement doesn't add to the discussion.
>
><snip>
>
>> Differentiating between Climbing of buildings and climbing of 
>> everything else
>> seems to me to be adding un-necessary complexity.  If we 
>> wanted realism then
>> Climbing could become a major skill of its own with sub-areas 
>> based on what
>> you are climbing, what gear you are using, who else you're 
>> climbing with etc.
>
>If you are going to differentiate between different types of climbing,
>natural vs. man-made would seem to be the most obvious split to me. I'm
>guessing that knowing how structures are made is something that can both be

>taught, and will be useful when climbing them. I also like the ability for
a
>thief to stealth climb in some fashion.
>
>> 
>>  It is a skill very applicable to certain types of Thief and 
>> it seems reasonable
>> they should be better at it.  And the rest can be dealt with 
>> by GM modifiers.
>> 
>
>So this issue seems to be whether thieves have their own formula, or a bonus

>to the normal climbing roll (only applicable to structures?).
>
>Logically, adding a bonus for thief (if they have taken the thief climbing

>option) to climbing seems better to me. I don't think it is substantially
>more difficult to work out the BC. You already have your (adventuring)
>climbing BC worked out, and you work out your thief bonus (2xrank, 4x rank,

>whatever) to be applied if relevant.
>
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >My aims with the skill was to make thief a primarily urban 
>> experiance and I
>> 
>> >wanted to limit the thief climbing ability to an urban area.
>> >
>> >
>> >Mandos
>> >/s
>
>Regarding the formula, including PC is very good, and should go in the
>Adventuring climbing too. Can anyone think of any justification in keeping

>the "-structure height in feet/10 (round down)" bit in Adventuring climbing?

>If the climb is above a huge drop the GM can throw in a "subtract (30 - WP)"

>or something, if it is windy at the top of the 200' structure throw in -10

>to -20 for those portions of the climb.
>
>All IMEO of course :-)
>Errol
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

PS, MD & PC all seem to be reasonable stats to apply to climbing.
PS & MD for actually hauling yourself up the surface and PC for picking the
best path.
Skill should count at least as much as stats.

Height should be a factor that makes it harder but we should only apply it once
as opposed to twice as it is now (BC Modifier and BC Check per xx Feet).  We
need to choose one of: 
- Subtracting Height / 10 from the BC (or similar formula) and roll once per
climb.
- Making a climbing check every 10 feet with no height based BC modifiers.
The second method has more dice rolls but makes it quite clear where you are
on the surface when things go wrong.  And if you are extremely good at climbing
then a tall surface is no harder it just takes longer.  I prefer this method.


Current Adv:Climb BC = 4 x MD + 8 x Rk
Current Thief BC = 4 x MD + 10 x Rank
Proposed Thief BC = 3 x MD + PC + 10 x Rank

I suggest
Climbing BC = 2 x MD + PS + PC + 8 x Adv:Climbing Rank + 2 x Thief Rank (If
Climbing Selected)
Make a BC check once per 10 feet climbed.  Thieves climbing common buildings
check once per 20 feet.
Modifiers: +/- 0-100 based on surface & conditions.
Climbing Claws +15% if they can be applied
Use of Climbing Gear and Partner can reduce the potential fall height at the
expense of the time taken to climb.
Use of a previously attached rope halves the number of rolls that need to be
made and reduces the severity of failures.

Cheers, Stephen.

>> -----Original Message-----
>
>Regarding the formula, including PC is very good, and should go in the
>Adventuring climbing too. Can anyone think of any justification in keeping

>the "-structure height in feet/10 (round down)" bit in Adventuring climbing?

>If the climb is above a huge drop the GM can throw in a "subtract (30 - WP)"

>or something, if it is windy at the top of the 200' structure throw in -10

>to -20 for those portions of the climb.
>
>All IMEO of course :-)
>Errol


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

Rather than dragging thief down into a discussion on the Climbing skill I'd like
to propose the following for the Climbing sub-skill of Thief:

4.	Climbing: the Thief becomes better at climbing.  They may use their Thief
rank instead of their Climbing to calculate their Climbing base chance (ref
Adventure: Climbing) or they may increase their climbing BC by 2% per rank in
Thief (whichever is most beneficial).  When a Thief is climbing a style of building
they are familiar with they may make their climbing check once per storey instead
of once per 10 or 20 feet.
The Thief learns how to climb stealthily.  When attempting this every time they
make a Climbing check they must also make a stealth check, if either fails then
both are considered to have failed.


And discussion over the merits of various stats, modifiers, etc can be transferred
to an independent revision of the Adventure: Climbing skill - if it merits it.


Cheers, Stephen.


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

Passing on a comment from Chris Rose...

What is the point of the "Teamwork" subskill?
What benefit does it give in game?
Why would anyone choose it?


I didn't have an answer for this so over to the panel...

>
>Are there any comments regarding thief?
>
>Is it possible to vote on this entering playtest?
>
>Mandos
>/s
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

[By the way, if I do a 'Reply All' I get both Stephen's and the list's
address in my To: box]


As it looks like Mandos has left I'll try to remember what he said when I
asked him in the weekend on this.

> 
> 
> Passing on a comment from Chris Rose...
> 
> What is the point of the "Teamwork" subskill?

To represent what happens when a bunch of thieves work as a team. E.g. gangs
of kids that have one bang into you, another pick your pocket, 2 watching
for the law, another to pass the purse off to etc. Not covered by anything
else in the skill. More than Hiding or Pickpocket, it's being in the right
place at the right time to make the hand off, or picking up on the lookout's
signal without tripping over your feet.

> What benefit does it give in game?
> Why would anyone choose it?
> 
[from here on is purely me]
It's what street urchins learn when they join a gang? Moderately common
among NPC thieves I would think.
You will probably need at least one other PC in the party with it for it to
be effective. Amateurs trying to co-ordinate have much greater chances of
making a hand signal that is noticed by the mark, or mis-timing their move
etc.
In the game we could maybe treat it like a Mil Sci timeout if the situation
is appropriate? Other times it will increase the chance of pulling of a swap
or suchlike.

> 
> I didn't have an answer for this so over to the panel...
> 
HTH
Errol


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