>We may not have always handled masterworks well but the system does seem 
>to have worked OK-ish.
>
>Now... if I could only figure out what the $&%^ to do for Rk 10 Mech...

A workable launch vehicle for low Alusia orbit with less than a week's 
turnaround?


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

I agree with Clare that
*IFF* we want a generic rule then Rank 7 would be the best place for it.
That way a Mechanician's masterwork can be almost anything ... once you've
picked up enough subskills to make it  (e.g. SF know what his Masterwork was
going to be at Rank 4 ... & just as well, since it was going to need several
different extra subskills).  Incidentally we already have some skills that
may only be selected at Master level (e.g. experimental); I see no hassle
with most professional skills have several powerful, esoteric, expensive, or
dangerous subskills that may not be aquired by anyone under the rank of
Master.

However, I would prefer that for those professions with subskill structures
normally have most of their skills being able to be taught, without rank
limitations, to any Journeyman --  let's have SOME standards please.   Thus
a mediocre weaponsmith could make or repair almost any normal weapon ...
just not very well.  There will still be a market for high rank.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Clare Baldock
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2005 5:21 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10
>
>
> Hi,
>
> my thoughts are that while consistency is nice we don't need all skills
> to fit the same mold. Skills with many subskills suit allowing extra
> subskill purchase at lower ranks than those with fewer sub-skills in my
> opinion. Rank 7 is what I consider a very skilled journeyman, and they
> should be able to gain the vast majority of the subskills by that stage
> if desired.
>
> If you want a one size fits all solution then I vote for making the
> rank 7, but I also am quite comfortable with a solution that treats
> skills individually.
>
> cheers,
>
> clare
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

> >Now... if I could only figure out what the $&%^ to do for Rk 
> 10 Mech...
> 
> A workable launch vehicle for low Alusia orbit with less than 
> a week's turnaround?

It would have to be done twice in a 2 week period to count :-)

Mandos
/s


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5827A.99416D30
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

We already have this for some skills (Mechanician springs to mind).
We should look over the other skills for sub-skills that should get the same
treatment (while we are looking at them all anyway).


Ian, I'm unsure what you mean by "Many may be generic." Could you expand
please?

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:05
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Master sub-skills (was) purchase of extra 
> subskills below
> Rank 10
> 
> 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> i have read and agreed with all the posts todate. 
> 
> i would like to offer an amendment / augmentation ?
> 
> There are subskills that might reasonably be restricted to 
> masters in a skill (ie Rank 8+)
> 
> Many may be generic. some would be specific to that skill, eg 
> Mithril armour for armourer.
> 
> so you can choose from all non-master subskills when Rank 7-, 
> and can (under this proposal) choose more subskills are Rank 
> 7 (for a given ep and time cost). Then at Rank 8+ more 
> subskills become available, and can (under this proposal) 
> acquire more subskills if already at Rank 10.
> 
> small change that may make Rank 8 quite desirable for some 
> characters and boring for others.
> 
> Ian
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5827A.99416D30
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Master sub-skills (was) purchase of extra subskills =
below Rank 10</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We already have this for some skills (Mechanician =
springs to mind).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>We should look over the other skills for sub-skills =
that should get the same treatment (while we are looking at them all =
anyway).</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ian, I'm unsure what you mean by &quot;Many may be =
generic.&quot; Could you expand please?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz">mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</A>]</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:05</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: [dq] Master sub-skills (was) purchase =
of extra </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; subskills below</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Rank 10</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; hi all,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; i have read and agreed with all the posts =
todate. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; i would like to offer an amendment / =
augmentation ?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; There are subskills that might reasonably be =
restricted to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; masters in a skill (ie Rank 8+)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Many may be generic. some would be specific to =
that skill, eg </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Mithril armour for armourer.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; so you can choose from all non-master subskills =
when Rank 7-, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and can (under this proposal) choose more =
subskills are Rank </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 7 (for a given ep and time cost). Then at Rank =
8+ more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; subskills become available, and can (under this =
proposal) </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; acquire more subskills if already at Rank =
10.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; small change that may make Rank 8 quite =
desirable for some </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; characters and boring for others.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Ian</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5827A.99416D30--


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

Many things

1) The sap as a weapon is completly unplayable. By this, I mean that it
cannot be used by me against a party.
As the rules stand if an assassian makes his stealth roll and gets past the
PCs on watch it's a quick round of sapping, followed by some rolling up of
new PCs. To add further insult to injury at no point in this scenario does a
player get to roll any dice.

Sapping is also largely untenable as a Player since the one-shot, you're out
nature of it destroys tension. GMs don't like you using sap (how else to
explain the profusion of sap immune wierdness).

I propose that when sapped an entity gets a EN check to resist being knocked
out. The check should be x3 for a normal blow, x2 for a EN blow and x1 for a
poss spec grev. There is a -5 to the chance for each point of effective
damage done and saps only ever do FT damage when going for a KO. This gives
sneaky assassian types greater proficiency with the sap due to their bonuses
to inflict SGs and do extra damage from behind/unawares. It also removes the
need for the 'hard hat' idiocy as better protection moves the damage
modifier down. You may want to give a bonus for feeble sappings that don't
even do effective damage.

EG Nasty Ned sneaks up on Bold Boris and saps him. Ned is only a Rk1
Assassian and so rolls D+2 for damage. Rolling a '1', Ned inflicts a
pathetic 3 points of damage on the Plate armoured Boris (Pr 8). Boris gets
to roll under x3 EN + 25 to stay concious [(8-3) x 5]. He then beans Ned
with his Hand and a half as way of remonstration.

Later on Ned (who somehow survived Boris' rebuke) smacks Snot the Goblin (Pr
3) with his sap. This time he rolls a '10' inflicting 12 points of damage on
Snot's noggin. Snot has to roll x3 EN - 45 to stay alert. Since 45 is more
than three times Snot's EN he loses all his lert.

The other bonus to this is that it makes a garrotte a viable choice as a
weapon. With a sap you have a chance of your victim going 'OW!' and then
tearing you a new one. With a garrotte they can't cry out if you hit.

Going for KO's with normal weapons should also give a EN check along the
same lines. And the chance could be higher say 50% of SC rather than 15%.

2) I'ld like pole arms to be able to make 'extended strikes' at say -20 to
SC. An extended strike allows the character to strike one hex further than
the melee zone. Also, if a polearm wielder is charged and they have not
moved they get to strike at +20.

This is to give polearms some of their traditional bonuses. It allows
guard/militia types to fight in formations and gives them a reason to do so.
Pikes become a fearsome weapon, allowing up to three ranks of fighters to
engage.

3) Flails and morningstars should ignore shields. Just to give people a
reason to use them in game. Otherwise why not use the axe? If flail weapons
defeat shields then in this case they are better weapons than the axe and
bastard sword. Making choices in battle, moving about and actually having to
think must make the game more interesting, and fun.

4) Quickness. It's a fucking mess at run time. People miss their actions,
get confused as to which half of the pulse your in and in general annoy the
hell out of me. Also where do non-quickened have their actions? I hate it.

I propose that quickness does not give you two actions a pulse. You get to
do your action more quickly.
Quicked entities get the following bonuses:
i) 10 (+1/rank) to initiative
ii) TMR is doubled.
iii) For every 5 full ranks an entity may add another hex of movement to
melee attack, engaged evade, offensive/defensive withdraw, engaged pass,
withdraw from close, step+attack, retreat, pass, unengaged throw/fire x-bow.
iv) For every 5 full ranks an entity gets a +1 to parry calculations.

Conversly slowness
i) Lose 10 (+1/rank) to initiative (half effect if resisted)
ii) TMR is halved.
iii) For every 10 full ranks an entity loses 1 hex (to min of 0 meaning you
don't move much)
iv) For every 5 full ranks an entity gets -1 to parry calculations.

This moves quickness from the status of 'absolutly must have, else we're
boned' to useful. It gives E+Es a choice of what to cast in a fight other
than chaining quickness for their first few actions. Slowness is changed
because losing actions is also a pain to remember, bad guys always
convieniently resisting and it's annoying.

5) Namers can DA as a free action. They're gods. Deal with it.

6) A mount may use the MR of it's rider and vice versa. Yes, I'm perfectly
aware of the CS implications but this is supposed to be a fantasy game where
knights were bold. But no-one rides horses except at very low levels. This
change gives mounted combat a clear quantifiable edge and may make it
attractive to PCs to explore the option of being a mounted warrior.
Currently there is no sane reason for such. May also explain why dragons are
occasionally seen with some metal dude on their back.


All these suggestions are to increase options in combat, making the game
more fun and interesting. More options also gives more variety in character
types away from the standard axe wielding 'pure' mage and bastard sword
wielding non-mage.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C582EB.803F6190
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK)



>I agree with Martin. I suggest that we also briefly check for
inconsistencies between ep / time values. E.g. Armourer costs >10,000ep per
extra subskill, but Troubadour cost 500ep per subskill.

 

 I  also note that the Troubadour list extra sub skills at 500 ep and 2 wks
training where as Armouer & Weaponsmith are just 10,000 ep no time
requirement. (I think there should be at least 4 wks)

 

My though is that the huge cost of extra Armourer or Weaponsmith sub skills
is to limit the numbers of rank 10 weapons or armour in play. 

E.g. you can make Metal armours with either Mithril or plate II at rank 8,
both at rank 10. (But not if you take leather as a subskill). You can get
dragon skin by rank 6 pick up chain at rank 8 and Mithril at 10 but have no
plate. And 10,000 a pop when you may need 2 or more subskills make a nice
limiter.

If we do allow subskills from 7 we would only get rank 7 suits of armour and
although we may chose to drop the ep cost if we add a bigish time
requirement it will still work as a limit on high rank armour.

 

If like I suggested last night the cost and time is the same as rank 7

Armourer and weaponsmith would be 7300ep and 7 wks, down 2700 on ep but up 7
wks on time

Beastmaster 7350ep plus training time, up 4850 ep and 7 wks but we can
discount for ranks 8+ say 1500 ep and 2 wks per rank.

Courtier 2800ep plus training time, up 2300 ep and 5 wks, but we discount
750ep and 2 wks per rank for 8+

Mechanicaian 7000 ep plus training time, up 5500ep and 3 wks, discount 1800
ep and a wk.

Merchant 4200 ep plus training time, up 2700 ep and 7 wks, discount 900 ep
and 2 wks

Mil sci  4150 ep plus training, up 2650ep and 3 wks, discount 900 ep and a
wk.

Philosopher, keep the current costs for new realms fields and sub fields

Ranger 7350 ep plus training, up 4350 ep and 3 wks, discount 1450 ep and a
wk.

Spy 6600 ep plus training, up 6100 and 5 wks, discount 2000 and 2 wks

Troubadour 2800 ep plus training, up 2300 ep and 5 wks, discount 750 ep and
2 wks.

Thief 10,250 ep plus training, up 9,250 ep and 5 wks, discount 3000 ep and 2
wks. 

 

Thief is the only really far out one in terms of ep cost etc but we could
just set a straight ep and or time cost for it as its getting a major review
/ rebuild. The greater time ep cost with discount I'm suggesting is so that
those currently with rank 10 in say Courtier or Mechanician still have an
advantage for having gone that far. Using the rank 7 cost just seemed a good
bench mark from which to start reviewing costs.

 

Helen

 

 

 

 

 

 


------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C582EB.803F6190
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<title>Message</title>
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> =
Andrew Withy
(DSL AK)<br>
<br>
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>&gt;</span></font><font size=3D2 =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>I agree with Martin. I =
suggest that
we also briefly check for inconsistencies between ep / time values. E.g.
Armourer costs <font color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy'>&gt;</span></font>10,000ep
per extra subskill, but Troubadour cost 500ep per =
subskill.</span></font><font
color=3Dnavy><span style=3D'color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>&nbsp;<font color=3Dnavy><span style=3D'color:navy'>I&nbsp; also =
note that
the Troubadour list extra sub skills at 500 ep and 2 wks training where =
as Armouer
&amp; Weaponsmith are just 10,000 ep no time requirement. (I think there =
should
be at least 4 wks)</span></font><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>My though is that the huge cost of =
extra
Armourer or Weaponsmith sub skills is to limit the numbers of rank 10 =
weapons
or armour in play. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>E.g. you can make Metal armours =
with
either Mithril or plate II at rank 8, both at rank 10. (But not if you =
take leather
as a subskill). You can get dragon skin by rank 6 pick up chain at rank =
8 and
Mithril at 10 but have no plate. And 10,000 a pop when you may need 2 or =
more
subskills make a nice limiter.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If we do allow subskills from 7 we =
would
only get rank 7 suits of armour and although we may chose to drop the ep =
cost
if we add a bigish time requirement it will still work as a limit on =
high rank
armour.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If like I suggested last night the =
cost
and time is the same as rank 7<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Armourer and weaponsmith would be =
7300ep
and 7 wks, down 2700 on ep but up 7 wks on =
time<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Beastmaster 7350ep plus training =
time, up 4850
ep and 7 wks but we can discount for ranks 8+ say 1500 ep and 2 wks per =
rank.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Courtier 2800ep plus training time, =
up
2300 ep and 5 wks, but we discount 750ep and 2 wks per rank for =
8+<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Mechanicaian 7000 ep plus training =
time,
up 5500ep and 3 wks, discount 1800 ep and a =
wk.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Merchant 4200 ep plus training =
time, up 2700
ep and 7 wks, discount 900 ep and 2 wks<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Mil sci &nbsp;4150 ep plus =
training, up
2650ep and 3 wks, discount 900 ep and a wk.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Philosopher, keep the current costs =
for
new realms fields and sub fields<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Ranger 7350 ep plus training, up =
4350 ep
and 3 wks, discount 1450 ep and a wk.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Spy 6600 ep plus training, up 6100 =
and 5
wks, discount 2000 and 2 wks<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Troubadour 2800 ep plus training, =
up 2300
ep and 5 wks, discount 750 ep and 2 wks.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thief 10,250 ep plus training, up =
9,250 ep
and 5 wks, discount 3000 ep and 2 wks. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thief is the only really far out =
one in
terms of ep cost etc but we could just set a straight ep and or time =
cost for
it as its getting a major review / rebuild. The greater time ep cost =
with discount
I&#8217;m suggesting is so that those currently with rank 10 in say =
Courtier or
Mechanician still have an advantage for having gone that far. Using the =
rank 7
cost just seemed a good bench mark from which to start reviewing =
costs.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Helen<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C582EB.803F6190--


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

Summary of feedback appears to be:

1) General agreement with the idea that extra sub-skills should be able 
to be learnt at a Rank below 10.
2) Rank 7 appears the most supported break point for adding sub-skills 
-- although an even lower breakpoint would be entertained by some.
3) Some sub-skills may be restricted to specific/higher/master Ranks 
(e.g. Mithril armour, Experimental Engineering).

Based on this feedback (and please tell me if you think I've 
misunderstood / am misrepresenting the general response), I plan to go 
through each of the applicable skills (those that have sub-skills of 
this nature) and prepare a brief statement / proposal for each in line 
with the 3 statements above.

I think this will make it easy to discuss / argue only the difficult / 
contentious cases.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

> >Now... if I could only figure out what the $&%^ to do for Rk 
> 10 Mech...

Seriously a weapon of mass destruction would be the ticket.
Anyone for a dip in lake Masada ? :)

Ingredients
Dark sphere, Light Sphere, Strange metal, helm of a void cruiser,
some raw chaos, a tentacle from the unnamed horror and the runes of
destruction
OH ! and a big red button !!

Cheers Noel


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

Noel Livingston (DSL AK) wrote:

>Seriously a weapon of mass destruction would be the ticket.
>Anyone for a dip in lake Masada ? :)
>
>Ingredients
>Dark sphere, Light Sphere, Strange metal, helm of a void cruiser,
>some raw chaos, a tentacle from the unnamed horror and the runes of
>destruction
>OH ! and a big red button !!
>  
>
Ah yes... and a pilot.  Volunteers?  :-)

BTW, your ingredient list makes for one hell of a scavenger hunt. :-)

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

My immediate reaction to this proposal is that the casting of spells
while under the effect of quickness/slowness hasn't been addressed.
Have you any thoughts (that are printable) about this William?

Sally
-----


4) Quickness. It's a fucking mess at run time. People miss their
actions, get confused as to which half of the pulse your in and in
general annoy the hell out of me. Also where do non-quickened have their
actions? I hate it.

I propose that quickness does not give you two actions a pulse. You get
to do your action more quickly. Quicked entities get the following
bonuses:
i) 10 (+1/rank) to initiative
ii) TMR is doubled.
iii) For every 5 full ranks an entity may add another hex of movement to
melee attack, engaged evade, offensive/defensive withdraw, engaged pass,
withdraw from close, step+attack, retreat, pass, unengaged throw/fire
x-bow.
iv) For every 5 full ranks an entity gets a +1 to parry calculations.

Conversly slowness
i) Lose 10 (+1/rank) to initiative (half effect if resisted)
ii) TMR is halved.
iii) For every 10 full ranks an entity loses 1 hex (to min of 0 meaning
you don't move much)
iv) For every 5 full ranks an entity gets -1 to parry calculations.

This moves quickness from the status of 'absolutly must have, else we're
boned' to useful. It gives E+Es a choice of what to cast in a fight
other than chaining quickness for their first few actions. Slowness is
changed because losing actions is also a pain to remember, bad guys
always convieniently resisting and it's annoying.
#####################################################################################
Attention:
The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.
#####################################################################################


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

Look guys, Mortimer does not need encouraging  ...
Sally

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:09 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] WMD


Noel Livingston (DSL AK) wrote:

>Seriously a weapon of mass destruction would be the ticket. Anyone for 
>a dip in lake Masada ? :)
>
>Ingredients
>Dark sphere, Light Sphere, Strange metal, helm of a void cruiser, some 
>raw chaos, a tentacle from the unnamed horror and the runes of 
>destruction OH ! and a big red button !!
>  
>
Ah yes... and a pilot.  Volunteers?  :-)

BTW, your ingredient list makes for one hell of a scavenger hunt. :-)

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
#####################################################################################
Attention:
The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.
#####################################################################################


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

Helen Saggers wrote:

> Using the rank 7 cost just seemed a good bench mark from which to 
> start reviewing costs.
>
Gaining Rk 7 (from 6) grants an improvement with a character's skill 
overall, an improvement with any subskills already held, and may grant 
an additional subskill that will operate at Rk 7.

Learning an additional subskill (while remaining Rank 7) grants an 
additional subskill but increases neither the skill overall nor the 
level of any subskill already held.

This would tend to suggest to me that the value of an additional 
subskill gained at Rk is usually less than that of moving from Rk 6 to Rk 7.

I do agree that some of the costs for extra subskill are too low 
(especially if we drop the requrement from Rk 10 to Rk 7), but I think 
that (generally) the costs you have listed are a bit high.  This does 
not mean that we shouldn't use them as a bench mark... just that perhaps 
generally they should be trending down somewhat from there.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

>BTW, your ingredient list makes for one hell of a scavenger hunt. :-)

They're all availiable at the guild. Well, the vaults.

William


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

My immediate reaction to this proposal is that the casting of spells
while under the effect of quickness/slowness hasn't been addressed.
Have you any thoughts (that are printable) about this William?

Sally
-----

You get one action a pulse. It takes two actions to fire of a spell (unless
of course you are a namer, but they're gods).
You get to complete each action quickly which is enough in itself.
Therefore, it takes two pulses.

William


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

> 1) The sap as a weapon is completly unplayable. 
> 
> I propose that when sapped an entity gets a EN check to 
> resist being knocked out. The check should be x3 for a normal 
> blow, x2 for a EN blow and x1 for a poss spec grev. There is 
> a -5 to the chance for each point of effective damage done 
> and saps only ever do FT damage when going for a KO. 

I like this and think it is a pretty elegent solution. I particularly
like the fact that you don't have to worry about the helmets which is
always annoying. 

> 2) I'd like pole arms to be able to make 'extended strikes' 
> at say -20 to SC. An extended strike allows the character to 
> strike one hex further than the melee zone. Also, if a 
> polearm wielder is charged and they have not moved they get 
> to strike at +20.

It would be interesting to see how this changes the combat dynamic. I
cannot see it breaking anything. Definatly good to see more variation in
the weapons. 

> 3) Flails and morningstars should ignore shields. 

Interesting, I like the idea, would be a good one to playtest though as
I just have a feeling with this one thare is a problem I cannot put my
finger on :-)

> 4) Quickness. People miss 
> their actions, get confused as to which half of the pulse 
> your in and in general annoy the hell out of me. Also where 
> do non-quickened have their actions? I hate it.

I am not so sure on this one. My preference is simply to change the
sequence. In big combats I move to everyone taking one action and then
quickened people taking a second action. Cleans things up a bit and
stops the pulse getting to segmented. I am also unkeen on anything that
adds more calculation to the combat. Many players have trouble with the
calculations currently required. 

> 5) Namers can DA as a free action. They're gods. Deal with it.

Disagree. Namers are damn powerful as they are and DA is overused and
too cheap.

> 6) A mount may use the MR of it's rider and vice versa. 

Can't see major issues but MR is not the reason players use wings rather
than a horse. The reason for wings is the speed of getting from place to
place. If wings went at 5 miles an hour people would ride. Basically I
cannot see tha change making any difference to the game but no problems
with the change itself. 

Mandos
/s


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5828E.464DD500
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

At least some of them gained on an adventure entitled 'Weapon of Magical
Devastation' from Summer '03

Tips for success, Autumn '03
"Don't assume that the first Major Undead that you come across who is trying
to take over the world is the target of the mission, even if they do fit the
description given."

Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Dymock [mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:40
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] WMD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >BTW, your ingredient list makes for one hell of a scavenger hunt. :-)
> 
> They're all availiable at the guild. Well, the vaults.
> 
> William
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5828E.464DD500
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] WMD</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At least some of them gained on an adventure entitled =
'Weapon of Magical Devastation' from Summer '03</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Tips for success, Autumn '03</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;Don't assume that the first Major Undead that =
you come across who is trying to take over the world is the target of =
the mission, even if they do fit the description =
given.&quot;</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: William Dymock [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz</A>]</FONT>=

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:40</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] WMD</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;BTW, your ingredient list makes for one =
hell of a scavenger hunt. :-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; They're all availiable at the guild. Well, the =
vaults.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; William</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5828E.464DD500--


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58291.07F9FE20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10
> 
> 
> Summary of feedback appears to be:
> 
> 1) General agreement with the idea that extra sub-skills 
> should be able 
> to be learnt at a Rank below 10.
> 2) Rank 7 appears the most supported break point for adding 
> sub-skills 
> -- although an even lower breakpoint would be entertained by some.
> 3) Some sub-skills may be restricted to specific/higher/master Ranks 
> (e.g. Mithril armour, Experimental Engineering).
> 
> Based on this feedback (and please tell me if you think I've 
> misunderstood / am misrepresenting the general response), I 
> plan to go 
> through each of the applicable skills (those that have sub-skills of 
> this nature) and prepare a brief statement / proposal for 
> each in line 
> with the 3 statements above.
> 
> I think this will make it easy to discuss / argue only the 
> difficult / 
> contentious cases.
> 

This will be very useful, thanks.
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58291.07F9FE20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Martin Dickson [<A HREF="mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com">mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:00</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Summary of feedback appears to be:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; 1) General agreement with the idea that extra sub-skills </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; should be able </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; to be learnt at a Rank below 10.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; 2) Rank 7 appears the most supported break point for adding </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; sub-skills </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -- although an even lower breakpoint would be entertained by some.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; 3) Some sub-skills may be restricted to specific/higher/master Ranks </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; (e.g. Mithril armour, Experimental Engineering).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Based on this feedback (and please tell me if you think I've </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; misunderstood / am misrepresenting the general response), I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; plan to go </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; through each of the applicable skills (those that have sub-skills of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; this nature) and prepare a brief statement / proposal for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; each in line </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; with the 3 statements above.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; I think this will make it easy to discuss / argue only the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; difficult / </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; contentious cases.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>This will be very useful, thanks.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C58291.07F9FE20--


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

Quickness as it is seems to be a disjunction from the rest of the rules
about speed.

For example if you have an AG of 3 and TMR 1 quickness gives you a second
action.  Same as if you have an AG of 26 and a free pass action each pulse
etc. 

It makes more sense to me, for all speed related things to increase the same
ways so that the spell enhances natural ability.

I like the move away from magics which create a different class of players
(permanent greaters was like this in my mind also).

Hamish Brown
Director

Zenergy
Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world
119 Mt Eden Rd,
Auckland
www.zenergyglobal.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:52 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Hitting people for fun and, more fun.

> 1) The sap as a weapon is completly unplayable. 
> 
> I propose that when sapped an entity gets a EN check to 
> resist being knocked out. The check should be x3 for a normal 
> blow, x2 for a EN blow and x1 for a poss spec grev. There is 
> a -5 to the chance for each point of effective damage done 
> and saps only ever do FT damage when going for a KO. 

I like this and think it is a pretty elegent solution. I particularly
like the fact that you don't have to worry about the helmets which is
always annoying. 

> 2) I'd like pole arms to be able to make 'extended strikes' 
> at say -20 to SC. An extended strike allows the character to 
> strike one hex further than the melee zone. Also, if a 
> polearm wielder is charged and they have not moved they get 
> to strike at +20.

It would be interesting to see how this changes the combat dynamic. I
cannot see it breaking anything. Definatly good to see more variation in
the weapons. 

> 3) Flails and morningstars should ignore shields. 

Interesting, I like the idea, would be a good one to playtest though as
I just have a feeling with this one thare is a problem I cannot put my
finger on :-)

> 4) Quickness. People miss 
> their actions, get confused as to which half of the pulse 
> your in and in general annoy the hell out of me. Also where 
> do non-quickened have their actions? I hate it.

I am not so sure on this one. My preference is simply to change the
sequence. In big combats I move to everyone taking one action and then
quickened people taking a second action. Cleans things up a bit and
stops the pulse getting to segmented. I am also unkeen on anything that
adds more calculation to the combat. Many players have trouble with the
calculations currently required. 

> 5) Namers can DA as a free action. They're gods. Deal with it.

Disagree. Namers are damn powerful as they are and DA is overused and
too cheap.

> 6) A mount may use the MR of it's rider and vice versa. 

Can't see major issues but MR is not the reason players use wings rather
than a horse. The reason for wings is the speed of getting from place to
place. If wings went at 5 miles an hour people would ride. Basically I
cannot see tha change making any difference to the game but no problems
with the change itself. 

Mandos
/s


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

I like the proposed rule.  Having played a life-aspected asparagus , I've
discovered that the response to the rules as currently in play is ... Darn
this using a sap, even at maximum rank: go for a knockout blow with a REAL
weapon (e.g. unarmed) the chance is usually much higher.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:52 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Hitting people for fun and, more fun.
>
>
> > 1) The sap as a weapon is completly unplayable.
> >
> > I propose that when sapped an entity gets a EN check to
> > resist being knocked out. The check should be x3 for a normal
> > blow, x2 for a EN blow and x1 for a poss spec grev. There is
> > a -5 to the chance for each point of effective damage done
> > and saps only ever do FT damage when going for a KO.
>
> I like this and think it is a pretty elegent solution. I particularly
> like the fact that you don't have to worry about the helmets which is
> always annoying.


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

Michael Parkinson wrote:

>I like the proposed rule.
>
>>Mandos Mitchinson
>>    
>>
>> I like this and think it is a pretty elegent solution. I particularly
>>
>>like the fact that you don't have to worry about the helmets which is
>>always annoying.
>>    
>>
Err... Are we seriously considering it a good idea that a leather bag 
with shot in it should fell plate helmed targets?

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58296.07021750
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:01
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10



 

From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK)



>I agree with Martin. I suggest that we also briefly check for
inconsistencies between ep / time values. E.g. Armourer costs >10,000ep per
extra subskill, but Troubadour cost 500ep per subskill.

 

 I  also note that the Troubadour list extra sub skills at 500 ep and 2 wks
training where as Armouer & Weaponsmith are just 10,000 ep no time
requirement. (I think there should be at least 4 wks)

 

My though is that the huge cost of extra Armourer or Weaponsmith sub skills
is to limit the numbers of rank 10 weapons or armour in play. 

E.g. you can make Metal armours with either Mithril or plate II at rank 8,
both at rank 10. (But not if you take leather as a subskill). You can get
dragon skin by rank 6 pick up chain at rank 8 and Mithril at 10 but have no
plate. And 10,000 a pop when you may need 2 or more subskills make a nice
limiter.

If we do allow subskills from 7 we would only get rank 7 suits of armour and
although we may chose to drop the ep cost if we add a bigish time
requirement it will still work as a limit on high rank armour.

 

If like I suggested last night the cost and time is the same as rank 7

 

 

The relative benefits in getting an extra sub-skill vs an extra rank vary
from skill to skill. I doubt that such a fixed relationship with the cost of
gaining a rank will give results that seem reasonable when you compare
skills. I agree with Martin that the benefits of additional sub-skills will
tend to be lower than the rank just gained.

The time taken would seem to vary even more.

 

Errol

 Armourer and weaponsmith would be 7300ep and 7 wks, down 2700 on ep but up
7 wks on time

Beastmaster 7350ep plus training time, up 4850 ep and 7 wks but we can
discount for ranks 8+ say 1500 ep and 2 wks per rank.

Courtier 2800ep plus training time, up 2300 ep and 5 wks, but we discount
750ep and 2 wks per rank for 8+

Mechanicaian 7000 ep plus training time, up 5500ep and 3 wks, discount 1800
ep and a wk.

Merchant 4200 ep plus training time, up 2700 ep and 7 wks, discount 900 ep
and 2 wks

Mil sci  4150 ep plus training, up 2650ep and 3 wks, discount 900 ep and a
wk.

Philosopher, keep the current costs for new realms fields and sub fields

Ranger 7350 ep plus training, up 4350 ep and 3 wks, discount 1450 ep and a
wk.

Spy 6600 ep plus training, up 6100 and 5 wks, discount 2000 and 2 wks

Troubadour 2800 ep plus training, up 2300 ep and 5 wks, discount 750 ep and
2 wks.

Thief 10,250 ep plus training, up 9,250 ep and 5 wks, discount 3000 ep and 2
wks. 

 

Thief is the only really far out one in terms of ep cost etc but we could
just set a straight ep and or time cost for it as its getting a major review
/ rebuild. The greater time ep cost with discount I'm suggesting is so that
those currently with rank 10 in say Courtier or Mechanician still have an
advantage for having gone that far. Using the rank 7 cost just seemed a good
bench mark from which to start reviewing costs.

 

Helen

 

 

 

 

 

 


------_=_NextPart_001_01C58296.07021750
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o = 
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = 
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
	font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
	FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
	COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
	COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
	COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
DIV.Section1 {
	page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Helen Saggers 
  [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 7 July 2005 
  12:01<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] purchase of 
  extra subskills below Rank 10<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV class=Section1>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT 
  face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"> Andrew 
  Withy (DSL AK)<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
  <DIV class=Section1>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">&gt;</SPAN></FONT><FONT 
  face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I agree 
  with Martin. I suggest that we also briefly check for inconsistencies between 
  ep / time values. E.g. Armourer costs <FONT color=navy><SPAN 
  style="COLOR: navy">&gt;</SPAN></FONT>10,000ep per extra subskill, but 
  Troubadour cost 500ep per subskill.</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
  style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
  <DIV class=Section1>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
  <DIV class=Section1>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;<FONT color=navy><SPAN 
  style="COLOR: navy">I&nbsp; also note that the Troubadour list extra sub 
  skills at 500 ep and 2 wks training where as Armouer &amp; Weaponsmith are 
  just 10,000 ep no time requirement. (I think there should be at least 4 
  wks)</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
  <DIV class=Section1>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">My though is that the 
  huge cost of extra Armourer or Weaponsmith sub skills is to limit the numbers 
  of rank 10 weapons or armour in play. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">E.g. you can make 
  Metal armours with either Mithril or plate II at rank 8, both at rank 10. (But 
  not if you take leather as a subskill). You can get dragon skin by rank 6 pick 
  up chain at rank 8 and Mithril at 10 but have no plate. And 10,000 a pop when 
  you may need 2 or more subskills make a nice 
  limiter.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If we do allow 
  subskills from 7 we would only get rank 7 suits of armour and although we may 
  chose to drop the ep cost if we add a bigish time requirement it will still 
  work as a limit on high rank armour.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If like I suggested 
  last night the cost and time is the same as rank 
7<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
  class=859100201-07072005><FONT 
  color=#0000ff>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
  class=859100201-07072005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal dir=ltr><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
class=859100201-07072005>The relative benefits in getting an extra sub-skill vs 
an extra rank vary from skill to skill. I doubt that such a fixed relationship 
with the cost of gaining a rank will give results that seem reasonable when you 
compare skills. I agree with Martin that the benefits of additional sub-skills 
will tend to be lower than the rank just gained.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal dir=ltr><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
class=859100201-07072005>The time taken would seem to vary even 
more.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal dir=ltr><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
class=859100201-07072005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</P>
<P class=MsoNormal dir=ltr><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
class=859100201-07072005>Errol</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT color=navy><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN 
  class=859100201-07072005>&nbsp;</SPAN>Armourer and weaponsmith would be 7300ep 
  and 7 wks, down 2700 on ep but up 7 wks on time<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Beastmaster 7350ep 
  plus training time, up 4850 ep and 7 wks but we can discount for ranks 8+ say 
  1500 ep and 2 wks per rank.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Courtier 2800ep plus 
  training time, up 2300 ep and 5 wks, but we discount 750ep and 2 wks per rank 
  for 8+<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mechanicaian 7000 ep 
  plus training time, up 5500ep and 3 wks, discount 1800 ep and a 
  wk.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Merchant 4200 ep plus 
  training time, up 2700 ep and 7 wks, discount 900 ep and 2 
  wks<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mil sci &nbsp;4150 ep 
  plus training, up 2650ep and 3 wks, discount 900 ep and a 
  wk.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Philosopher, keep the 
  current costs for new realms fields and sub 
fields<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Ranger 7350 ep plus 
  training, up 4350 ep and 3 wks, discount 1450 ep and a 
  wk.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Spy 6600 ep plus 
  training, up 6100 and 5 wks, discount 2000 and 2 
  wks<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Troubadour 2800 ep 
  plus training, up 2300 ep and 5 wks, discount 750 ep and 2 
  wks.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thief 10,250 ep plus 
  training, up 9,250 ep and 5 wks, discount 3000 ep and 2 wks. 
  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Thief is the only 
  really far out one in terms of ep cost etc but we could just set a straight ep 
  and or time cost for it as its getting a major review / rebuild. The greater 
  time ep cost with discount I'm suggesting is so that those currently with rank 
  10 in say Courtier or Mechanician still have an advantage for having gone that 
  far. Using the rank 7 cost just seemed a good bench mark from which to start 
  reviewing costs.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Helen<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
  <P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C58296.07021750--


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

Knocking out a plate helmed target with a fist is ~ 20% chance 

Strike Chance 150% - low Def ~20%) * 15% = 20%

Why shouldn't lead shot give you a couple of percent more?

Or are the knockout rules just silly (!)

Andrew
-----Original Message-----

Err... Are we seriously considering it a good idea that a leather bag 
with shot in it should fell plate helmed targets?

-- 
Martin Dickson


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

> >> I like this and think it is a pretty elegent solution. I particularly
> >>
> >>like the fact that you don't have to worry about the helmets which is
> >>always annoying.
> >>
> >>
> Err... Are we seriously considering it a good idea that a leather bag
> with shot in it should fell plate helmed targets?

Well if they make an endurance or critical roll -- definitely!  Not
*entirely* certain about an ordinary blow ... but I was reading the Example

> Rolling a '1', Ned inflicts a
> pathetic 3 points of damage on the Plate armoured Boris (Pr 8). Boris gets
> to roll under x3 EN + 25 to stay concious [(8-3) x 5]. He then beans Ned
> with his Hand and a half as way of remonstration.

I'm not certain that the modifier of [only] -5 per point is fair -- remember
that an Ass operating in ideal condition gets to add more damage onto his
attack roll.  Yet current rules say ANY effective damage by an Ass makes the
victim uncoscious (*provided* victim is weraring appropriate head gear).

Simple point: do we want non-leathal ways of subduing persons not
sufficiently alert?    I'd say yes, although the numbers would have to be
reasonable.


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

> I'm not certain that the modifier of [only] -5 per point is 
> fair -- remember that an Ass operating in ideal condition 
> gets to add more damage onto his attack roll.  Yet current 
> rules say ANY effective damage by an Ass makes the victim 
> uncoscious (*provided* victim is weraring appropriate head gear).

I realised after reading Andrews post I forgot to make it "I like the
rule...the numbers may need to be tweaked...but the rule seems like a
really good solution."

Mandos
/s


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

Err... Are we seriously considering it a good idea that a leather bag
with shot in it should fell plate helmed targets?


A leather bag with shot in it wielded by a master assassian, sure.
Sap does D+1, Heavy plate is Pr9. Plate wearers typically have good EN (18).

A whack from a low rank (2) assassian will do on average 8 damage.
This gives our putive whackee a EN check of 3 x 18 + 5 = 59 percent chance
to not be KOed.
At rank 6 the damge becomes 12 and our victims chances drop to 39 percent
At rank ten, it's a whopping 16 and the chance is still a meausrable 19
percent.
And that's without the greater's and boosted EN at high levels.

In these cases it's best to use a garrote to be sure.

William


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

In response to Mandos

Polearms.

It will make cheap militia (spear, light armour, shield) more of a threat.
It will make super heavy infantry (full plate, pike or glaive) feared. PC
fighters may actually start actually coordinating with AG fighters covering
heavy hitters just behind them.

Flails

Chain weapons have good to excellent strike values and the morning-star is
comparable to the battle-axe with higher stat requirements and no multi-hex.
Giving it a bonus against shields makes it a viable option for players to
lug about and use.
Got some thugs in shields or some MG fop prancing about? Use your chain-mace
to methodically slaughter them or give that courtier respect for his
betters. Save your axe or crusader sword for rabble.

The idea is to give every weapon attractive qualities.
Maces/clubs are easy to use and you have a huge shield with no penalty quite
easily.
Polearms can fight in ranks and counter charges.
Axes and swords are good multi-purpose weapons.
Flails are your weapon of choice against shields.
Fencing weapons become comparable only at high ends. Before that, they're
for show really.

Quickness.

One action per pulse is nice and simple. The initiative bonus makes every
rank worth-while and adds no further complexity.
Getting the extra moves requires knowledge of the combat system, which is
something all players and GMs should of read. I would also prefer it to be
less of a 'absolute neccessity' spell.

Namers

Yep OK. But my feeling that it is how we GMs have allowed DA to be abused
that causes the problem.

Mount

I want mounts to have a battle viability longer than it takes to cast
control animal/fear on it. There's not much you can do to adress high end
effects like Necrosis/Blackfire but that's not the point. There's also not
much you can do about flight speeds. However with more games being local
affairs, prehaps the mounted PC will come into their own. Again it's to make
a seldom used option attractive.

William


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

-----Original Message-----
From Martin Dickson
Subject: Re: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10

This would tend to suggest to me that the value of an additional 
subskill gained at Rk is usually less than that of moving from Rk 6 to Rk 7.

I do agree that some of the costs for extra subskill are too low 
(especially if we drop the requrement from Rk 10 to Rk 7), but I think 
that (generally) the costs you have listed are a bit high.  This does 
not mean that we shouldn't use them as a bench mark... just that perhaps 
generally they should be trending down somewhat from there.

Cheers,
Martin

Like you said the replies seem to be in favor of extra subskills at about
Rank 7. I just thought it was about time to look at what these subskills
should cost, which is what will be the controlling factor on how many
subskills a character gains.
 
Set the cost too cheap and for example, every Rank 7 Courtier will have all
the subskills within a year. At 500ep and only 2 wks training as is the
current cost it would take 10 wks and 2,500 ep. 
Fine for it to be so cheap if you a rank 10 master, picking up the last 2 or
3 subskills. 
But not at Rank 7! 
2800 ep and 7 wks is a lot closer to what it should be to make players
choose between a rank in a spell or ritual and another subskill.

By suggesting costs I hoped to start a discussion on what ep and or time
costs need changing? Whether we would give a discount for Master ranks?
And maybe suggest what those costs should be.
What do we do about those skills which are 1 subskill for every 2 or 3 ranks
like Weaponsmith to keep the number of subskills down? Do we keep the 10,000
ep cost? Do we add a time requirement?

My email just crossed with your proposal to go though each and prepare a
statement/proposal for discussion.

Helen


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

Polearms - 
Already convinced. Like the change. 

> Flails
> 
> Chain weapons have good to excellent strike values and the 
> morning-star is comparable to the battle-axe with higher stat 
> requirements and no multi-hex. Giving it a bonus against 
> shields makes it a viable option for players to lug about and 
> use. Got some thugs in shields or some MG fop prancing about? 
> Use your chain-mace to methodically slaughter them or give 
> that courtier respect for his betters. Save your axe or 
> crusader sword for rabble.

I like the idea in principle, I would just like to see some playtesting
done to ensure there are no odd surprises. 

> Quickness.

More than happy to agre to disagree :-)

> Namers
> 
> Yep OK. But my feeling that it is how we GMs have allowed DA 
> to be abused that causes the problem.

Speak for yourself :-) I have always aims to systematically persicute
those with DA :-)

> Mount
> 
> I want mounts to have a battle viability longer than it takes 
> to cast control animal/fear on it. There's not much you can 
> do to adress high end effects like Necrosis/Blackfire but 
> that's not the point. There's also not much you can do about 
> flight speeds. However with more games being local affairs, 
> prehaps the mounted PC will come into their own. Again it's 
> to make a seldom used option attractive.

I still doubt horses will ever be commonly used unless flying becomes
less available, but the rule itself I have no problems with. 

Mandos
/s


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5829E.8FBDEE40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 14:38
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Hitting people for fun and, more fun.
> 
> 
> Polearms - 
> Already convinced. Like the change. 

Isn't there something special for really long things already?

> 
> > Flails
> > 
> > Chain weapons have good to excellent strike values and the 
> > morning-star is comparable to the battle-axe with higher stat 
> > requirements and no multi-hex. Giving it a bonus against 
> > shields makes it a viable option for players to lug about and 
> > use. Got some thugs in shields or some MG fop prancing about? 
> > Use your chain-mace to methodically slaughter them or give 
> > that courtier respect for his betters. Save your axe or 
> > crusader sword for rabble.
> 
> I like the idea in principle, I would just like to see some 
> playtesting
> done to ensure there are no odd surprises. 
> 

Agreed

> > Quickness.
> 
> More than happy to agre to disagree :-)
> 
> > Namers
> > 
> > Yep OK. But my feeling that it is how we GMs have allowed DA 
> > to be abused that causes the problem.
> 
> Speak for yourself :-) I have always aims to systematically persicute
> those with DA :-)
> 


It worked too!


> > Mount
> > 
> > I want mounts to have a battle viability longer than it takes 
> > to cast control animal/fear on it. There's not much you can 
> > do to adress high end effects like Necrosis/Blackfire but 
> > that's not the point. There's also not much you can do about 
> > flight speeds. However with more games being local affairs, 
> > prehaps the mounted PC will come into their own. Again it's 
> > to make a seldom used option attractive.
> 
> I still doubt horses will ever be commonly used unless flying becomes
> less available, but the rule itself I have no problems with. 
> 


So a giant carrying a human becomes a rider + mount for these purposes?
Careful wording to avoid abuse might be required...


Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5829E.8FBDEE40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Hitting people for fun and, more fun.</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A HREF="mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2005 14:38</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Hitting people for fun and, more fun.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Polearms - </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Already convinced. Like the change. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Isn't there something special for really long things already?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Flails</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Chain weapons have good to excellent strike values and the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; morning-star is comparable to the battle-axe with higher stat </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; requirements and no multi-hex. Giving it a bonus against </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; shields makes it a viable option for players to lug about and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; use. Got some thugs in shields or some MG fop prancing about? </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Use your chain-mace to methodically slaughter them or give </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; that courtier respect for his betters. Save your axe or </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; crusader sword for rabble.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; I like the idea in principle, I would just like to see some </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; playtesting</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; done to ensure there are no odd surprises. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Agreed</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Quickness.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; More than happy to agre to disagree :-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Namers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Yep OK. But my feeling that it is how we GMs have allowed DA </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; to be abused that causes the problem.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Speak for yourself :-) I have always aims to systematically persicute</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; those with DA :-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>It worked too!</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; Mount</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; I want mounts to have a battle viability longer than it takes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; to cast control animal/fear on it. There's not much you can </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; do to adress high end effects like Necrosis/Blackfire but </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; that's not the point. There's also not much you can do about </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; flight speeds. However with more games being local affairs, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; prehaps the mounted PC will come into their own. Again it's </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; to make a seldom used option attractive.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; I still doubt horses will ever be commonly used unless flying becomes</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; less available, but the rule itself I have no problems with. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>So a giant carrying a human becomes a rider + mount for these purposes?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Careful wording to avoid abuse might be required...</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5829E.8FBDEE40--


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

Thinking about mounts. If you make a non-sentient and a sentient which
is in (mundane) control of it share CS's this might be good. As soon as
the rider looses control of the horse, falls off, is slept, etc., they
lose each other's protection.

Gives the right effect (knights), less prone to abuse by giants and
people carrying the whole party, provides tactics against mounted
knights (spook the horse - then we can sleep the knight).

Also prevents three hobbits on a pony, or six clowns on a unicycle being
unstoppable.

Andrew


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

I'm not certain that the modifier of [only] -5 per point is fair -- remember
that an Ass operating in ideal condition gets to add more damage onto his
attack roll.  Yet current rules say ANY effective damage by an Ass makes the
victim uncoscious (*provided* victim is weraring appropriate head gear).

>The 5 pt diferential is to give assassians a bonus to KO with a sap by
using already in-game rules.
>Assassians get damage bonuses from behind and this means their more likely
to KO.
>A master with the sap should have a better chance than a novice.
>It's also so any chump can do the math.
>And characters (esp PCs) should get some sort of resistance roll. With that
you can use saps against PCs and they won't feel >utterly cheated.

Simple point: do we want non-leathal ways of subduing persons not
sufficiently alert?    I'd say yes, although the numbers would have to be
reasonable.

>Yes. This makes sap only truly viable from behind with an assassian. Up
front it's just too low SC and feeble in damage to
>be an option even for assassians (something else wrong with the current
rules).
>I also think the numbers are reasonable. Simple, whole numbers using
multiplication, addition and subtraction.
>I'm not asking for negative logs of the cube of the product of the PCs
wieght in newtons times the gravitational constant.
>Unless that's what you want :.-)

>The real rational for giving lower EN checks on good hits is to reward
player expectation. If a player rolls a good hit
>they get a known, quantifiable bonus. It's just more fun.


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

Pole-arms & Flails

I like these proposals - if nothing else they add a lot to the richness &
reality of the game world.

I seem to remember being a member of a low level party getting beaten-up by
goblins fighting in close formation a few years ago.  GM's having a variety
of tactics available to beat on parties is interesting and fun. 

Also requires the party to think about how to pick off the local militia
with out wanting to attack directly and face 3 rows of pikes.

If players want to specilise it provides more scope for them also. 

Hamish Brown
Director

Zenergy
Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world
119 Mt Eden Rd,
Auckland
www.zenergyglobal.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
William Dymock
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:35 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Hitting people for fun and, more fun.

In response to Mandos

Polearms.

It will make cheap militia (spear, light armour, shield) more of a threat.
It will make super heavy infantry (full plate, pike or glaive) feared. PC
fighters may actually start actually coordinating with AG fighters covering
heavy hitters just behind them.

Flails

Chain weapons have good to excellent strike values and the morning-star is
comparable to the battle-axe with higher stat requirements and no multi-hex.
Giving it a bonus against shields makes it a viable option for players to
lug about and use.
Got some thugs in shields or some MG fop prancing about? Use your chain-mace
to methodically slaughter them or give that courtier respect for his
betters. Save your axe or crusader sword for rabble.

The idea is to give every weapon attractive qualities.
Maces/clubs are easy to use and you have a huge shield with no penalty quite
easily.
Polearms can fight in ranks and counter charges.
Axes and swords are good multi-purpose weapons.
Flails are your weapon of choice against shields.
Fencing weapons become comparable only at high ends. Before that, they're
for show really.

Quickness.

One action per pulse is nice and simple. The initiative bonus makes every
rank worth-while and adds no further complexity.
Getting the extra moves requires knowledge of the combat system, which is
something all players and GMs should of read. I would also prefer it to be
less of a 'absolute neccessity' spell.

Namers

Yep OK. But my feeling that it is how we GMs have allowed DA to be abused
that causes the problem.

Mount

I want mounts to have a battle viability longer than it takes to cast
control animal/fear on it. There's not much you can do to adress high end
effects like Necrosis/Blackfire but that's not the point. There's also not
much you can do about flight speeds. However with more games being local
affairs, prehaps the mounted PC will come into their own. Again it's to make
a seldom used option attractive.

William


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

Comments below...

William Dymock said:
>
> 1) The sap as a weapon is completly unplayable...
> I propose that when sapped an entity gets a EN check to resist being knocked out. The check
> should be x3 for a normal blow, x2 for a EN blow and x1 for a poss spec grev. There is a -5 to
> the chance for each point of effective damage done and saps only ever do FT damage when going
> for a KO.

Agree completely with the Sap problems. The solution seems workable.

> 2) I'ld like pole arms to be able to make 'extended strikes' at say -20 to SC. An extended
> strike allows the character to strike one hex further than the melee zone. Also, if a polearm
> wielder is charged and they have not moved they get to strike at +20.
>
> This is to give polearms some of their traditional bonuses. It allows guard/militia types to
> fight in formations and gives them a reason to do so. Pikes become a fearsome weapon, allowing
> up to three ranks of fighters to engage.

Seems workable.
Pike has an extended melee zone already which makes Pike blocks almost work, this would help.
Key thing is that is does not extend their melee zone, just allows them to strike beyond it as a
"Special Attack".  This means that they cannot multi-hex strike at extended range, nor attempt
knock outs, disarms, etc.  And that they cannot stop people closing to melee range (Pikes
excepted).
Also it should be for pole weapons wielded two-handed.  This means it cannot be done with
Javelins, nor Lances (but they have their own special stuff).

> 3) Flails and morningstars should ignore shields. Just to give people a reason to use them in
> game. Otherwise why not use the axe? If flail weapons defeat shields then in this case they are
> better weapons than the axe and bastard sword. Making choices in battle, moving about and
> actually having to think must make the game more interesting, and fun.

I like the intention but think this is wrong.  My impression is that shields and ducking are your
best bet against chain weapons.  What sucks is trying to parry a chain weapon.
Perhaps they could double your effective rank in parry calculations.  Making them a harder weapon
to defend against, and interesting to evade with - not as much defence as they only go to Rk 5 but
if they miss by more than 30 then they're gonna get hurt.

> 4) Quickness. It's a fucking mess at run time.

Yes!  But I don't think this works as a fix.  It is still a lot of changes that get applied for a
little while in the middle of combat.  People will still get confused.  It changes the
magic/non-magic balance in combat - not sure if this is in a good or bad way.
And it devalues the Mil Sci IV bonus.

One of the best proposals for replacing Quickness that I've seen so far is changing it to a 30+30
min Agility buff spell.  But we would need to tighten up the effects of extremely high agility and
it is a fairly different spell.


> 5) Namers can DA as a free action. They're gods. Deal with it.

I'm with Mandos on this.  Namer DA is so useful that everyone tries to get it.
And as a GM one DA per player per pulse is enough, more questions from one person is only going to
slow things down for everyone else.

> 6) A mount may use the MR of it's rider and vice versa. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the CS
> implications but this is supposed to be a fantasy game where knights were bold. But no-one rides
> horses except at very low levels. This change gives mounted combat a clear quantifiable edge and
> may make it attractive to PCs to explore the option of being a mounted warrior. Currently there
> is no sane reason for such. May also explain why dragons are occasionally seen with some metal
> dude on their back.

Allow a rider to control the flight spell on their mount and people will take their horses
adventuring.  The main reason why people don't take them is that they are too slow for general
travel.
If I could fly my horse the 100 miles to the adventure site and then ride around once there then
I'd do it.

> All these suggestions are to increase options in combat, making the game more fun and
> interesting. More options also gives more variety in character types away from the standard axe
> wielding 'pure' mage and bastard sword wielding non-mage.

A good cause and some good steps towards it.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

>>Rolling a '1', Ned inflicts a pathetic 3 points of damage on the Plate armoured Boris (Pr 8). Boris gets
>>to roll under x3 EN + 25 to stay concious [(8-3) x 5]. He then beans Ned with his Hand and a half as way of remonstration.
>>    
>>
This gives us a weapon with a special effect even with no effective 
damage. If Boris in the example does not have notably high endurance 
then there is a non-trivial (1:4 to 1:5) chance that Ned's pathetic 
coshing will knock him out _despite_ his plate helm stopping all of the 
damage.

I guess I just find that odd.

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

Helen Saggers wrote:

>Set the cost too cheap and for example, every Rank 7 Courtier will have all
>the subskills within a year.
>
Agree utterly. :-)

>By suggesting costs I hoped to start a discussion on what ep and or time
>costs need changing?
>
Absolutely.  My response was intended as part of that discussion -- in 
short: I agree that they need to not be too cheap; I think the cost of 
Rk 7 is probably a bit much (in most cases).

>Whether we would give a discount for Master ranks?
>  
>
I think that is a really interesting idea.  Makes the system a bit more 
complex, but could be well worth it.

>My email just crossed with your proposal to go though each and prepare a
>statement/proposal for discussion.
>  
>
Sure -- and I think your costs are a very good starting point for any 
such discussion.

Regards,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

Errol Cavit wrote:

> > Polearms -
> > Already convinced. Like the change.
>
> Isn't there something special for really long things already?
>
Only Pike.  My concern around this is that perhaps some of the weapons 
currently categorized as Polearms should not get this ability: Javelin 
is the most obvious, but given the way that B class weapons are used I'm 
not sure about Glaive, Poleaxe, etc.

    - Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

How about allowing "Area" counterspells to be put on mounts.
That way the mounted adventurer can wander around with protection from two colleges.

Agree that limitations/definitions about what defines a mount need to be clear.

DSL AK said:
>
> Thinking about mounts. If you make a non-sentient and a sentient which is in (mundane) control
> of it share CS's this might be good. As soon as the rider looses control of the horse, falls
> off, is slept, etc., they lose each other's protection.
>
> Gives the right effect (knights), less prone to abuse by giants and people carrying the whole
> party, provides tactics against mounted
> knights (spook the horse - then we can sleep the knight).
>
> Also prevents three hobbits on a pony, or six clowns on a unicycle being unstoppable.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

William Dymock wrote:

>Flails
>
>Chain weapons have good to excellent strike values and the morning-star is
>comparable to the battle-axe with higher stat requirements and no multi-hex.
>Giving it a bonus against shields makes it a viable option for players to
>lug about and use.
>  
>
Do we care (or perhaps: how much do we care) that chain weapons do not 
actually negate shields? Sure, their arc makes them harder to deflect 
and they can wrap... all of which suggests they lower defence... but negate?

>Namers
>
>Yep OK. But my feeling that it is how we GMs have allowed DA to be abused
>that causes the problem.
>  
>
The updated DA writeup in section 9 that came in with Namer 2.0 
significantly altered DA in-line with it being a 75 EM talent. The 
examples of possible DA information as given in that section is:

"Information that may be gained from a living being includes: its 
Generic True Name, its plane of origin, approximately how far it is 
through its life-span (e.g.juvenile, 50%, about 100 years old), its 
general state of health (e.g. healthy, diseased, 1/2 Endurance), 
aptitude with a magical ability (e.g. low overall, Rank of specific 
ability) and to which College of magic (if any) it is attuned. These 
last two facts are discernible because the skills that they represent 
have an affect on the level and type of magic in the entity’s Aura. 
Relatively little information can be divined regarding the non-magical 
learned abilities of an entity. It willbe possible to learn what is the 
being’s most intrinsic skill or ability, but lesser skills may not be 
sufficiently intrinsic so as to have made an impression on the being’s aura.

Magical auras will include information such as College, exact name of a 
spell or other effect, level of magical ability (low, medium, high, very 
high), approximate length of time that the magic has been in effect 
(providing it is still present), and approximately how much duration 
remains"

>Mount
>
>I want mounts to have a battle viability longer than it takes to cast
>control animal/fear on it. There's not much you can do to adress high end
>effects like Necrosis/Blackfire but that's not the point. There's also not
>much you can do about flight speeds. However with more games being local
>affairs, prehaps the mounted PC will come into their own. Again it's to make
>a seldom used option attractive.
>  
>
I like the MR idea. I'd also add that Warhorses need to be 2-hex 
creatures. I still don't think this will make riding more desirable, but 
may as you say, make the mounted fighter an option.
(Sorry if you covered that already -- for some odd reason I didn't get 
your original post, only all the replies). :-)

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 16:45, Stephen Martin wrote:
> How about allowing "Area" counterspells to be put on mounts.
> That way the mounted adventurer can wander around with protection from two colleges.

Cute idea, but "mount" is too poorly defined.
A PC who has shapeshifted into a bear or dragon?
A human PC with a hobbit on their sholders?
A riderless horse?
A sentient equine?
A beagle being ridden by a leprechaun?
A beagle who is sometimes ridden by a leprechaun, but isn't right now?


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C5831C.E4056950
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

6) A mount may use the MR of it's rider and vice versa. Yes, I'm perfectly

aware of the CS implications but this is supposed to be a fantasy game where

knights were bold. But no-one rides horses except at very low levels. This

change gives mounted combat a clear quantifiable edge and may make it

attractive to PCs to explore the option of being a mounted warrior.

Currently there is no sane reason for such. May also explain why dragons are

occasionally seen with some metal dude on their back.

 

I like this too.

I've been trying for the last year or so to explore the mounted warrior
option with Thorn, at the higher levels the mages are just about as good at
combat as a non mage so I was looking at a way to make having a non mage
warrior more than just a loss of a collage to the party.

(I swear the last time she died it was due to the lack of a "real" war
horse!)

If you armour the horse, add a def spell etc. just like you do for the rider
it can survive combat nearly as well as any character.

But an expensive trained warhorse in the field is just a target for NPC
mages, not the rider, because it's the one with the lower MR. 

So you take the knight out for a pulse or two and do him some damage by
taking out his horse, then finish him off while he's getting back on his
feet (NPCs don't seem interested in loot). 

If horse and rider have the same MR then your back to targeting the knight
cause he is the one you really need to stop.

In the real world the knight is a tank that can't attack a polearm formation
or defenses, and that takes a shit load of damage to stop.

In the fantasy world the wall of thorns should stop them in its tracks, not
a sleep spell.

 

For fast traveling take a supply of skin changes, or invested wild fires.

 

More options also gives more variety in character

types away from the standard axe wielding 'pure' mage and bastard sword

wielding non-mage.

 

Hey it's a 2 hand sword wielding non mage thank you :-)

 

Helen

 

 

 


------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C5831C.E4056950
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 77.95pt 72.0pt 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>6) A mount may use the MR of it's rider and vice versa. Yes, I'm
perfectly<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>aware of the CS implications but this is supposed to be a =
fantasy game
where<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>knights were bold. But no-one rides horses except at very low =
levels.
This<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>change gives mounted combat a clear quantifiable edge and may =
make it<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>attractive to PCs to explore the option of being a mounted =
warrior.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Currently there is no sane reason for such. May also explain why
dragons are<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>occasionally seen with some metal dude on their =
back.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:black'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p=
>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>I like this =
too.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>I&#8217;ve been trying for the =
last year or
so to explore the mounted warrior option with Thorn, at the higher =
levels the
mages are just about as good at combat as a non mage so I was looking at =
a way
to make having a non mage warrior more than just a loss of a collage to =
the
party.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>(I swear the last time she died it =
was due
to the lack of a &#8220;real&#8221; war =
horse!)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>If you armour the horse, add a def =
spell
etc. just like you do for the rider it can survive combat nearly as well =
as any
character.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>But an expensive trained warhorse =
in the field
is just a target for NPC mages, not the rider, because it&#8217;s the =
one with
the lower MR. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>So you take the knight out for a =
pulse or
two and do him some damage by taking out his horse, then finish him off =
while he&#8217;s
getting back on his feet (NPCs don&#8217;t seem interested in loot). =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>If horse and rider have the same =
MR then
your back to targeting the knight cause he is the one you really need to =
stop.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>In the real world the knight is a =
tank that
can&#8217;t attack a polearm formation or defenses, and that takes a =
shit load
of damage to stop.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>In the fantasy world the wall of =
thorns should
stop them in its tracks, not a sleep spell.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>=


<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>For fast traveling take a supply =
of skin
changes, or invested wild fires.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>More options also gives more variety in =
character<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>types away from the standard axe wielding 'pure' mage and =
bastard sword<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>wielding non-mage.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>=


<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>Hey it&#8217;s a 2 hand sword =
wielding non mage
thank you :-)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>=


<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:blue'>Helen<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C5831C.E4056950--


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

> Do we care (or perhaps: how much do we care) that chain weapons do not
> actually negate shields? Sure, their arc makes them harder to deflect
> and they can wrap... all of which suggests they lower defence... but
negate?

Williams point is not that we care how they should or shouldn't
realistically work. It is a change that makes the weapons you never see used
become a real option.

With the numbered stick approach that DQ has towards weapons the only way to
make the weapons with bad numbers attractive is to give them a special
ability which is what this does.

Negating the defence from a shield is simply the easiest calculation. Trying
to get some players to work out anything more complex would be counter
productive.

Mandos
/s


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

rather than negate the defence of a sheild maybe just
give the weapon in question a bonus of 1-2% per rank
bonus to strike chance against opponents using
sheilds, indicating that experience with the weapon
also helps in it's use, this will also mean that some
sheilds will become useless at higher ranks of these
weapons but some (the tower sheild) will still be a
little effective given as far as I can tell the tower
sheild in DQ is a portable wall.

Zane

--- Mandos Mitchinson <mandos@allowed.to> wrote:

> > Do we care (or perhaps: how much do we care) that
> chain weapons do not
> > actually negate shields? Sure, their arc makes
> them harder to deflect
> > and they can wrap... all of which suggests they
> lower defence... but
> negate?
> 
> Williams point is not that we care how they should
> or shouldn't
> realistically work. It is a change that makes the
> weapons you never see used
> become a real option.
> 
> With the numbered stick approach that DQ has towards
> weapons the only way to
> make the weapons with bad numbers attractive is to
> give them a special
> ability which is what this does.
> 
> Negating the defence from a shield is simply the
> easiest calculation. Trying
> to get some players to work out anything more
> complex would be counter
> productive.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 


"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

This gives us a weapon with a special effect even with no effective
damage. If Boris in the example does not have notably high endurance
then there is a non-trivial (1:4 to 1:5) chance that Ned's pathetic
coshing will knock him out _despite_ his plate helm stopping all of the
damage.

I guess I just find that odd.

>You mean like it is now? "Used by an assassian, any hit knocks out the
target"
>Any hit meaning you just have to get the strike to hit, damage is
irrelevant.


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

Do we care (or perhaps: how much do we care) that chain weapons do not
actually negate shields? Sure, their arc makes them harder to deflect
and they can wrap... all of which suggests they lower defence... but negate?

>I want an easy calculation and motivation for people to use them. Currently
the only reason to rank chain weapons is for warrior ranking. Hell, what
Mandos said.

I like the MR idea. I'd also add that Warhorses need to be 2-hex
creatures. I still don't think this will make riding more desirable, but
may as you say, make the mounted fighter an option.
(Sorry if you covered that already -- for some odd reason I didn't get
your original post, only all the replies). :-)

>It was clearly implied in all the diagrams that used to come with the
combat section.


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