SubjectRe: [dq-announce] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03
FromErrol Cavit
DateFri, 19 Sep 2003 14:00:28 +1200
Dear All,

As the mover of the motion to remove Undetectability, I am making a
suggested correction to the latest minutes to accurately reflect what was
voted through. This is primarily to avoid any possibility of future
discussions on what was written vs what was meant at the time (unlike the
last 18 months :-)

> Seagate Adventurer Guild Meeting Minutes
> Spring '803
> 
> 
> 2) Indetectability. To be removed from the College. PCs may 
> have the option 
> of keeping their spell as a non-teachable unique spell or 
> respending the 
> EP. Passed (7/5/3)
> 

I've noticed that there is some scope for confusion in how this is recorded
in the minutes recently promulgated by Keith.

The rule change voted in was: 

"THAT Undetectability be removed from the College of Sorceries of the Mind."

Note that there is no need for the word 'to'. 
Our normal procedures for implementation of rules changes and transition
then apply. IE the removal is not officially in place until the next
rulebook production (although individual GM's may or may not play it). 

As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
specific mention? - I do not think so. We acknowledged that conversion may
mean that some characters retain it (or their own particular versions of it)
in a non-teachable form.

Cheers
Errol

PS I'll be back in contact next weekend - look for me at the Warrior's game.


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

SubjectRe: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03
FromKeith Smith
DateFri, 19 Sep 2003 15:44:06 +1200
>As the mover of the motion to remove Undetectability, I am making a
>suggested correction to the latest minutes to accurately reflect what was
>voted through. This is primarily to avoid any possibility of future
>discussions on what was written vs what was meant at the time (unlike the
>last 18 months :-)
> >
> > 2) Indetectability. To be removed from the College. PCs may
> > have the option
> > of keeping their spell as a non-teachable unique spell or
> > respending the
> > EP. Passed (7/5/3)
> >
>
>I've noticed that there is some scope for confusion in how this is recorded
>in the minutes recently promulgated by Keith.
>
>The rule change voted in was:
>
>"THAT Undetectability be removed from the College of Sorceries of the Mind."
>
>Note that there is no need for the word 'to'.
>Our normal procedures for implementation of rules changes and transition
>then apply. IE the removal is not officially in place until the next
>rulebook production (although individual GM's may or may not play it).
>
>As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
>specific mention? - I do not think so. We acknowledged that conversion may
>mean that some characters retain it (or their own particular versions of it)
>in a non-teachable form.

Minutes changed accordingly.

This is one reason why I post the minutes here, so that any mistakes like 
that can be caught and corrected. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Keith.


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

Subject[dq] Active Resistance vs Triggered Spells
FromStephen Martin
DateFri, 19 Sep 2003 16:22:12 +1200
Can you actively resist a triggered spell?

I think the reasonable answer is yes, but then technically
the BC of the invested item is fixed at time of creation and
only dice roll modifiers apply at time of triggering.  

Could you actively resist someone who is investing a spell
an cause them to create and invested item with a crap BC? 
Amusing but unreasonable I think.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

SubjectRe: [dq] Active Resistance vs Triggered Spells
Fromm.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz
DateFri, 19 Sep 2003 17:49:19 +1200
Quoting Stephen Martin <stephen_martin@clear.net.nz>:

> Can you actively resist a triggered spell?
> 
> I think the reasonable answer is yes, but then technically
> the BC of the invested item is fixed at time of creation and
> only dice roll modifiers apply at time of triggering.

As always, the question is what do we want & then to justify, or demolish 
(sorry,... edit) the rules to match what we desire.  I too lean towards feeling 
that it is reasonable.

By conincidence, my reading of the rules even permit this interpretation, see 
7.8: "Active Resistance
"An entity can choose to actively resist another entity.
When an entity attempts to cast OR TRIGGER a spell
which is actively resistible, then the highest Magic
Resistance of any target who is actively resisting the
entity is subtracted from the Cast Chance. ..."
[capitals mine]

So there is NO conlict with 7.13 [Investment] 
"Spells effects can often be stored in
items and at a later stage, be triggered. When a spell
is triggered, it is as if the Adept was there and had
just cast the spell (except the spell modifiers such as
base chance, range, etc, are fixed at the time of investment).
The entity triggering the spell gets to choose
the target(s) of the spell at the time of triggering and
maintain concentration spells."

if we reasonably assume that active resistance is NOT one of those "such 
as ...etc" factors.  However I would be happy if active resistance was 
explicitly permitted.  However if sufficient players think otherwise it should 
be explicitly excluded for the sake of clarity.






-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through University of Auckland
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/


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