As a GM I've seen the transition between the "haves" and "have nots" 
rather distinctly in a game I ran recently, and it has definitely 
coloured my perception towards the whole Quickness broken/not broken debate.

I am a relatively newbie GM and decided to run a dungeon bash to hone my 
combat running skills.  True, it was burdened with kilotonnes of 
unnecessary baroque, but the sessions were mostly combat.  The party had 
been giving and taking with the best of them over a number of fights and 
I finally starting to feel out how to challenge them properly.  The 
final "boss fight" arrives, and while party had actually had a worse 
time in some of the other fights (by my reckoning anyway) someone 
decided that it could be over quicker and triggered the first quickness 
of the season.  The boss and his minions, who has been vaguely scary for 
a few pulses, went down like sacks of crap, as vernacular has it.

Now, this could clearly be cited as a preparedness issue on my (or the 
NPC's) part, but once it went down the effects were persistent and 
devastating. I considered having the boss fumble some rings on his hand 
in retaliation, but that seemed outside of dramatic propriety.  I can't 
fault the character or player for experiencing a survival impulse and 
throwing money at it, but I always noticed that it magnified the 
abilities of the "useful" characters that they targeted and effectively 
wrote those that were missed completely out of the fight.

It's quite conceivable that they might have simply DF'd the surrounding 
area or Slowed the bad guys, but Quickness as a multiple target "buff" 
is clearly a more versatile and effective choice in most combats and 
simply makes the tough, tougher.

However, it is clearly an entrenched part of the culture and I'm don't 
think we have a miracle solution at this time.  However, it might make 
sense to increase the associated cost of benefiting from this spell by 
levying a one point non-injury FT reduction each time a entity under the 
effects of the spell takes a second action.

It would not diminish the effectiveness of the spell, but would add 
extra consequence to zipping around the battlefield dicing your foes for 
an extended period.  Mages would require refuelling slightly sooner 
(they are going through the Restoratives at twice the rate anyway) and 
once the non-Mages actually use that FT they've been carrying around 
under their armour all these years, they might need one too.  At the 
high-end, this would require a relatively minor juggling of logistics 
(which the Mil Sci has ranked anyway?) as this should mesh with the 
mechanics that drive these powerhouses already.

Hopefully, that level of bookkeeping won't traumatise too many players 
(or Gem's) either.


ben

Johanna and Hamish wrote:

>It's not the power of quickness that's at fault -- sometimes quickness is
>the only edge that a party gets against big hard-hitting opponents.  And
>catching a party unaware, when they're not quickened, can satisfactorily
>punish them for sloppy behaviour.   As a GM, I do mind that it is becomming
>obligatory on medium or higher parties to have a "Quickness mage" and tends
>to be a major splitting point in running or designing the game.  The options
>become limited for the GM:
>
>Yes; this is the issue IMHO.  Quickness is currently a must have once
>players reach a certain level. Like permanent graters used to be.  How many
>GM's suss out weather pc's have quickness before giving it to the bad guys,
>OR as is suggested here really encourage parties to acquire it for 'this
>particular mission'.  
>
>While D-flames is tough, you might not get it off before being hit (and you
>can have ablative protection) so there are some balancing features.
>
>If the party needs quickness as an edge it may not be tough enough to take
>on these particular bad guys - and the reverse is true, wouldn't bad guys
>check the quickness situation before deciding weather or not to attack a
>certain bunch of good guys,  in this land every person would get some
>quickness as soon as they had the money to do so, and once they had it could
>beat up on almost every other person who did not have it.  Its difficult for
>me to maintain suspension of disbelief.
>
>The other option is that we strengthen magic every where so that every one
>you are likely to meat on adventure does have all the important magics, kind
>of defeats the purpose however it would ensure adventurers could always beat
>up on peasants.
>
>Hamish    
>
>
>
>EITHER insist they have a Quickness Mage, or must purchase sufficent
>invested Quicknesses beforehand,
>OR (less often) insist that, for game design reasons, it just happens that
>no Quickmage is interested & that the characters elected to leave invested
>Quicknesses behind -- the same way that one sometimes must turn away an XYZ
>mage, or one accepts a specific character provided that they leave a certain
>item or familiar at home this adventure [Not an elegant solution, but it may
>be necessary].
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>  
>


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

On 26/08/2005, at 14:40, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> 2. Overstrengthing should give an increased chance of a weapon break in
> addition to the chance of a fumble. Not a huge chance 1-5% kind of
> range.

In my recent game (which was a warrior based game so there was plenty 
of combat), I instituted the rule that every extra point of damage from 
overstrengthing increased the chance of a roll on the fumble table by 
1%. This wasn't met with howls of outrage from my party.

cheers,

clare


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

I wonder if it would help to stop the mages Pulse prepare and casting, if
like triggering, Preparing cannot be sped up (Mana only flows so fast).

This would slow the rate of magic fire down, no hell fire or DFs or DTJs
every Pulse. Gives the opposition a chance to force a concentration check,
and still allows them to cast and take a second action like move or take a
potion.
Engaged fighters would still have two actions a Pulse, but lets face it my
D+5 sword, most stopped by amour on one guy,(three multi hexing) is nothing
compared to a hell fires D10+2/rk on a possible 7 targets which ignores
amour.

This slows the killing down and if both actions are done on your IV like for
26 Ag you loose the first half pulse second half pulse that Jono wants to
get rid of.

Combat under this system would go
1st Pulse
Engaged fighter hits opponent, and again if needed or moves to next one.
Opposition hit back if they still can.
Unengaged Mage prepares
Opposition unengaged.
End Pulse.

2nd Pulse
Engaged acts twice.
Engaged opposition resolved.
Mage casts and then moves, or prepares weapon, Potion, whatever.
Opposition unengaged
End Pulse.

No changes to Quickness are needed we change the wording to 7.3 Preparing so
it say Preparing takes the full 5 seconds and cannot be done faster even if
quickened.

And change 3.3 step 3 so that the limit of one action is amended to one
action, two if quickened.

Helen


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Cosmo
Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 9:28 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Nerfening

As a GM I've seen the transition between the "haves" and "have nots" 
rather distinctly in a game I ran recently, and it has definitely 
coloured my perception towards the whole Quickness broken/not broken debate.

I am a relatively newbie GM and decided to run a dungeon bash to hone my 
combat running skills.  True, it was burdened with kilotonnes of 
unnecessary baroque, but the sessions were mostly combat.  The party had 
been giving and taking with the best of them over a number of fights and 
I finally starting to feel out how to challenge them properly.  The 
final "boss fight" arrives, and while party had actually had a worse 
time in some of the other fights (by my reckoning anyway) someone 
decided that it could be over quicker and triggered the first quickness 
of the season.  The boss and his minions, who has been vaguely scary for 
a few pulses, went down like sacks of crap, as vernacular has it.

Now, this could clearly be cited as a preparedness issue on my (or the 
NPC's) part, but once it went down the effects were persistent and 
devastating. I considered having the boss fumble some rings on his hand 
in retaliation, but that seemed outside of dramatic propriety.  I can't 
fault the character or player for experiencing a survival impulse and 
throwing money at it, but I always noticed that it magnified the 
abilities of the "useful" characters that they targeted and effectively 
wrote those that were missed completely out of the fight.

It's quite conceivable that they might have simply DF'd the surrounding 
area or Slowed the bad guys, but Quickness as a multiple target "buff" 
is clearly a more versatile and effective choice in most combats and 
simply makes the tough, tougher.

However, it is clearly an entrenched part of the culture and I'm don't 
think we have a miracle solution at this time.  However, it might make 
sense to increase the associated cost of benefiting from this spell by 
levying a one point non-injury FT reduction each time a entity under the 
effects of the spell takes a second action.

It would not diminish the effectiveness of the spell, but would add 
extra consequence to zipping around the battlefield dicing your foes for 
an extended period.  Mages would require refuelling slightly sooner 
(they are going through the Restoratives at twice the rate anyway) and 
once the non-Mages actually use that FT they've been carrying around 
under their armour all these years, they might need one too.  At the 
high-end, this would require a relatively minor juggling of logistics 
(which the Mil Sci has ranked anyway?) as this should mesh with the 
mechanics that drive these powerhouses already.

Hopefully, that level of bookkeeping won't traumatise too many players 
(or Gem's) either.


ben


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

Quickness not affecting casting is an interesting idea. In highish
games, it is quite common for most of the mages to fight anyway, with
only those with BIG spells casting. Maybe more heroic?

BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can happen at the same point that D+40
spells come out. And they don't cost FT to cast.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Helen Saggers
Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 11:56 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Nerfening


I wonder if it would help to stop the mages Pulse prepare and casting,
if like triggering, Preparing cannot be sped up (Mana only flows so
fast).

This would slow the rate of magic fire down, no hell fire or DFs or DTJs
every Pulse. Gives the opposition a chance to force a concentration
check, and still allows them to cast and take a second action like move
or take a potion. Engaged fighters would still have two actions a Pulse,
but lets face it my
D+5 sword, most stopped by amour on one guy,(three multi hexing) is 
D+nothing
compared to a hell fires D10+2/rk on a possible 7 targets which ignores
amour.


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

> > 2. Overstrengthing should give an increased chance of a weapon break in
> > addition to the chance of a fumble. Not a huge chance 1-5% kind of
> > range.
>
> In my recent game (which was a warrior based game so there was plenty
> of combat), I instituted the rule that every extra point of damage from
> overstrengthing increased the chance of a roll on the fumble table by
> 1%. This wasn't met with howls of outrage from my party.

Yep I think possibly 2% per point but definatly not the 5% it used to be. I
would also prefer the additional chance to be specifically for breakage but
willing to accept the fumble table as a compromise.

Mandos
/s


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

> Quickness not affecting casting is an interesting idea. In highish
> games, it is quite common for most of the mages to fight anyway, with
> only those with BIG spells casting. Maybe more heroic?
>
> BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can happen at the same point that D+40
> spells come out. And they don't cost FT to cast.

Scarily enough I suspect this may be an interesting compromise. I like the
sound of it but would be very interested to see how it plays out in game.

1 point though.

1. "No changes to Quickness are needed we change the wording to 7.3
Preparing so
it say Preparing takes the full 5 seconds and cannot be done faster even if
quickened." How does this affect Namer counterspells. I would see that
casting could still be a half pulse action with the change as written. Still
not two bad as it means three actions to prepare and loose a spell rather
than two and namers can still get the spells off quickly. A good thing IMHO.

If this is the intended effect all good, if not more changes will need to be
made to have it work.

Mandos
/s


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

-----Original Message-----
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)

BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can happen at the same point that D+40
spells come out. And they don't cost FT to cast.

Andrew


In my experience If I've got SC 200% D+30 weapons So has the demon Im
fighting plus a 100% def, 15 point EN armour, unstunable and more EN and Ft.

Helen


-- 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_01C5AA9F.C1713130
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The pulse to Prepare and action to Cast sounds worthy of playtest. Note it
puts Invested at less of a disadvantage realative to casting.

Another alternative is action to Prepare (where required) and pulse to cast,
but that slows down the Namer CS's, and doesn't feel as 'right'.

Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:mandos@allowed.to]
> Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 12:28
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Nerfening
> 
> 
> > Quickness not affecting casting is an interesting idea. In highish
> > games, it is quite common for most of the mages to fight 
> anyway, with
> > only those with BIG spells casting. Maybe more heroic?
> >
> > BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can happen at the same 
> point that D+40
> > spells come out. And they don't cost FT to cast.
> 
> Scarily enough I suspect this may be an interesting 
> compromise. I like the
> sound of it but would be very interested to see how it plays 
> out in game.
> 
> 1 point though.
> 
> 1. "No changes to Quickness are needed we change the wording to 7.3
> Preparing so
> it say Preparing takes the full 5 seconds and cannot be done 
> faster even if
> quickened." How does this affect Namer counterspells. I would see that
> casting could still be a half pulse action with the change as 
> written. Still
> not two bad as it means three actions to prepare and loose a 
> spell rather
> than two and namers can still get the spells off quickly. A 
> good thing IMHO.
> 
> If this is the intended effect all good, if not more changes 
> will need to be
> made to have it work.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AA9F.C1713130
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] Quickness: The Nerfening</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The pulse to Prepare and action to Cast sounds worthy =
of playtest. Note it puts Invested at less of a disadvantage realative =
to casting.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Another alternative is action to Prepare (where =
required) and pulse to cast, but that slows down the Namer CS's, and =
doesn't feel as 'right'.</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:mandos@allowed.to">mailto:mandos@allowed.to</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 12:28</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The =
Nerfening</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Quickness not affecting casting is an =
interesting idea. In highish</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; games, it is quite common for most of the =
mages to fight </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; anyway, with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; only those with BIG spells casting. Maybe =
more heroic?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can =
happen at the same </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; point that D+40</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; spells come out. And they don't cost FT to =
cast.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Scarily enough I suspect this may be an =
interesting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; compromise. I like the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; sound of it but would be very interested to see =
how it plays </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; out in game.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 1 point though.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 1. &quot;No changes to Quickness are needed we =
change the wording to 7.3</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Preparing so</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; it say Preparing takes the full 5 seconds and =
cannot be done </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; faster even if</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; quickened.&quot; How does this affect Namer =
counterspells. I would see that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; casting could still be a half pulse action with =
the change as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; written. Still</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; not two bad as it means three actions to =
prepare and loose a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; spell rather</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; than two and namers can still get the spells =
off quickly. A </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; good thing IMHO.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; If this is the intended effect all good, if not =
more changes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; will need to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; made to have it work.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Mandos</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; /s</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_01C5AA9F.C1713130--


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

Does this change to quickness "not effecting spell preparation" address the
issue of lowering the "10 part pulse" to a smaller number, and does it
address the issue of "fun"?

If mages are slower to Prep & Cast wont this just slow things down for them
and not the fighter types so some players will be slower and so have less
fun?

Or am I way of the mark with this?

Jonathan Bean
 
Business Development Manager
TME - Its all about time
Phone 966 1656         PO Box 35902, Browns Bay
Fax 448 1051           Auckalnd, New Zealand
Mob 021 173 4060       www.tme.co.nz
Free 0800 55 33 66

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: 27 August 2005 12:28 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Nerfening
> 
> > Quickness not affecting casting is an interesting idea. In highish
> > games, it is quite common for most of the mages to fight anyway, with
> > only those with BIG spells casting. Maybe more heroic?
> >
> > BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can happen at the same point that D+40
> > spells come out. And they don't cost FT to cast.
> 
> Scarily enough I suspect this may be an interesting compromise. I like the
> sound of it but would be very interested to see how it plays out in game.
> 
> 1 point though.
> 
> 1. "No changes to Quickness are needed we change the wording to 7.3
> Preparing so
> it say Preparing takes the full 5 seconds and cannot be done faster even
> if
> quickened." How does this affect Namer counterspells. I would see that
> casting could still be a half pulse action with the change as written.
> Still
> not two bad as it means three actions to prepare and loose a spell rather
> than two and namers can still get the spells off quickly. A good thing
> IMHO.
> 
> If this is the intended effect all good, if not more changes will need to
> be
> made to have it work.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

> Does this change to quickness "not effecting spell preparation"
> address the issue of lowering the "10 part pulse" to a smaller number, and
does it
> address the issue of "fun"?

The simplification of the initative sequence solves the '10 part pulse' and
as far as I can tell there is no issue of fun.

We have been having combatsin games for 20+ years, if it was not fun for at
least the majority of occasions we wouldn't do it.

We do ergo people are having fun.

Simply there are people who enjoy combat and some who don't, some who will
enjoy combat without quickness and some who wont, some who enjoy making the
biggest numbers they can in the game and some who don't, some who like
playing bards and some who don't, some who like talking to NPC's and some
who don't, some who want the background to a world and some who
don't......etc...etc...etc

The fact that the bulk of people on the list at the moment are keen to keep
the second action to me indicates that a bulk of people are having fun as it
stands.....

Mandos
/s


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

>" How does this affect Namer counterspells. I would see that
>casting could still be a half pulse action with the change as written.
>Still not two bad as it means three actions to prepare and loose a spell
>rather than two and namers can still get the spells off quickly. A good
>thing IMHO.

>If this is the intended effect all good, if not more changes will need to
>be made to have it work.

Preparing would take the equallent of 2 pass actions Quickened. (To keep
things simple keep it in the same Pulse)
Casting is a fire action, which then lets the mage do something else with
his second action; move full TMR, prepare a weapon, Drink his Potion.

Over all the Mage is still faster when quickened ,but it stops the Attack
spell a pulse.

Namers do not have to Prepare counter spells, they just cast, but unless
they are countering things, fire counters on two party members a pulse for
example, they would be restricted just like any other mage. Just like when
unquickened.

In answer to Jono instead of a 10 part pulse you have a standard Pulse its
just that those who get two actions do them both at the same time.

Those fighting make two sets of rolls at the same time, a Preparing Mage
gets to Prepare and move two hexs twice, a casting one casts, and then Moves
up to full TMR or does any other permited action.

The thing is it might take a few seconds more per figure, but there is not
the confusion about what part of the pulse you are in, have you had your
second action yet etc. Have all the GMs NPCs acted twice. It's all done at
once.
So it should be cleaner and faster. Maybe it won't stop Quickness from being
the game winners spell to have, but it might at least make the poor
unquicken less second class, and the NPCs last more than three pulses.

It will need play testing, but it just might work.

Helen


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

At the moment being a pure mage in combat is often boring.  The mages and
fighter mages trade blows, move around, etc.  The Pure Mage - Prepares, then
casts... next.

The effect this has on fun and gameplay depends a bit on how you interpret
the proposal.
(Assuming quickness) Is it that you must prepare twice, then cast the
following pulse?  If you then prepare as the second action of that pulse can
you prepare, cast the next pulse?

Or is it that a spell takes 5 seconds to prepare, but only requires one
prepare action.  And you cannot prepare a new spell in the same pulse as you
have cast.  And presumably the cast must still be the next action after the
prepare.
So you could move/prepare, then cast/evade.  Or a fighter-mage could
attack/prepare, then cast/attack.  If you have high enough engaged IV you
can choose to go second for your prepare and first for your cast.  You could
even change it to cast/evade to be constantly evading against your opponent.
It makes the fighter-mage option quite versatile.

The second is what I thought this proposal meant, and I think I prefer this
way.

Cheers, Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 12:04 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Nerfening


Quickness not affecting casting is an interesting idea. In highish
games, it is quite common for most of the mages to fight anyway, with
only those with BIG spells casting. Maybe more heroic?

BTW, SC ~200%, D+30 with weapons can happen at the same point that D+40
spells come out. And they don't cost FT to cast.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Helen Saggers
Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 11:56 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Nerfening


I wonder if it would help to stop the mages Pulse prepare and casting,
if like triggering, Preparing cannot be sped up (Mana only flows so
fast).

This would slow the rate of magic fire down, no hell fire or DFs or DTJs
every Pulse. Gives the opposition a chance to force a concentration
check, and still allows them to cast and take a second action like move
or take a potion. Engaged fighters would still have two actions a Pulse,
but lets face it my
D+5 sword, most stopped by amour on one guy,(three multi hexing) is
D+nothing
compared to a hell fires D10+2/rk on a possible 7 targets which ignores
amour.


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

We were intimidated, we didn't dare disagree. ;-)

1 or 2% per extra damage is a simple and reasonable mod to apply, though I'd
probably apply it to your roll-under-iv weapon save as well.
I'd probably go for 2% per damage on both.

Cheers, Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Clare Baldock
Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2005 11:17 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Other broken things.



On 26/08/2005, at 14:40, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> 2. Overstrengthing should give an increased chance of a weapon break in
> addition to the chance of a fumble. Not a huge chance 1-5% kind of
> range.

In my recent game (which was a warrior based game so there was plenty
of combat), I instituted the rule that every extra point of damage from
overstrengthing increased the chance of a roll on the fumble table by
1%. This wasn't met with howls of outrage from my party.

cheers,

clare


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

>Stephen Martin
>At the moment being a pure mage in combat is often boring.  The mages and
>fighter mages trade blows, move around, etc.  The Pure Mage - Prepares,
>then casts... next.

I would hope that my proposal will at least let the pure mage move about
between spells; I think it would also as I intend it to work allow a mage to
throw a dart or snapshoot a bow if it was already prepared after casting
without slowing the cast rate.

>The effect this has on fun and gameplay depends a bit on how you interpret
>the proposal.
>(Assuming quickness) Is it that you must prepare twice, then cast the
>following pulse?  If you then prepare as the second action of that pulse
>can you prepare, cast the next pulse?

Id like for sanities sake not to spilt the Prepare between to Pulses

>Or is it that a spell takes 5 seconds to prepare, but only requires one
>prepare action.  And you cannot prepare a new spell in the same pulse as
>you have cast.  And presumably the cast must still be the next action after
>the prepare.

I think the prepare is more one extended action (would it hurt to let them
move 4 not 2 while preparing when Quckened.) Yes you cannot Prepare a new
spell in the same Pulse as you have cast, and of course you must cast as the
next action after preparing.

The thing is it slows the Magic carnage just a little and does away with the
1st half action second half action each pulse without all mages ending up
effectively 'quick casting'.

Helen


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