Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>>6.3 Spells: Rank 20 is the Maximum Rank achievable with any Spell
>>(except Geas).
>>    
>>
>
>And I am certain that Geas is only there because of a minor typo. The 5
>should have been a 2 :-)
>  
>
We could change it. Given that you can nullify a geas with death, full 
geas is no worse than an instant death spell, and generally much less 
effective. Enchanted Sleep is a better combat take-down spell at rank 11 
than full geas. The non-combat uses need to be thought about however - 
e.g. it could be used to enslave someone. (But still only works if the 
adept truely believes that they deserve it.)


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

> We could change it. Given that you can nullify a geas with death, full
> geas is no worse than an instant death spell, and generally much less
> effective. Enchanted Sleep is a better combat take-down spell at rank 11
> than full geas. The non-combat uses need to be thought about however -
> e.g. it could be used to enslave someone. (But still only works if the
> adept truely believes that they deserve it.)

I am more than happy to see this fixed. From my recollection there is only
Engleton who has got this over 20 at the moment so there should be no major
impact to the game other than refunding him some EP and time.

Mandos
/s


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

At 11:44 27/03/03 +0000, you wrote:
>So what did you do to help guide this new GM?
>Please elaborate.

Ever tried guiding a roller-coaster?

I thought I made it quite clear that the person in question was not 
accepting of advice, guidance or help.

Jacqui


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

> >And I am certain that Geas is only there because
> of a minor typo. The 5
> >should have been a 2 :-)

Actually there is the argument that 15 not 50 was intended,
since it was clearly stated that any such *imposed* geas can
be removed by an adept who is 5 ranks higher.    On the
other hand, it is a good excuse for an older NPC more NOT
being a mundane demon-impersonator: "Sorry, that is a spell
that the Elven Ambassador has at  _only_ Rank 10 ... he's
spent the last few millennia getting Geas upto Rank 57 don't
you know."

On the third hand, I dislike having magic that is accessible
to NPC that is not available to PCs of the same race, except
where it is a necessary game mechanic for an adventure
(portals & such being a tolerable example), or when it is a
tourist-feature of the plane.  Frankly, Rank 50+ magic is
not available to the players (even at a mere 318,750+ EP).
And I do find it inelegant.

My preferred suggestion is to throw out the imposed geas
entirely.  The "sincere belief" of the adept is no
protection, just look at the weird beliefs of guild-members:
Michael/Seir/[insert power of your choice] just wants to
help; King Carlos was a threat to humanity; Red wine only
goes with red meat; ...

Failing that, if we *are* going to have something special
for Geas (and that is a big "if"), do make it at rank 20 --
there are not enough spells with a special effect at Rank
20.  In general, I like such Rank-20 cherries & wish that
there were more of them.  Rank-20 is accessible by even
medium level characters, if they're prepared to sacrifice
other opportunities.  We should give the characters suitable
gold-stars for reaching the top, just not game-destroying
ones.

regards, michael


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

It is commonly believed and usually true that death does not get you out of a
geas.  And if you are not resurrected promptly you may well find yourself as
a revenant.

One thing with geas that is often overlooked is that it is still a spell, it
needs to be prepared and cast at an opponent.


>Mandos Mitchinson wrote:
>
>>>6.3 Spells: Rank 20 is the Maximum Rank achievable with any Spell
>>>(except Geas).
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>And I am certain that Geas is only there because of a minor typo. The 5
>>should have been a 2 :-)
>>  
>>
>We could change it. Given that you can nullify a geas with death, full 
>geas is no worse than an instant death spell, and generally much less 
>effective. Enchanted Sleep is a better combat take-down spell at rank 11 
>than full geas. The non-combat uses need to be thought about however - 
>e.g. it could be used to enslave someone. (But still only works if the 
>adept truely believes that they deserve it.)
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Stephen Martin wrote:

>It is commonly believed and usually true that death does not get you out of a
>geas.  And if you are not resurrected promptly you may well find yourself as
>a revenant.
>  
>
It may be commonly believed. It may well be true. But it isn't what the 
spell description says:

Duration: Until removed, fulfilled or the target dies.

(from the 2000 rules.)

>One thing with geas that is often overlooked is that it is still a spell, it
>needs to be prepared and cast at an opponent.
>  
>
although it is non-standard in that it is always successful (no base 
chance.)


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

I like this idea of Stephen's.

For those who care about numbers (and most of us do somewhat, except
Mandos), you can choose to have a "short term" character, which starts with
a bang, or a long-term character that stays low-medium for longer (the best
place for roleplaying) and after a surprisingly short ten years, can move to
high with good stats.

I'd like to see it retroactive, with exceptions for those stats which have
already passed their new limits.
So, my 97 point (witnessed by GMs) character couldn't raise his stats beyond
+4, except for his EN which is already +5.

Amelia, a 83 point weakling (we all know how fragile she is) could raise her
stats another point to +6.

It also gets to be another little balance for the dishonest players - of
course, it is not a power-race, and people can do what they like with the
numbers, but at least they'll feel they are cheating. And the lucky players
like William deserve all the bloody penalties they can get.

It's elegant and simple and only inertia and reactionary attitudes will stop
us from doing it - never mind (sigh).

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz] 
Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2003 5:33 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Char Gen Stat Points and 5 point limit on raising them



Back in the days of yore you rolled to see how many stat points you got and
what maximum value you could assign to any stat.
In practice it was a fairly useless balancing limitation and got dropped
during
the revision.

I'd like to propose an alternative balancing limitation on starting stats
which
is that the amount you can raise them from starting values is based on how
much
you start with (racial limits still apply as normal).
Starting Stats - Max Increase
82 - 7
86 - 6
90 - 5
94 - 4
98 - 3
Starting characters may choose any of these or roll to randomly select one.


Higher values are better to start with but more limiting long term, lower
values
mean you start weaker but have more potential.


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