Do you have an email for Bridget?
She would probably appreciate a card from us evil reprobates

William


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

On Tuesday, Dec 10, 2002, at 14:11 Pacific/Auckland, mandos@allowed.to 
wrote:

> Hmmm constant referals to "Structures" and "structures not made for". 
> Are
> people anooyed by the current climbing rules or are people simply not
> bothering to read them?

almost certainly the second.

cheers,

clare


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

"Barth: Newer than the others, but more effective design"

More effective in what ways? Faster? Stronger? Hotter?
The mind simply boggles.

Liessa- "Phased plasma rife in the 40MW range. Got anything with a bit of
punch?"


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

I will be moving the proposed session to Thursday. 

Based on people looking for games I have the following. 

1. Brent
2. William
3. Michael W
4. Potentially Ian depending on night.
5.
6.
7.

Mandos
/s


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

I completely ignore it.  
Unless it's an unusual adventure the number of climbing rolls per adventure
is about 0.3.  And if you have reasonable Climbing or Thief rank then you can
climb and if you happen to have both then you get to perform exceptional feats
of climbing as a reward for being the 1 adventurer in 100 that has put some
effort into being good at it.
Most of the time you have to manufacture things so they have to climb as opposed
to flying/levitating/teleporting/walking up the wall/... or whatever other spell
or item adventurers pull out of the bag.


>Just as another small point in this somewhat pointless debate.
>
>Are people aware that Thieves are only able to climb manmade objects at the

>moment?
>
>Quoted from the current rules.
>
>> A thief can, as long as they may find a purchase
>> sufficient to bear their weight, climb any structure.
>> The success chance when climbing on a structure not
>> made for that purpose is (4 × MD + 10 × Rank) -
>> (Structure Height in Feet / 10)%. Round the structure
>> height down. If the GM’s roll is greater than the success
>> percentage, the thief has fallen in climbing the
>> structure. To determine the height at which the thief
>> falls, roll D100. Round the number off to the nearest
>> 10% (a roll of 5 is rounded down), and multiply the
>> height the thief sought to attain by that percentage.
>> See §29.1 for falling damage.
>
>Hmmm constant referals to "Structures" and "structures not made for". Are
>people anooyed by the current climbing rules or are people simply not
>bothering to read them?
>
>Mandos
>/s


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

> Unless it's an unusual adventure the number of climbing rolls per adventure
> is about 0.3.  And if you have reasonable Climbing or Thief rank then you can
> climb and if you happen to have both then you get to perform exceptional feats
> of climbing as a reward for being the 1 adventurer in 100 that has put some
> effort into being good at it.

On one of Martin's Adventures ("recovered library books"), it was alarming at the time to realise
(despite the demons, curses, weird magic) the greatest threat to SF was the 5% chance of *automatic*
death from failing the one climbing role that was necessary  [since max success is 90 +Rank].

Under the extant rules, it is strongly advisable to spend  6125 ep to be Rank 9 climbing (with
rope) -- or 7375 for Rank 10 if you have, say, 8 MD or less.

BTW  in the relevant rule:  [QUOTE]
"A character usually has a chance of failure when using a non-magical skill. Unless the ability is
described as an exception to this rule, the maximum chance to succeed with it is never greater than
90 (+Rank)% . A character always fails to use an ability
if the roll is greater than the modified chance or 100 (regardless of Rank)."

Does the last sentence mean "..... always fails to use an ability if the roll is greater than the
modified chance or if the actual roll is 100 (regardless of Rank)."  ?


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

Hi,

	Definetly Interested

	Drum - Hill Giant Fighter - Starting Namer

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2002 8:38 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Session Offered. 

I will be moving the proposed session to Thursday. 

Based on people looking for games I have the following. 

1. Brent
2. William
3. Michael W
4. Potentially Ian depending on night.
5.
6.
7.

Mandos
/s


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Jason Saggers
> Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2002 1:05 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Session Offered.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> 	Definetly Interested
>
> 	Drum - Hill Giant Fighter - Starting Namer
>
> Jason

> I will be moving the proposed session to Thursday.
>
> Based on people looking for games I have the following.
>
> 1. Brent
> 2. William
> 3. Michael W
> 4. Potentially Ian depending on night.
> 5. Jason Saggers
> 6. Sean English - Probably.


Starting 2nd of January. Prabably at my place in Lynfield unless there are
strong objections.

Mandos
/s


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

Based on people looking for games I have the following. I can fit one more
but that may not leave Eamon enough for a game.
>
> 1. Brent
> 2. William
> 3. Michael W
> 4. Potentially Ian depending on night.
> 5. Jason Saggers
> 6. Sean English - Probably.


Starting 2nd of January. Prabably at my place in Lynfield unless there are
strong objections.

Mandos
/s


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

>
> Based on people looking for games I have the following. I can fit one more
> but that may not leave Eamon enough for a game.
> >
> > 1. Brent
> > 2. William
> > 3. Michael W
> > 4. Potentially Ian depending on night.
> > 5. Jason Saggers
> > 6. Sean English - Probably.
>
>
> Starting 2nd of January. Prabably at my place in Lynfield unless there are
> strong objections.
>
> Mandos
> /s

I was a bit dim on Sunday (compared to my standard dimness) and signed up
nine people to my game. No sleep is a Bad Thing. Hopefully some, two
preferably can move into Eamons game. The best two would be Emilio (Porl)
and Galland (Mark S.). Emilio is a little light for the mission requirements
and out of the two illusionists I would prefer to keep Human, since he's
been there before.

William


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

yep - I can do Thursday evenings - but should/will/ouch check with 'she who
is obeyed' just where I will be on that night.

cheers Ian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@iconz.net>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 12 December 2002 08:38
Subject: [dq] Session Offered.


> I will be moving the proposed session to Thursday.
>
> Based on people looking for games I have the following.
>
> 1. Brent
> 2. William
> 3. Michael W
> 4. Potentially Ian depending on night.
> 5.
> 6.
> 7.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

hi there

does anyone have an email, url, phone, address or ITN for Jono ?

cheers Ian


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