> Question: is it intended that the current rule that saps may only
knock out targets
> wearing leather, cloth or no armour be removed? What about saps not
working on
> targets larger than human?
> Martin Dickson 16:28, 14 Jul 2005 (NZST) 

As I understand it it, it removed the armour requirement. With larger
than human creatures I would leave it to the GM to apply a suitable
modifier dependant on the creature. 

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>>Question: is it intended that the current rule that saps may only knock out targets wearing leather, cloth or no armour be removed?
>>
>As I understand it it, it removed the armour requirement.
>
Hi Mandos,

If that is right then I'd been really unkeen to see that change -- 
sapping people in plate armour just feels silly.

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 --

Michael Scott wrote:

>> one of the abilities that they already possess. That ability then 
>> operates at (troubadour’s Rank + 1), maximum 10."
>
>
> The way I read it was the specialization stopped at +10 and you could 
> have a Master flutist who was Trubadour rk 10 + flute rk10 giving an 
> effective skill rk of 20...

No! :-) Which part of "ability then operates at (troubadour’s Rank + 1), 
maximum 10" suggests Rank 20?

-- 
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 --

Silly perhaps, but most of DQ combat is silly. We jsut want simple rules rather than realistic ones. Having played some tortuously realistic games, they are just so slow, and the results aren't that much better. Even the semi-abstract HArn system was slow. DQ is slow enough, although i would never wish to use the AD&D system - quick though it is.

the requirement to do real (after armour) damage seems to take into account the plate mail issue. 

You may wish to make the requirement 1+ damage for no armour, 2+ damage for flexible armour (soft leather, cloth etc), 5+ damage for stiff armour (hard leather, steel, ceramic, etc).

Let's not let reality get in the way of a terrible combat system. :-D

Ian

> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@peace.com>
> Date: 2005/07/15 Fri AM 08:56:32 GMT+12:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Saps
> 
> Mandos Mitchinson wrote:
> 
> >>Question: is it intended that the current rule that saps may only knock out targets wearing leather, cloth or no armour be removed?
> >>
> >As I understand it it, it removed the armour requirement.
> >
> Hi Mandos,
> 
> If that is right then I'd been really unkeen to see that change -- 
> sapping people in plate armour just feels silly.
> 
> 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 --
>


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

> >>Question: is it intended that the current rule that saps may only 
> >>knock out targets wearing leather, cloth or no armour be removed?
> >>
> >As I understand it it, it removed the armour requirement.
> 
> If that is right then I'd been really unkeen to see that change -- 
> sapping people in plate armour just feels silly.

Plate I kind of agree but chain maybe not. And it all depends on the
style of the helmet. 

The thing I like about the rule is that is removes the special rules and
the worries over what kind of helmet they might have on. Maybe the
numbers need to be played with a bit.

Mandos
/s


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

er, just a guess here, but wouldn't the _lack_ of specifying that you can only specialise _once_ for a given subskill suggest you _can_ do it more than once?

If you take flute at rank 0, and then specialise in Flute at Rank 1, you play as if at Rank 2.
If you then also specialise in flute at Rank 2, the logic is that you play as if Rank 4 (troubadour 2 + 2 x specialisation).

carrying through this logic to Rank 10 gives effective flute playing at Rank 20 (Troub10 + 10 x specialisation)

Could easily be wrong, but that is my take on what Michael wrote...

Ian :-D


> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@peace.com>
> Date: 2005/07/15 Fri AM 08:58:10 GMT+12:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10
> 
> Michael Scott wrote:
> 
> >> one of the abilities that they already possess. That ability then 
> >> operates at (troubadour’s Rank + 1), maximum 10."
> >
> >
> > The way I read it was the specialization stopped at +10 and you could 
> > have a Master flutist who was Trubadour rk 10 + flute rk10 giving an 
> > effective skill rk of 20...
> 
> No! :-) Which part of "ability then operates at (troubadour’s Rank + 1), 
> maximum 10" suggests Rank 20?
> 
> -- 
> 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 --
>


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

> I don't see that speeding up this inflation as a good thing. 
> There are a number of options available for people who only 
> have a single character (a second character, not ranking that 
> thing quite so quickly or as Sally suggested taking a session 
> off to GM :-) ). All of these are a personal choice. Changing 
> the rules for a small group in a way that I think would be 
> detrimental to the game as a whole is not a good thing. 
> 

Stressing: it's not a rule change-it was taken out by accident!

Kelsie


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

I commonly spend time for ranking, then the EP at a later date, and I also
often split the time over 2 seasons ranking.

I did believe it was six months allowed.

Given our artificial 3 month sectioning, one month would be too difficult.

Kelsie

> 
> I'd like to enshrine current practise (within reason). At the 
> moment, do people ranking rituals or weapons sometimes spend 
> some of the time, and complete the next rank after the next adventure?
> 
> I think that (rules to the contrary), this does happen, and 
> people often have a six month time limit in mind, or try to 
> complete the rank in a continuous period, excluding 
> adventures. This seems reasonably harmless, and allows those 
> people who enjoy (mainly) one character to roleplay someone 
> with weapons and/or rituals.
> 
>


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

I still cannot see what the big deal is with this rule. If we make that you do not get teh benefit of the new rank until all EP, time and SP costs have been met, then what the hey?

So you do some training now, some more next season etc. If the player can handle the paperwork, and can show it to the GM, then what the hey?

Am i missing something? again :-)

Ian


 > I don't see that speeding up this inflation as a good thing. 
 > There are a number of options available for people who only 
 > have a single character (a second character, not ranking that 
 > thing quite so quickly or as Sally suggested taking a session 
 > off to GM :-) ). All of these are a personal choice. Changing 
 > the rules for a small group in a way that I think would be 
 > detrimental to the game as a whole is not a good thing. 
 >


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

--Apple-Mail-8--808753638
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

I agree - it also would enable faster ranking for those that play a 
single character - which is not a bad thing
On 15/07/2005, at 10:14 AM, <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

>
> I still cannot see what the big deal is with this rule. If we make 
> that you do not get teh benefit of the new rank until all EP, time and 
> SP costs have been met, then what the hey?
>
> So you do some training now, some more next season etc. If the player 
> can handle the paperwork, and can show it to the GM, then what the 
> hey?
>
> Am i missing something? again :-)
>
> Ian
>
>
>> I don't see that speeding up this inflation as a good thing.
>> There are a number of options available for people who only
>> have a single character (a second character, not ranking that
>> thing quite so quickly or as Sally suggested taking a session
>> off to GM :-) ). All of these are a personal choice. Changing
>> the rules for a small group in a way that I think would be
>> detrimental to the game as a whole is not a good thing.
>>
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


DEAN J. ORGAN & ASSOCIATES LTD
Employment Law Specialists


cellphone: 021 609 580
telephone: (09) 585 1097
facsimile: (09) 585 1087
9 Maheke Street, St Heliers Bay, Auckland.

This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and intended 
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, copying, 
retransmission, dissemination and or other use of, or taking of any 
action in reliance upon, this information by entities or persons other 
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in 
error, please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and 
any attachments.



--Apple-Mail-8--808753638
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

I agree - it also would enable faster ranking for those that play a
single character - which is not a bad thing 

On 15/07/2005, at 10:14 AM, <<dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote:


<excerpt>

I still cannot see what the big deal is with this rule. If we make
that you do not get teh benefit of the new rank until all EP, time and
SP costs have been met, then what the hey?


So you do some training now, some more next season etc. If the player
can handle the paperwork, and can show it to the GM, then what the hey?


Am i missing something? again :-)


Ian



<excerpt>I don't see that speeding up this inflation as a good thing. 

There are a number of options available for people who only 

have a single character (a second character, not ranking that 

thing quite so quickly or as Sally suggested taking a session 

off to GM :-) ). All of these are a personal choice. Changing 

the rules for a small group in a way that I think would be 

detrimental to the game as a whole is not a good thing. 


</excerpt>


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



</excerpt><fontfamily><param>Times</param><color><param>0000,0000,8080</param><bigger><bigger>

</bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily>

<bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><color><param>0000,0000,8080</param><bigger><bigger>D</bigger></bigger>EAN
<bigger><bigger>J.</bigger></bigger>
<bigger><bigger>O</bigger></bigger>RGAN &
<bigger><bigger>A</bigger></bigger>SSOCIATES
<bigger><bigger>L</bigger></bigger>TD </color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Times</param><color><param>0000,0000,8080</param><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>

</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger>Employment Law Specialists<smaller>

</smaller>

</color></fontfamily>

<fontfamily><param>Times</param><color><param>0000,0000,8080</param>cellphone:
021 609 580

telephone: (09) 585 1097

facsimile: (09) 585 1087

9 Maheke Street, St Heliers Bay, Auckland. 


This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, copying,
retransmission, dissemination and or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by entities or persons other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in
error, please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.

</color><color><param>0000,0000,DDDD</param><smaller>

</smaller></color></fontfamily>


--Apple-Mail-8--808753638--


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

Just working on the Wiki and was filling in the Details of the Grievance
tribunal. 

Who is on this tribunal currently?

Mandos
/s


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

dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:

>er, just a guess here, but wouldn't the _lack_ of specifying that you can only specialise _once_ for a given subskill suggest you _can_ do it more than once?
>  
>
The Specialisation actually explicitly states that you can do it more 
than once, and also sets a maximum effective Rk:
"If, upon gaining a new Rank, the troubadour wishes to forego gaining a 
new ability, they may specialise in one of the abilities that they 
already possess. That ability then operates at (troubadour’s Rank + 1), 
maximum 10. A troubadour may specialise more than once with the same 
ability, gaining Rank + 2, Rank + 3, etc".

>If you take flute at rank 0, and then specialise in Flute at Rank 1, you play as if at Rank 2.
>  
>
Correct.

>If you then also specialise in flute at Rank 2, the logic is that you play as if Rank 4 (troubadour 2 + 2 x specialisation).
>  
>
Correct.

>carrying through this logic to Rank 10 gives effective flute playing at Rank 20 (Troub10 + 10 x specialisation)
>  
>
False. "That ability then operates at (troubadour’s Rank + 1), maximum 10."

If you keep specialising in Flute then at Rk 5 Troub you can have Rk 10 
effective Flute (5+5 = 10). If at Rk 6 you (foolishly) decide to 
specialise again in Flute for a +6 then your effective Rk is (Rk 6 + 6 = 
12, maximum 10 = 10).

The rules are quire explicit on both the ability to double specialise, 
triple specialise, etc, and also that the Maximum effective Rk is 10.

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 --

> Just working on the Wiki and was filling in the Details of
> the Grievance tribunal.
>
> Who is on this tribunal currently?
>
> Mandos
> /s
>

Me, you and DEATH.

We just don't let him talk much because he upsets everyone
:.-)

William


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