Just under two weeks to the guild meeting on Sunday 1st June (Queens Birthday
Weekend).

GMs being the finely honed precision machines that we are, always balance our
adventures for a full session.  Since this has been a short session, some adventures
may not finish until the week after the meeting.  This may create some confusion
as we head out on our next adventures on the rash assumption that we return
from our current ones, but I'm sure we'll all manage and GMs will arbitrate
for the best bribes.

Naturally you're all well into planning the adventures you will run next session,
if you could take a moment from your busy schedule to let me know your intentions
I'll report a adventure-count.

I'd like to extend special thanks to the volunteer who is chairing the meeting
this time, I'm not sure who you are yet but I'm sure I will find out before
I volunteer someone at the meeting.

Please post any agenda items for the gods or guild meetings.
I'll be posting something about starting stats & their maximums as soon as I
can find my notes again.
Are there any other items which need voting or any announcements to be made?

Spy, Thief?
Namer, Mind, Fire and Binder are all due or overdue to come out of their probationary
periods.  If anyone has any specific issues to raise and resolve then please
raise them asap, otherwise they should all roll into being non-probationary
with the next rule-book.

Rulebook - the last published rulebook was the September 2001 edition I believe.

I can't remember off-hand whether we have voted in any rules changes since then.
 Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?
Assuming we have some changes then shall we schedule a new edition for later
this year? (2 years after the last version) or shall we hold out for a new record
- 3 years without any rules changes taking effect?

Cheers, Stephen.


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

No-one publicly disagreed with my posting:

E From: errolc@tranzlink.co.nz [mailto:errolc@tranzlink.co.nz]
E Sent: Thursday, 28 November 2002 7:59 a.m.
E To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
E Subject: Re: [dq] DQ new rules
E 
E 
E As far as I know, the only change since the last issued book 
E at this stage
E is Undetectibility  current version being deemed unplayable. 
E 
E There are various rule changes under discussion, but nothing approved.
E Fairly unlikely anything major-ish will be approved for inclusion at
E December meeting IMEO, as they need a bit of testing.
E 

I'm fairly sure we haven't voted any rules changes in since then - nearest
was approval for play-testing of Spy.
There are one or two minor clarifications floating about.
Someone threatened to do something with Armour prices

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 19 May 2003 12:16 p.m.
> 
> Please post any agenda items for the gods or guild meetings.
> I'll be posting something about starting stats & their 
> maximums as soon as I
> can find my notes again.
> Are there any other items which need voting or any 
> announcements to be made?
> 
> Spy, Thief?
> Namer, Mind, Fire and Binder are all due or overdue to come 
> out of their probationary
> periods.  If anyone has any specific issues to raise and 
> resolve then please
> raise them asap, otherwise they should all roll into being 
> non-probationary
> with the next rule-book.
> 
> Rulebook - the last published rulebook was the September 2001 
> edition I believe.
> 
> I can't remember off-hand whether we have voted in any rules 
> changes since then.
>  Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?
> Assuming we have some changes then shall we schedule a new 
> edition for later
> this year? (2 years after the last version) or shall we hold 
> out for a new record
> - 3 years without any rules changes taking effect?


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

> There are one or two minor clarifications floating about.
> Someone threatened to do something with Armour prices

I would like to raise a proposal to bring Geas into line with the rest of
the rules by changing the number 50 to 15.

Mandos
/s


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

> I would like to raise a proposal to bring Geas into line with the rest of
> the rules by changing the number 50 to 15.
>
> Mandos

Some one in the past probably put a 5 instead of  a 2
Making it 50 not the 20 that they intended.

Helen


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

Helen saggers wrote:

>Some one in the past probably put a 5 instead of  a 2
>Making it 50 not the 20 that they intended.
>
Possible, but the text of the spell which reads "A being with Rank 
greater than 50 with the geas spell has the power of full geas", implies 
that ranks greater than XX are not only possible but required for the 
effect.  Replacing 50 with 20 in the text makes little sense, (although 
I agree an accidental 5 instead of a 2 seems reasonable), whereas 
replacing 50 with 15 means that Ranks 16-20 provide Full Geas.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

> >Some one in the past probably put a 5 instead of  a 2
> >Making it 50 not the 20 that they intended.
> >
> Possible, but the text of the spell which reads "A being with Rank 
> greater than 50 with the geas spell has the power of full geas", implies 
> that ranks greater than XX are not only possible but required for the 
> effect.  Replacing 50 with 20 in the text makes little sense, (although 
> I agree an accidental 5 instead of a 2 seems reasonable), whereas 
> replacing 50 with 15 means that Ranks 16-20 provide Full Geas.

I was halfway through an Email when I saw this so to save time....

"Yeah, what he said"

Mandos
/s


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:mandos@iconz.net]
> Sent: Monday, 19 May 2003 4:09 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Adventures, Agenda Items...
> 
> 
> > There are one or two minor clarifications floating about.
> > Someone threatened to do something with Armour prices
> 
> I would like to raise a proposal to bring Geas into line with 
> the rest of
> the rules by changing the number 50 to 15.
> 
Do you intend to remove the bits about there not being a limit to rank of
Geas as well?

Per current Rulebook

6.3 "Rank 20 is the Maximum Rank achievable
with any Spell (except Geas)."

11.2
"There is no limit to the Rank of a geas."

"Full Geas 
A being with Rank greater than 50 with
the geas spell has the power of full geas. A full geas
can be placed upon a being without their consent,
though it can be passively resisted. Additionally, one
with the power of full geas may automatically remove
(without the support of a triangle and 12 hours of ritual)
a geas which is at least 5 Ranks less than their
Rank with the spell."


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

I'd like to point out that we aren't a religious order trying to deduce 
the One True Way, which is the Original Intent of the rules writers.  We 
can ignore whether the spell writeup makes more sense with "15" or "20" 
instead of "50", and do whatever we think will work best.

I am, however, curious:

>6.3 "Rank 20 is the Maximum Rank achievable
>with any Spell (except Geas)."
>
>11.2
>"There is no limit to the Rank of a geas."
>
>"Full Geas 
>A being with Rank greater than 50 with
>the geas spell has the power of full geas. A full geas
>can be placed upon a being without their consent,
>though it can be passively resisted. Additionally, one
>with the power of full geas may automatically remove
>(without the support of a triangle and 12 hours of ritual)
>a geas which is at least 5 Ranks less than their
>Rank with the spell."
>
Are these from The Old Testement (DQ II), or were they added by us to 
make sense of the 50 in Geas? If they are in DQ II, then it would appear 
that the Original Intent was indeed that it be unlimited in rank.

The bit about 'remove geas at least 5 ranks less' works well with 
getting full geas at 16 (and max rank is  the normal 20) - then 16 is 
also the lowest rank where it can't get easily removed by someone else.


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

I will be running an adventure:

Promises "Fencing,Fighting, Torture,Revenge,Giants, Bad Men, Best
Men,Monsters of all shapes and sizes, Chases, Escapes, True Love, Miricles."

An easy medium rare with extra toppings and side orders mission to retreive
2 objects and put them somewhere.

The employer will be Lady Nereth, Beautiful Daughter of The Great Wizard
Zarquon.

William


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

On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 16:50 Pacific/Auckland, Martin Dickson 
wrote:

> Helen saggers wrote:
>
>> Some one in the past probably put a 5 instead of  a 2
>> Making it 50 not the 20 that they intended.
>>
> Possible, but the text of the spell which reads "A being with Rank 
> greater than 50 with the geas spell has the power of full geas", 
> implies that ranks greater than XX are not only possible but required 
> for the effect.  Replacing 50 with 20 in the text makes little sense, 
> (although I agree an accidental 5 instead of a 2 seems reasonable), 
> whereas replacing 50 with 15 means that Ranks 16-20 provide Full Geas.

It is my opinion that normal mortals should not be able to get full 
geas. I would support capping it at rank 20 and requiring greater than 
rank 20 to do a full gaes. Sell you soul if you want it :-)

cheers,

clare


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

Just leave it the way it is.  It is one of many anomalies in the rules. 
 How many PC's have gaes even at rank 20?

If they want to spen time and xp ranking it to 50 good on them.

Scott Whitaker

Clare Baldock wrote:

>
> On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 16:50 Pacific/Auckland, Martin Dickson wrote:
>
>> Helen saggers wrote:
>>
>>> Some one in the past probably put a 5 instead of  a 2
>>> Making it 50 not the 20 that they intended.
>>>
>> Possible, but the text of the spell which reads "A being with Rank 
>> greater than 50 with the geas spell has the power of full geas", 
>> implies that ranks greater than XX are not only possible but required 
>> for the effect.  Replacing 50 with 20 in the text makes little sense, 
>> (although I agree an accidental 5 instead of a 2 seems reasonable), 
>> whereas replacing 50 with 15 means that Ranks 16-20 provide Full Geas.
>
>
> It is my opinion that normal mortals should not be able to get full 
> geas. I would support capping it at rank 20 and requiring greater than 
> rank 20 to do a full gaes. Sell you soul if you want it :-)
>
> cheers,
>
> clare
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


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