> 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.

So we have '2%/additional point of damage for overstrengthing additional
chance of a fumble. The save is the same as for the fumble table but if
it fails then the weapon is broken. Magical weapons are affected as per
the fumble table.'

Y/N?

Mandos
/s


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

> I don't like the term "nerf" - smacks of MMOG's and flame 
> wars on boards between pre-pubescent teens over their 
> favorite broken part of their game.

So perfectly accurate representation of here then :-) 

> A couple of points about E&E's
> 1. They are not combat mages, they are support mages.

I would clarify this as they are not blast mages, they are most
definatly however the kind of mages you want in a combat. 

> 2. Quickness and slowness tend to be the main things you do 
> in combat at high level - sleep stops being useful except on 
> the minions and the only other thing I tend to end up casting 
> is Enhance enchant. They are defining spells of the college. 

Very true. 

> Stepping back from that Quickness does make a mess of 
> combats, I have found it necessary to keep a running track of 
> all the players and their actions (as a GM's aid) to keep 
> things moving along. Also the whole interaction with 
> non-quickened characters just plain doesn't work.

I think quickness makes a mess of large combats. Small skirmishes (Which
the game appears to be designed around) work just fine and most people
can handle quickness in those circumstances. 

In large combats there are issues with quickness but I think a number of
the issues are more around the size of the battle and quickness just
acts to enhance the basic problems. 

I think we are far better to focus on the root cause of the problems and
look at tweaking the rules to cope with larger combats rather than mess
with something that really is not broken. 

> Other related bit's
> I agree it would be really nice to overhaul the IV system and 
> get mages with some sort IV but this has proven difficult to 
> do before and no easy answer has presented itself other than 
> a complete re-write of combat (which went down like a tonne 
> of bricks last time it was tried).

Actually a number of easy answers have presented themselves, it was
agreement that we never managed. Either Unarmed init, or MD+MA work fine
in most combats and while they are not perfect they do work. Unarmed
init is my fave as I rationalise that people who are good at waving
their arms around in ritualised gestures are probably good at waving
their arms around in ritualised gestures :0)

Jonos original post was actually focussed on the initiative seqence and
the number of phases it had. This is very easy to fix and frankly far
less complicated than messing with quickness. 

Merging the first quickened action and the non-quickened actions really
does fix this problem, give it a try. It simplifies the combat nicely
and speeds up the pulse because everyone has a go, then the quickened
people get a second go. 

If in a larege battle this is not enough, then you make everyone go on
engaged initiative and it speeds up again. I have run combats with over
40+ NPC's and still managed to get through a pulse in 10 mins with no
player confusion. 

It is doable, the initative system is the broken thing here not the
spell. 


Mandos
/s


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

Feedback on Mandos's latest comments:

I think quickness makes a mess of large combats. Small skirmishes (Which
the game appears to be designed around) work just fine and most people
can handle quickness in those circumstances. 
> Completely disagree. Quickness in small combats has big problems.
> The ten-phase combat pulse is one. The dramatic balance swing 
> is another. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third.

The initative system is the broken thing here not the spell. 
> Completely disagree. See above.

> On a slightly more positive tone - yey Phil !
> Like your idea for quickness.


Mandos
/s


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

Umm I received that with the "quotes" all out of whack... any chance you can
send it again please Andrew?

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
> Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
> Sent: 29 August 2005 8:33 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Altering or Nerfing
> 
> Feedback on Mandos's latest comments:
> 
> I think quickness makes a mess of large combats. Small skirmishes (Which
> the game appears to be designed around) work just fine and most people
> can handle quickness in those circumstances.
> > Completely disagree. Quickness in small combats has big problems.
> > The ten-phase combat pulse is one. The dramatic balance swing
> > is another. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third.
> 
> The initative system is the broken thing here not the spell.
> > Completely disagree. See above.
> 
> > On a slightly more positive tone - yey Phil !
> > Like your idea for quickness.
> 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

> > Completely disagree. Quickness in small combats has big 
> > problems. 

> > The ten-phase combat pulse is one. 

I still think this is an initative interpretation issue. 

> > The dramatic balance swing is another. 

The what now? 

> > The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third.

Could you clarify this one?

> > On a slightly more positive tone - yey Phil !
> > Like your idea for quickness.

I think it is an OK solution for those who know combat and are
comfortable with it. I think it is bad for the new or clueless amongst
us. Remembering that most of us on the list know the combat system well
while there are lots of people off list who have no idea how it all
works. 

Mandos
/s


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

Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

>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?
>  
>
And changing the # of sword blows to # of spells ratio will additionally 
benefit fighter mages over pure mages.

Is that a desirable thing?

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 --

Errol Cavit wrote:

> The pulse to Prepare and action to Cast sounds worthy of playtest. 
> Note it puts Invested at less of a disadvantage realative to casting.
>
Excellent. So not only does it benefit Fighter Mages over Pure Mages, it 
reduces the disadvantage of investeds, further reducing the value of 
actually have mages on hand to cast.

Phil Judd wrote:

>I don't like the term "nerf" - smacks of MMOG's and flame wars on boards between pre-pubescent teens over their favorite broken part of their game.
>
I agree with you Phil, about disliking the term, and yet think "nerf" is 
quite apropos here.

    - 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 --

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_01C5AC16.F8DC43D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 09:02

> > > Andrew W
> > > Completely disagree. Quickness in small combats has big 
> > > problems. 
> 
> > > The ten-phase combat pulse is one. 
> 
> I still think this is an initative interpretation issue. 
> 


Could people please stop referring to the 'ten-phase combat pulse'. It
doesn't exist in the rules. 

Anyone using a variation on the rules that increases the number of phases
shouldn't complain about the number of phases.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC16.F8DC43D0
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 Altering or Nerfing</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 09:02</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Andrew W</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Completely disagree. Quickness in =
small combats has big </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; problems. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; The ten-phase combat pulse is one. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I still think this is an initative =
interpretation issue. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Could people please stop referring to the 'ten-phase =
combat pulse'. It doesn't exist in the rules. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Anyone using a variation on the rules that increases =
the number of phases shouldn't complain about the number of =
phases.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC16.F8DC43D0--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC18.721EFAE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This post is only for those being nit-picky about rules vs. what we
actually play.
=20
The most common current interpretation of the standard 6 phase combat
sequence with quickness is 12 or 14 phases (first, middle, second x
steps 2-5 - first and middle are often combined for steps 2 & 3). The
suggestion to combine quickened and unquickened actions will reduce it
to 10. Technically, allowing both quickened actions to always occur at
the same time on the character's initiative would reduce it to 6 phases,
but this isn't a common interpretation.
=20
See 3.3 Combat Sequence for the standard 6 phase combat sequence.
=20
Andrew

	-----Original Message-----
=09


	Could people please stop referring to the 'ten-phase combat
pulse'. It doesn't exist in the rules.=20

	Anyone using a variation on the rules that increases the number
of phases shouldn't complain about the number of phases.

	Cheers=20
	Errol=20


------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC18.721EFAE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D838442921-28082005>This=20
post is only for those being nit-picky about rules vs. what we actually=20
play.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D838442921-28082005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D838442921-28082005>The=20
most common current interpretation of the standard 6 phase combat =
sequence with=20
quickness is 12 or 14 phases (first, middle, second x steps 2-5 - first =
and=20
middle are often combined for steps 2 &amp; 3). The suggestion to =
combine=20
quickened and unquickened actions will reduce it to 10. Technically, =
allowing=20
both quickened actions to always occur at the same time on the =
character's=20
initiative would reduce it to 6 phases, but this isn't a common=20
interpretation.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D838442921-28082005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D838442921-28082005>See=20
3.3 Combat Sequence for the standard 6 phase combat=20
sequence.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D838442921-28082005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D838442921-28082005>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
  face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR></FONT></DIV><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Could people please stop referring to the 'ten-phase =
combat=20
  pulse'. It doesn't exist in the rules. </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Anyone using a variation on the rules that increases =
the=20
  number of phases shouldn't complain about the number of =
phases.</FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT>=20
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
=00
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC18.721EFAE0--


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

Errol Cavit wrote:

> Could people please stop referring to the 'ten-phase combat pulse'. It 
> doesn't exist in the rules.

But it does exist in practice. We have rules and we have conventions. 
Many GMs seem to play the top-half of Pulse, unquickened, then 
bottom-half or Pulse convention, even if not supported by rules.

> Anyone using a variation on the rules that increases the number of 
> phases shouldn't complain about the number of phases.
>
OK, so its been identified as a convention and not a rule.  Now, without 
a rule change, what are better, faster, simpler, more streamlined, etc 
ways of running Quickness?

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 --

Clarification. 

Just to Confirm This is the current sequence as per the rules. 

1. Unengaged Initiative is determined for each side.
2. If any figures are engaged or in Close, these figures are grouped
into Engagements, and each Engagement is dealt with separately.
3. In each Engagement, engaged Initiative is determined,and then the
figures act in order of Initiative (highest to lowest), each performing
one Action from the Engaged Actions list.
4. The winner of the unengaged Initiative now resolves the Actions
(selected from the Unengaged Actions List) of all their unengaged
figures, in any order they choose. All their actions must be resolved
before any figures on the opposing side may act.
5. Remaining unengaged figures may act as in Step 4.
6. End of Pulse activity occurs. This may include an additional stun
recovery attempt for figures that were Stunned during the Pulse and any
housekeeping.

In this discussion I recommend we refer to a more compacted version of
above involving the following phases. 

1. Start of pulse stuff 
2. Engaged figues perform actions
3. Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
4. Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
5. End of pulse Stuff. 

So a quickened fight in the current convention would appear as 

1. Start of pulse stuff 
2. First half Engaged actions
3. First half Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
4. First half Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
5. None-quickened people Engaged actions
6. None-quickened Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
7. None-quickened Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
8. Second half Engaged actions
9. Second half Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
10. Second half Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
11. End of pulse stuff. 

Just to help define things so we can stop arguing over the number of
pulses. 

Mandos
/s


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

On 29/08/2005, at 09:18, Martin Dickson wrote:

> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> And changing the # of sword blows to # of spells ratio will 
> additionally benefit fighter mages over pure mages.
>
> Is that a desirable thing?

my 2 cents: no

cheers,

clare


-- 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_01C5AC20.275044B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 09:57
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Rules
<snip>
> 
> So a quickened fight in the current convention would appear as 
> 
> 1. Start of pulse stuff 
> 2. First half Engaged actions
> 3. First half Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 4. First half Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 5. None-quickened people Engaged actions
> 6. None-quickened Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 7. None-quickened Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 8. Second half Engaged actions
> 9. Second half Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 10. Second half Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 11. End of pulse stuff. 
> 
> Just to help define things so we can stop arguing over the number of
> pulses. 
> 

Looks a useful way of stating it. My beef was putting stun recovery as a
separate phase, something we changed deliberately.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC20.275044B0
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 Rules</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 09:57</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Rules</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; So a quickened fight in the current convention =
would appear as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 1. Start of pulse stuff </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 2. First half Engaged actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 3. First half Unengaged team 1 figues perform =
actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 4. First half Unengaged team 2 figues perform =
actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 5. None-quickened people Engaged actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 6. None-quickened Unengaged team 1 figues =
perform actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 7. None-quickened Unengaged team 2 figues =
perform actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 8. Second half Engaged actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 9. Second half Unengaged team 1 figues perform =
actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 10. Second half Unengaged team 2 figues perform =
actions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 11. End of pulse stuff. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Just to help define things so we can stop =
arguing over the number of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; pulses. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Looks a useful way of stating it. My beef was putting =
stun recovery as a separate phase, something we changed =
deliberately.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC20.275044B0--


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

I have to agree that combat is complicated especially for the new. Even
after more than a decade playing I still refer to the combat tables I keep
in my character folder at times.

However I'm not sure Phils change will make it any more so.

Unless you have a completely newish group, a few experienced players usually
help keep things flowing, and once we get used to the change it should run
as smoothly as the current system.

I thing Phils idea is at least worth a second look. Possibly a play test.

Helen


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

Phil Judd wrote:

>I agree it would be really nice to overhaul the IV system and get mages
>with some sort IV but this has proven difficult to do before and no easy
>answer has presented itself other than a complete re-write of combat
>(which went down like a tonne of bricks last time it was tried).
>  
>
It's not just mages.  Having a single initiative "timeline" regardless 
of whether people are engaged or not allows the very fast fighter a hex 
away from the bad guy who is fighting their slow companion to step in 
and help out, rather than having to watch on helplessly.  It allows for 
the specialist archer who shoots down the bad guy about to stab a 
companion in the back.

Basically it allows for greater integration of the figures in the combat.

I agree that the major complexity is fuguring the IV of figures without 
prepared weapons (assuming we wish to keep the basics of AG + PC + Rk) 
-- and using unarmed for mages is just silly; I can do magic faster 'cos 
I know judo?! :-)  The other things that need factoring in are Mil Sci 
bonus (which is worth keeping IMHO), and some people seem keen on a D10.

We have a lot of smart people here. It cannot be that hard.  :-)

-- 
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 --

> I have to agree that combat is complicated especially for the 
> new. Even after more than a decade playing I still refer to 
> the combat tables I keep in my character folder at times.
> 
> However I'm not sure Phils change will make it any more so.
> 
> Unless you have a completely newish group, a few experienced 
> players usually help keep things flowing, and once we get 
> used to the change it should run as smoothly as the current system.

So basically you are saying that since complexity and confusion is the
problem we should move to another system just as confusing and complex
but in a different way and then get people used to it so we can return
to the level of confusion we now have?

Somehow I think a point has been missed. 

:_)

Mandos
/s


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

> -- and using unarmed for mages is just silly; I can do magic 
> faster 'cos I know judo?! :-) 

My feeling is that people who are trained to naturaly react to incoming
threats by waving their arms in precise and ingrained patterns would be
able to do so. 

Whether the pattern they use is a block, strike or spell it is the same
basic principle thus the increase speed and reflexes shown by the
unarmed init. 

Tai Chi kata's are like minute casting :-)

Mandos
/s


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

Individual rather than group initiative means than the party can't
easily decide what happens in which order. People delay actions, bad
guys act in-between. This creates more complexity for GMs. It could be
fun, but *is* more complex.


Really simple initiative:
Clockwise. Bad guys go before if tough/fast or after if weak/slow.

Simple(ish) Initiative:

AG + PC + Mil Sci Rank
In melee, add Warrior + Weapon + Mil Sci Rank (skirmish only).

This makes melee usually faster - an advantage for putting yourself on
the line.

To address *anyone* hitting the bad guy behind a companion requires the
behind IV bonus to be changed to (say) +20 rather than automatic first.


Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 11:31 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Altering


Phil Judd wrote:

>I agree it would be really nice to overhaul the IV system and get mages

>with some sort IV but this has proven difficult to do before and no 
>easy answer has presented itself other than a complete re-write of 
>combat (which went down like a tonne of bricks last time it was tried).
>  
>
It's not just mages.  Having a single initiative "timeline" regardless 
of whether people are engaged or not allows the very fast fighter a hex 
away from the bad guy who is fighting their slow companion to step in 
and help out, rather than having to watch on helplessly.  It allows for 
the specialist archer who shoots down the bad guy about to stab a 
companion in the back.

Basically it allows for greater integration of the figures in the
combat.

I agree that the major complexity is fuguring the IV of figures without 
prepared weapons (assuming we wish to keep the basics of AG + PC + Rk) 
-- and using unarmed for mages is just silly; I can do magic faster 'cos

I know judo?! :-)  The other things that need factoring in are Mil Sci 
bonus (which is worth keeping IMHO), and some people seem keen on a D10.

We have a lot of smart people here. It cannot be that hard.  :-)

-- 
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 --

> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> And changing the # of sword blows to # of spells ratio will 
> additionally benefit fighter mages over pure mages.
>
> Is that a desirable thing?

Are we taking Fighter mages who only fight in combat, and not cast?
Or are we taking Fighter Mages who do both?

As it is a Fighter Mage for example can hit the guy in front of him first
action with a one handed weapon, Prepare a spell second half, cast First
action next Pulse and hit the guy in front again second action, under the
Quickened, then unquickened system the guy never gets to force a
Concentration check.

With the change to full Pulse preparation the Mage can not hit with his
weapon every pulse and still cast.

The change leaves those who only fight in combat, mage or non mage doing the
same as present, and pure mages get to move or some other action between
casts, with out dropping their possible rate spells.
It does however limit those who try to do both, a weapon strike and a spell
every second Pulse.

In this way it favors Namers casting counters, and Mages that only fight in
combat, if that's not desirable, is it because fighting only mages usurp the
job of the pure fighter non mage.

Helen
(Just a thought, has anyone ever tried a non fighter non mage?)


-- 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_01C5AC2B.8AA46D10
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 11:31
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The Altering
> 
> 
> Phil Judd wrote:
> 
> >I agree it would be really nice to overhaul the IV system 
> and get mages
> >with some sort IV but this has proven difficult to do before 
> and no easy
> >answer has presented itself other than a complete re-write of combat
> >(which went down like a tonne of bricks last time it was tried).
> >  
> >
> It's not just mages.  Having a single initiative "timeline" 
> regardless 
> of whether people are engaged or not allows the very fast 
> fighter a hex 
> away from the bad guy who is fighting their slow companion to step in 
> and help out, rather than having to watch on helplessly.  It 
> allows for 
> the specialist archer who shoots down the bad guy about to stab a 
> companion in the back.
> 
> Basically it allows for greater integration of the figures in 
> the combat.
> 
> I agree that the major complexity is fuguring the IV of 
> figures without 
> prepared weapons (assuming we wish to keep the basics of AG + 
> PC + Rk) 
> -- and using unarmed for mages is just silly; I can do magic 
> faster 'cos 
> I know judo?! :-)  

Some ideas thrown into the ring:

How about rank with prepared ranged weapon for unengaged? Mages tend to be
slower than archers - or rather archers get a better chance to interupt the
engaged figures.
How to handle a mage with prepared eg battleaxe casting with off hand?
Will change over time, but fighters change weapons too.


The other things that need factoring in 
> are Mil Sci 
> bonus (which is worth keeping IMHO), and some people seem 
> keen on a D10.

If you don't add any rank with prepared weapon, then adding the Mil Sci's
rank to unengaged's IV seems OK (currently rk x2 in a different calc).

Random element has a better feel IMO, but I'm unsure that it is worth the
complexity cost to add it (one roll per side!) to everyone's (including
engaged) IV.

> 
> We have a lot of smart people here. It cannot be that hard.  :-)

Workable systems not that hard. One that we agree on....

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC2B.8AA46D10
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] General Initiative</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Martin Dickson [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com">mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com=
</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 11:31</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Quickness: The =
Altering</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Phil Judd wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;I agree it would be really nice to overhaul =
the IV system </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and get mages</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;with some sort IV but this has proven =
difficult to do before </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and no easy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;answer has presented itself other than a =
complete re-write of combat</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;(which went down like a tonne of bricks =
last time it was tried).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; It's not just mages.&nbsp; Having a single =
initiative &quot;timeline&quot; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; regardless </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of whether people are engaged or not allows the =
very fast </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; fighter a hex </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; away from the bad guy who is fighting their =
slow companion to step in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and help out, rather than having to watch on =
helplessly.&nbsp; It </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; allows for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the specialist archer who shoots down the bad =
guy about to stab a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; companion in the back.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Basically it allows for greater integration of =
the figures in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the combat.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I agree that the major complexity is fuguring =
the IV of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; figures without </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; prepared weapons (assuming we wish to keep the =
basics of AG + </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; PC + Rk) </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- and using unarmed for mages is just silly; I =
can do magic </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; faster 'cos </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I know judo?! :-)&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Some ideas thrown into the ring:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>How about rank with prepared ranged weapon for =
unengaged? Mages tend to be slower than archers - or rather archers get =
a better chance to interupt the engaged figures.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>How to handle a mage with prepared eg battleaxe =
casting with off hand?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Will change over time, but fighters change weapons =
too.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The other things that need factoring in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; are Mil Sci </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; bonus (which is worth keeping IMHO), and some =
people seem </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; keen on a D10.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If you don't add any rank with prepared weapon, then =
adding the Mil Sci's rank to unengaged's IV seems OK (currently rk x2 =
in a different calc).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Random element has a better feel IMO, but I'm unsure =
that it is worth the complexity cost to add it (one roll per side!) to =
everyone's (including engaged) IV.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; We have a lot of smart people here. It cannot =
be that hard.&nbsp; :-)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Workable systems not that hard. One that we agree =
on....</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC2B.8AA46D10--


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

I think that IV, Actions, Quickness, and Slow are all inter-related.  Looking at them individually
doesn't work as they have direct impacts on each other.
I like several of the proposed changes to quickness, but they do change the balance of combat and
fighter vs mages.  Each of them has their strengths and issues as have been identified.


Here is my attempt at minimal change to simplify combat with minimal change to the balance...


Engaged is resolved first, if you become unengaged before your action then your action happens in
your teams Unengaged segment.  [Change in how most of us play those that become unengaged - but I
think it makes more sense in that only the _engaged_ actions are resolved first]
A fast figure that chooses to act after a slow figure acts on the IV of the nominated slow figure
-1, their second action is then 20 IV after that.  [Nailing down exactly when their action
happens]

Quickness gives you an additional action at IV+10 and then your normal action at IV-10.  [I want
the second actions happening at a specific "time" in the IV sequence - also set framework for how
very fast and very slow teams interact - could get both actions of fast team then both of slow
team.]

Slow removes your "even" actions (non-quickened => Act, slowed, Act, slowed... quickened => Act on
IV+10 only). [No change - just re-stating it]

An unengaged team is a group of combatants acting on the same unengaged IV.  [A new
definition/interpretation - also helps structure how a 3rd team could slot in]


Starting from this summarised sequence:
> 1. Start of pulse stuff (Mil Sci Timeout, Unengaged IV resolution, environmental
descriptions/questions)
> 2. Engaged figues perform actions
> 3. Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 4. Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 5. End of pulse Stuff (Poison, Stun Recovery, Bleeding, etc.)


Scenario 1: Party (Team 1) is Quickened, Bad Guys (Team 2) is not.

1. Start of Pulse - Team 1 UIV = 37, so they act on 47 and 27.  Team 2 UIV = 39.
2. ALL engaged actions are resolved in engaged IV order until all engaged figures have used all of
their actions or they become unengaged.
3. UIV 47 - Team 1 perform first (quickened) actions.  Any Team 1 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 1st action also act.
4. UIV 39 - Team 2 perform only actions.  Any Team 2 engaged figures that became unengaged before
their action also act.
5. UIV 27 - Team 1 perform second (normal) actions.  Any Team 1 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 2nd action also act.
6. End of pulse.


Scenario 2: Party (Team 1) is Quickened, Bad Guys (Team 2) also quickened.

1. Start of Pulse - Team 1 UIV = 37, so they act on 47 and 27.  Team 2 UIV = 39, so they act on 49
and 29.
2. ALL engaged actions are resolved in engaged IV order until all engaged figures have used all of
their actions or they become unengaged.
3. UIV 49 - Team 2 perform first (quickened) actions.  Any Team 2 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 1st action also act.
4. UIV 47 - Team 1 perform first (quickened) actions.  Any Team 1 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 1st action also act.
5. UIV 29 - Team 2 perform second (normal) actions.  Any Team 2 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 2nd action also act.
6. UIV 27 - Team 1 perform second (normal) actions.  Any Team 1 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 2nd action also act.
7. End of pulse.


Scenario 3: Half of Party (Team 1) is Quickened, Half of Bad Guys (Team 2) quickened.

1. Start of Pulse - Team 1 UIV = 37, so they act on 47, 37, and 27.  Team 2 UIV = 39, so they act
on 49, 39 and 29.
2. ALL engaged actions are resolved in engaged IV order until all engaged figures have used all of
their actions or they become unengaged.
3. UIV 49 - Q-Team 2 perform first (quickened) actions.  Any Q-Team 2 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 1st action also act.
4. UIV 47 - Q-Team 1 perform first (quickened) actions.  Any Q-Team 1 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 1st action also act.
5. UIV 39 - Team 2 perform normal actions.  Any Team 2 engaged figures that became unengaged
before their action also act.
6. UIV 37 - Team 1 perform normal actions.  Any Team 1 engaged figures that became unengaged
before their action also act.
7. UIV 29 - Q-Team 2 perform second (normal) actions.  Any Q-Team 2 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 2nd action also act.
8. UIV 27 - Q-Team 1 perform second (normal) actions.  Any Q-Team 1 engaged figures that became
unengaged before their 2nd action also act.
9. End of pulse.


Issues with this approach:
1) Scenario 3 is getting messy.  Not applying the IV penalty to second actions would simplify it,
but I feel this leaves the actions too close together, an option would be to make the IV bonus
higher, 5% +1/Rk springs to mind.
2) Inequality between quickened and non-quickened is not addressed.
3) Separation of Engaged vs Unengaged is not addressed.

Advantages:
1) Small change to quickness and combat.  Most of it is in the interpretation and implementation
of existing rules.
2) Simplifies pulse sequence a bit.
3) No change to number of actions or fighter/mage balance.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

-----Original Message-----
Mandos Mitchinson

So basically you are saying that since complexity and confusion is the
problem we should move to another system just as confusing and complex
but in a different way and then get people used to it so we can return
to the level of confusion we now have?

Yes :-(

Somehow I think a point has been missed. 

No, the point is that the IV system is broken, we can't think of (or is it
agree to) a simple fix, and so we are looking for a workable bandage for the
point we see as most broken.

Helen


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

Errol Cavit wrote:

> Some ideas thrown into the ring:
>
> How about rank with prepared ranged weapon for unengaged? Mages tend 
> to be slower than archers - or rather archers get a better chance to 
> interupt the engaged figures.
>
> How to handle a mage with prepared eg battleaxe casting with off hand? 
> Will change over time, but fighters change weapons too.
>
Not terribly sensible / logical though.  No matter how good the mage may 
be with their battle axe, by casting they are choosing not to use the 
axe and should'nt have their IV based on it.

> If you don't add any rank with prepared weapon, then adding the Mil 
> Sci's rank to unengaged's IV seems OK (currently rk x2 in a different 
> calc).

That has possibility -- without a competent commander the unengaged 
figures will on average go after the engaged... hmm... perhap this 
should always be true anyway...

-- 
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 --

> As it is a Fighter Mage for example can hit the guy in front 
> of him first action with a one handed weapon, Prepare a spell 
> second half, cast First action next Pulse and hit the guy in 
> front again second action, under the Quickened, then 
> unquickened system the guy never gets to force a Concentration check.

As far as I am aware the concentration check applies regardless of you
getting his and is for any spell cast while engaged. 

Mandos
/s


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

Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

>Simple(ish) Initiative:
>
>AG + PC + Mil Sci Rank
>In melee, add Warrior + Weapon + Mil Sci Rank (skirmish only).
>
>This makes melee usually faster - an advantage for putting yourself on
>the line.
>  
>
Not sure you should be able to add Mil Sci (non-skirmish) unengaged... 
if so, would then simplify to:
Everyone: AG + PC + Mil Sci (skirmish)
Engaged: Base + weapon Rk + warrior bonue.

>To address *anyone* hitting the bad guy behind a companion requires the
>behind IV bonus to be changed to (say) +20 rather than automatic first.
>
>  
>
Agreed, although the behind bonus is already not absolute -- one only 
gets it if not in anyone elses melee zone [Engaged Init: "If an engaged 
figure is not in any
opponent’s Melee Zone, they may act first in the engagement."]

Consider: Alice has IV 50, Bob is behind Alice and has IV 30. Bob is not 
in anyone's melee zone and may act first -- before Alice. However if 
Carol is facing Bob (in one of his other front hexes) and has IV 40, 
then (by my reading) Alice acts first, then Carol and finally Bob, yes?

Which seems a bit odd to me -- I would have expected Carol, Bob, Alice.

Also if we mix engaged / unengaged and act in init order (rather than by 
engagement), then the rule would need rethinking anyway.

I prefer your suggestion of +20 (for example) over the current version.

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 --

If we found a way to integrate the unengaged into this so that you just went
down though the IVs it would be less messy.
You would just then count down though the IVs until everyone had had all
there actions.

Pulses then go Milsci time out, All Actions, End of Pulse effects.
No more engaged unengaged.

Perhaps using IV for missile weapons or, unarmed if no weapon, and those
casting Magic add PC MD (gestures not gross movement) and the Milsci rank
(as they are giving orders, "target the ...") to get IV.

GMs NPCs slotting in as necessary, 
This could mean that a Mage goes before a fighter due to their high PC,MD,
and good milsci. 

You also don't address when the 26+ ag people get to do their additional
action.

Helen


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 11:53 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Initiative: The Sequence


Issues with this approach:
1) Scenario 3 is getting messy.  Not applying the IV penalty to second
actions would simplify it,
but I feel this leaves the actions too close together, an option would be to
make the IV bonus
higher, 5% +1/Rk springs to mind.
2) Inequality between quickened and non-quickened is not addressed.
3) Separation of Engaged vs Unengaged is not addressed.

Advantages:
1) Small change to quickness and combat.  Most of it is in the
interpretation and implementation
of existing rules.
2) Simplifies pulse sequence a bit.
3) No change to number of actions or fighter/mage balance.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

Mil Sci was changed from 1 per rank to 2 per rank as it was deemed to have insufficient effect on
IV at 1 per rank.  Adding AG to the calc also makes Mil Sci less important.

How about 2 x Mil Sci can be substitued for PC or AG if they are lower.  Not much effect for low
level Mil Sci but high level Mil Sci speeds up the bottom end of the party.
Or add 2 or 3 times Mil Sci rank to both Initiatives.

And I would keep the D10 for unengaged (1 roll for party).  So that it brings them and bit closer
together, if you are crap in combat then Unengaged will often go first, but if you're good then
you will.

This gives:
UIV: AG + PC + MilSci + D10
EIV: AG + PC + MilSci + Weapon + Warrior


What happens to someone who starts engaged but has their opponent killed before they get their
action?  Do they still act on engaged or do they drop to unengaged?
My preference is drop to unengaged.


And how does Quickness fit into this?
I would suggest extra action on IV + (5 + Quickness Rank) and then normal action on IV.
Or the Pass Action proposal for Quickness.
Or the Add IV and TMR proposal.
Or the Agility buff proposal (though I'd advocate 1+1/2 rather than +1/rk)


Cheers, Stephen.

Martin Dickson said:
> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
>>Simple(ish) Initiative:
>>AG + PC + Mil Sci Rank
>>In melee, add Warrior + Weapon + Mil Sci Rank (skirmish only).
>>
> Not sure you should be able to add Mil Sci (non-skirmish) unengaged...  if so, would then
> simplify to:
> Everyone: AG + PC + Mil Sci (skirmish)
> Engaged: Base + weapon Rk + warrior bonue.
>
>>To address *anyone* hitting the bad guy behind a companion requires the behind IV bonus to be
>> changed to (say) +20 rather than automatic first.


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

Because that is explicitly covered under the effects of high AG and does not need to change.
High agility actions happen at the same time as your normal actions.

Helen Saggers said:
> You also don't address when the 26+ ag people get to do their additional action.
>
> Helen


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

Regarding spell caster initiatives, the has been no mention so far of
the MA of caster or the rank of spell being involved.  This was, I
think, mentioned in past discussions. Coming from a flavour/logic PoV,
rather than number crunching ... In my opinion, it makes sense for a
charcter with high MA to be able to cast sooner than low MA, similarly
the familiar high rank spells can be cast at speed more easily than one
just learnt.  Would it be too much to add an initative column to each of
a characters spells, based on the rank of that spell? Adds in another
factor in deciding which spell a mage would cast in combat.

Sally

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 1:48 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative


Mil Sci was changed from 1 per rank to 2 per rank as it was deemed to
have insufficient effect on IV at 1 per rank.  Adding AG to the calc
also makes Mil Sci less important.

How about 2 x Mil Sci can be substitued for PC or AG if they are lower.
Not much effect for low level Mil Sci but high level Mil Sci speeds up
the bottom end of the party. Or add 2 or 3 times Mil Sci rank to both
Initiatives.

And I would keep the D10 for unengaged (1 roll for party).  So that it
brings them and bit closer together, if you are crap in combat then
Unengaged will often go first, but if you're good then you will.

This gives:
UIV: AG + PC + MilSci + D10
EIV: AG + PC + MilSci + Weapon + Warrior


What happens to someone who starts engaged but has their opponent killed
before they get their action?  Do they still act on engaged or do they
drop to unengaged? My preference is drop to unengaged.


And how does Quickness fit into this?
I would suggest extra action on IV + (5 + Quickness Rank) and then
normal action on IV. Or the Pass Action proposal for Quickness. Or the
Add IV and TMR proposal. Or the Agility buff proposal (though I'd
advocate 1+1/2 rather than +1/rk)


Cheers, Stephen.

Martin Dickson said:
> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
>>Simple(ish) Initiative:
>>AG + PC + Mil Sci Rank
>>In melee, add Warrior + Weapon + Mil Sci Rank (skirmish only).
>>
> Not sure you should be able to add Mil Sci (non-skirmish) unengaged...

> if so, would then simplify to:
> Everyone: AG + PC + Mil Sci (skirmish)
> Engaged: Base + weapon Rk + warrior bonue.
>
>>To address *anyone* hitting the bad guy behind a companion requires 
>>the behind IV bonus to be  changed to (say) +20 rather than automatic 
>>first.


-- 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 --

> Regarding spell caster initiatives, the has been no mention 
> so far of the MA of caster or the rank of spell being 
> involved.  This was, I think, mentioned in past discussions. 
> Coming from a flavour/logic PoV, rather than number crunching 
> ... In my opinion, it makes sense for a charcter with high MA 
> to be able to cast sooner than low MA, similarly the familiar 
> high rank spells can be cast at speed more easily than one 
> just learnt.  Would it be too much to add an initative column 
> to each of a characters spells, based on the rank of that 
> spell? Adds in another factor in deciding which spell a mage 
> would cast in combat.

I agree with the use of MA, (but I do have a massive potential bias
there) but the use of spell rank is just horrible. A warrior might have
3 or 4 weapons in use in a combat in really extreme circumstances while
a mage (excluding boring single spell mages) may have 5-10 combat
options meaning a rediculous number of different initiatives, making the
calculation of when the mage would cast very time consuming. 

It makes a lot of sence but the mechanics trip it up. 

Mandos
/s


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

> How about 2 x Mil Sci can be substitued for PC or AG if they 
> are lower.  Not much effect for low level Mil Sci but high 
> level Mil Sci speeds up the bottom end of the party. Or add 2 
> or 3 times Mil Sci rank to both Initiatives.

So the 18 Agility Rank 8 Mil sci  takes an endurace from an arrow and
not only has to recalculate his initative but suddenly starts using a
different set of numbers? 

Seems a little odd. 

> And how does Quickness fit into this?
> I would suggest extra action on IV + (5 + Quickness Rank) and 
> then normal action on IV. 

At the moment who goes before who is pretty easy. Im melee you choices
are limited to the people in each engagement, quick to work out. In
unengaged, since everyone has the same initative they go as the mil sci
dictates or as the GM looks round the room. 

Giving everyone a number, some people 2 numbers and trying to interleave
them seems a touch tricky to do on the fly each pulsees. 

Mandos
/s


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

For those who have trouble with combats I recommend you try playtesting
the really simple option.

1. Make everyone engaged as soon as people enter melee. (Come up with a
spellcaster init you are happy with)

2. Merge the first quickened and unquickened action into the same phase.


It really does speed combat up, it doesn't break it and removes
calculation rather than adding them. 

It has already been play tested, doesn't require massive changes to the
rules and makes it easier to work out who goes when than any of the
other options mentioned so far. 

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>I agree with the use of MA, (but I do have a massive potential bias
>there) but the use of spell rank is just horrible....
>
>It makes a lot of sence but the mechanics trip it up. 
>  
>
If separate IV per spell is too much how about Generals faster than 
Specials?

-- 
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 --

Agree completely from a flavour and logic POV.
However it requires a more explicit declaration of action phase at the beginning of pulse as
whether you are moving, preparing, casting, shooting, talking, etc. affects when you will act in
the pulse.
This is fine but it is not the style of play that we are used to.
It is also a more complicated model and I believe Andrews stated aim was for a simple calculation.

Weapons are a little different as you must have a weapon in hand before you can use it, if you are
engaged you act based on the weapon you have in hand regardless of what you are doing.

If we were to go for a more complicated IV system that had a 'Magic IV' then we'd also need to
address that spell ranks are bigger than weapon ranks, and the MA of a pure mage is usually higher
than the AG of a pure fighter as AG is reduced by armour and MA is increased by Purification. 
This all has the effect of making magic faster than weapons which is not our norm.

Cheers, Stephen.

Sally Musgrave said:
> Regarding spell caster initiatives, the has been no mention so far of the MA of caster or the
> rank of spell being involved.  This was, I think, mentioned in past discussions. Coming from a
> flavour/logic PoV, rather than number crunching ... In my opinion, it makes sense for a charcter
> with high MA to be able to cast sooner than low MA, similarly the familiar high rank spells can
> be cast at speed more easily than one just learnt.  Would it be too much to add an initative
> column to each of a characters spells, based on the rank of that spell? Adds in another factor
> in deciding which spell a mage would cast in combat.
>
> Sally
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Stephen Martin
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 1:48 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative
>
>
> Mil Sci was changed from 1 per rank to 2 per rank as it was deemed to have insufficient effect
> on IV at 1 per rank.  Adding AG to the calc also makes Mil Sci less important.
>
> How about 2 x Mil Sci can be substitued for PC or AG if they are lower. Not much effect for low
> level Mil Sci but high level Mil Sci speeds up the bottom end of the party. Or add 2 or 3 times
> Mil Sci rank to both Initiatives.
>
> And I would keep the D10 for unengaged (1 roll for party).  So that it brings them and bit
> closer together, if you are crap in combat then Unengaged will often go first, but if you're
> good then you will.
>
> This gives:
> UIV: AG + PC + MilSci + D10
> EIV: AG + PC + MilSci + Weapon + Warrior
>
>
> What happens to someone who starts engaged but has their opponent killed before they get their
> action?  Do they still act on engaged or do they drop to unengaged? My preference is drop to
> unengaged.
>
>
> And how does Quickness fit into this?
> I would suggest extra action on IV + (5 + Quickness Rank) and then normal action on IV. Or the
> Pass Action proposal for Quickness. Or the Add IV and TMR proposal. Or the Agility buff proposal
> (though I'd
> advocate 1+1/2 rather than +1/rk)
>
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
> Martin Dickson said:
>> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
>>>Simple(ish) Initiative:
>>>AG + PC + Mil Sci Rank
>>>In melee, add Warrior + Weapon + Mil Sci Rank (skirmish only).
>>>
>> Not sure you should be able to add Mil Sci (non-skirmish) unengaged...
>
>> if so, would then simplify to:
>> Everyone: AG + PC + Mil Sci (skirmish)
>> Engaged: Base + weapon Rk + warrior bonue.
>>
>>>To address *anyone* hitting the bad guy behind a companion requires  the behind IV bonus to be
>>>  changed to (say) +20 rather than automatic  first.
>
>
> -- 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 --


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

Just as an idea, why not come up with a 'weapon' called Combat
spellcasting. Give it EP, mages get it at Rk 0 to start with and can
rank it to whatever max rank we want. 

It gives a spellcasting init and fits with the current rules. 

Mandos
/s


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

Helen Saggers wrote:

>Perhaps using IV for missile weapons or, unarmed if no weapon, and those
>casting Magic add PC MD (gestures not gross movement) and the Milsci rank
>(as they are giving orders, "target the ...") to get IV.
>  
>
Change MD to MA per Sally's post and you've got a deal. :-)

But yes, I'd like to see weapon Rk retained for Archers.

-- 
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_01C5AC40.B5EA4200
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:16
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Initiative: The Sequence
> 
> 
> Helen Saggers wrote:
> 
> >Perhaps using IV for missile weapons or, unarmed if no 
> weapon, and those
> >casting Magic add PC MD (gestures not gross movement) and 
> the Milsci rank
> >(as they are giving orders, "target the ...") to get IV.
> >  
> >
> Change MD to MA per Sally's post and you've got a deal. :-)
> 
> But yes, I'd like to see weapon Rk retained for Archers.
> 


That covers missile weapons, what about (potential) thrown ones?

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC40.B5EA4200
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] Initiative: The Sequence</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: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:16</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Initiative: The Sequence</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Helen Saggers wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt;Perhaps using IV for missile weapons or, unarmed if no </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; weapon, and those</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt;casting Magic add PC MD (gestures not gross movement) and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; the Milsci rank</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt;(as they are giving orders, &quot;target the ...&quot;) to get IV.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt;&nbsp; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Change MD to MA per Sally's post and you've got a deal. :-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; But yes, I'd like to see weapon Rk retained for Archers.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>That covers missile weapons, what about (potential) thrown ones?</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC40.B5EA4200--


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

Helen suggested ...
> If we found a way to integrate the unengaged into this so 
> that you just went
> down though the IVs it would be less messy.
> You would just then count down though the IVs until everyone 
> had had all there actions.

I did try something like this a few years ago ... it can get a bit slow if you've got a wide range of initiative "count down", but it does have a right feel to it -- except that my first attempt had an unbalanced initiative for mages.  One does NOT have to take one's initiative immediately, but can hold it until after something happens.  If you have two *distinct* actions then your 2nd action occurs at half the initiative of your first.   [Some thought afterward suggested that the two actions should be XX(?) initiative apart to avoid a character doing multiple distinct actions separately]

This method STILL suffers from the absurd problems that arise from the mechanic that nominally one moves instantaneously (or worse, moves & attacks) -- but that is curable.

regards, Michael


-- 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_01C5AC41.70FB0D40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Issue with rank is knowing which spell is being used at the time IV is
decided. Although if we go with what is Prepared, you tend to act later when
Preparing, and get a boost when it comes to firing. Still messy however.

Also if it is MA-based, then an unengaged AG fighter tends to charge later
than the mage fires.

Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Musgrave [mailto:SallyM@universal.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative
> 
> 
> Regarding spell caster initiatives, the has been no mention so far of
> the MA of caster or the rank of spell being involved.  This was, I
> think, mentioned in past discussions. Coming from a flavour/logic PoV,
> rather than number crunching ... In my opinion, it makes sense for a
> charcter with high MA to be able to cast sooner than low MA, similarly
> the familiar high rank spells can be cast at speed more 
> easily than one
> just learnt.  Would it be too much to add an initative column 
> to each of
> a characters spells, based on the rank of that spell? Adds in another
> factor in deciding which spell a mage would cast in combat.
> 
> Sally
> 
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC41.70FB0D40
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] General Initiative</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Issue with rank is knowing which spell is being used =
at the time IV is decided. Although if we go with what is Prepared, you =
tend to act later when Preparing, and get a boost when it comes to =
firing. Still messy however.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Also if it is MA-based, then an unengaged AG fighter =
tends to charge later than the mage fires.</FONT>
</P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Sally Musgrave [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:SallyM@universal.co.nz">mailto:SallyM@universal.co.nz</A>=
]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:00</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Regarding spell caster initiatives, the has =
been no mention so far of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the MA of caster or the rank of spell being =
involved.&nbsp; This was, I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; think, mentioned in past discussions. Coming =
from a flavour/logic PoV,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; rather than number crunching ... In my opinion, =
it makes sense for a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; charcter with high MA to be able to cast sooner =
than low MA, similarly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the familiar high rank spells can be cast at =
speed more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; easily than one</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; just learnt.&nbsp; Would it be too much to add =
an initative column </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; to each of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; a characters spells, based on the rank of that =
spell? Adds in another</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; factor in deciding which spell a mage would =
cast in combat.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sally</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC41.70FB0D40--


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

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Stephen Martin

If we were to go for a more complicated IV system that had a 'Magic IV' then
we'd also need to
address that spell ranks are bigger than weapon ranks, and the MA of a pure
mage is usually higher
than the AG of a pure fighter as AG is reduced by armour and MA is increased
by Purification. 
This all has the effect of making magic faster than weapons which is not our
norm.

Cheers, Stephen.

This is why I suggested a PC, MD and Milsci based IV for magic.

Although I had thought initially that perhaps half MA might work instead of
Milsci, then I remembered there are a lot of Low MA mind mages and namers,
although they could at least get +3 round up from an MA of 5.

Helen


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

On initial reaction, I like this idea.  However I'm sure many would say
there is enough things for a mage to spend ep & time ranking on at the
moment. But this does create a nice distinction between back up mages
and combat mages.

Sally



-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 2:15 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Spell caster init.



Just as an idea, why not come up with a 'weapon' called Combat
spellcasting. Give it EP, mages get it at Rk 0 to start with and can
rank it to whatever max rank we want. 

It gives a spellcasting init and fits with the current rules. 

Mandos
/s


-- 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 --

It works for me, but just how long would you train for it?
2x rank weeks as for weapons
Rank weeks as skills
Would it be like a talent just based on time on adventure.

I could see a lot of time and ep being spent on nothing else emediatly after
introduction.

Helen

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 2:15 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Spell caster init.


Just as an idea, why not come up with a 'weapon' called Combat
spellcasting. Give it EP, mages get it at Rk 0 to start with and can
rank it to whatever max rank we want. 

It gives a spellcasting init and fits with the current rules. 

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_01C5AC43.8DBBF960
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

How about making it a skill? Half the ranking time.

Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Musgrave [mailto:SallyM@universal.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:40
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spell caster init.
> 
> 
> On initial reaction, I like this idea.  However I'm sure many 
> would say
> there is enough things for a mage to spend ep & time ranking on at the
> moment. But this does create a nice distinction between back up mages
> and combat mages.
> 
> Sally
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On 
> Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 2:15 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Spell caster init.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an idea, why not come up with a 'weapon' called Combat
> spellcasting. Give it EP, mages get it at Rk 0 to start with and can
> rank it to whatever max rank we want. 
> 
> It gives a spellcasting init and fits with the current rules. 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- 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 --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC43.8DBBF960
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] Spell caster init.</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>How about making it a skill? Half the ranking time.</FONT>
</P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Sally Musgrave [<A HREF="mailto:SallyM@universal.co.nz">mailto:SallyM@universal.co.nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:40</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Spell caster init.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; On initial reaction, I like this idea.&nbsp; However I'm sure many </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; would say</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; there is enough things for a mage to spend ep &amp; time ranking on at the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; moment. But this does create a nice distinction between back up mages</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; and combat mages.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sally</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A HREF="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>] On </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Mandos Mitchinson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 2:15 p.m.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: [dq] Spell caster init.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Just as an idea, why not come up with a 'weapon' called Combat</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; spellcasting. Give it EP, mages get it at Rk 0 to start with and can</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; rank it to whatever max rank we want. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; It gives a spellcasting init and fits with the current rules. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Mandos</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; /s</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A HREF="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; ##############################################################</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; #######################</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Attention:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; The information contained in this message and or attachments </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; is intended</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; reliance upon,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; this information by persons or entities other than the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; intended recipient</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; the sender and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; ##############################################################</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; #######################</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A HREF="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC43.8DBBF960--


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

> It works for me, but just how long would you train for it?
> 2x rank weeks as for weapons
> Rank weeks as skills
> Would it be like a talent just based on time on adventure.
> 
> I could see a lot of time and ep being spent on nothing else 
> emediatly after introduction.

Do a conversion based on perception. Perception is a 20 point scale so
allow people to spend ep and no time on getting (PC-5)/2 Ranks in the
weapon. Low characters will get rank 1 or 2 mediums 5-6 and highs 9-10
balancing it out. From there everone spends time as per weapons
(possibly with the allowance that this one can be also ranked as per
magical ranking. 

Mandos
/s


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

Michael Parkinson wrote:

>If you have two *distinct* actions then your 2nd action occurs at half the initiative of your first.   [Some thought afterward suggested that the two actions should be XX(?) initiative apart to avoid a character doing multiple distinct actions separately]
>  
>
My simple and slightly nasty solution to this is:  if you delay Action 1 
below intial IV/2 then Action 2 is lost.

E.g  IV 60, second action IV 30.  You can delay to 40/20, or even down 
to 30/15.  As soon as you delay Action 1 to 29, Action 2 is lost for the 
Pulse.

-- 
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 --

Using MD favours fighter mages over pure mages.  The 20MD 5MA Namer should not be casting faster
than the 20MA 5MD pure mage.
Apart from that it makes less sense than using AG which is considered a general 'speed' stat.

If we were to use any stat other than AG for magic then it should be MA or WP.

And the low MA namers and mind mages get to be slow at magic.

Helen Saggers said:
> This is why I suggested a PC, MD and Milsci based IV for magic.
>
> Although I had thought initially that perhaps half MA might work instead of Milsci, then I
> remembered there are a lot of Low MA mind mages and namers, although they could at least get +3
> round up from an MA of 5.
>
> Helen


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

Seems as if there are two aspects to all of this.

Some people think that Quickness can lead to a more complex set of actions
in a pulse mainly because of the extra action.

Some people think it is a general problem with IV and that new system of
spell casting IV which may involve MA, spell ranks, Gen Knowledge spells,
Spec Knowledge spells etc leading to a Spell casting IV.

I would like to simply look at play testing Philips post on Slow and
Quickness;

1st see if it address's the issues and impacts first on E&E mages, then 
2nd if it fix's the problems of complexity of the pulse, and then 
3rd is it fun for the GM and players?

I see this as maybe a small change to the current system and may provide
insight into a need for greater changes to the IV system - such as moving
to: All figurers being engaged and a need for Spell Casting IV system.

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


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

> Using MD favours fighter mages over pure mages.  The 20MD 5MA 
> Namer should not be casting faster than the 20MA 5MD pure 
> mage.

I don't see why not. (anti-bias in effect here) Magic requires gestures
and arm waving, someone who can perform smooth dextrous movements should
be able to cast better than the fumble fingered (if very magical) mage.
The MA should add to the success of the spell. Which it does. Kind of
:-) 

Stops MD being a throwaway Stat for a mage :-)

> If we were to use any stat other than AG for magic then it 
> should be MA or WP.
> 
> And the low MA namers and mind mages get to be slow at magic.

Maybe it is the reason ancient namers did away with the prepare action.
It was the only way they could keep up :-)

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>Giving everyone a number, some people 2 numbers and trying to interleave
>them seems a touch tricky to do on the fly each pulsees. 
>  
>
It would depend a lot on how dynamic the numbers were. The more static 
they were the more likely the party's IV order could be written down 
once -- like a watch order, or a march order... rather than recalculated 
and interleaved each Pulse.

-- 
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 said ...
> Issue with rank is knowing which spell is being used 
> at the time IV is decided. Although if we go with 
> what is Prepared, you tend to act later when 
> Preparing, and get a boost when it comes to firing. 
> Still messy however.

I *think* I've got the point he's making...
§7.3 states that one names the spell one is preparing at the preparation phase; so the initiative for the Cast action is fixed [be it (PC+MA+Rank),   (PC+"free" MA+Rank),  (Rank + MA - 15), whatever] ... However the initiative for when you start the preparation action is not specified.  

The problem disappears of you have a "stated intent" way of running a combat ... which sounds like a complication but might actually minimise the dithering that can occur.  *Alternatively* assume that one always prepares a spell at Rank 0, the skill coming not in the drawing of mana, but in how one casts the spell -- that's when one determines whether one backfires or doubles the damage, etc. Whatever ... 

> Also if it is MA-based, then an unengaged AG fighter 
>tends to charge later than the mage fires. 

only of one goes on the BARE figure of  (PC+MA+Rank), which IS too much.  Frankly, (PC+MA+Rank/2) also appears to be to much -- based on very limited testing, I admit.  I suspected that
      (PC+"free" MA-10 +Rank) 
might be viable, especially as a moderately good warrior would still get the drop on a mage, unless they had apalling agility.


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

Why not use (Purification / 2).  All mages have it, gives a 1-10 scale.

Why create a new artificial magic skill thing when there is an existing ritual which makes you
better at handling magic?

Cheers, Stephen.

Mandos Mitchinson said:
>> It works for me, but just how long would you train for it?
>> 2x rank weeks as for weapons
>> Rank weeks as skills
>> Would it be like a talent just based on time on adventure.
>>
>> I could see a lot of time and ep being spent on nothing else
>> emediatly after introduction.
>
> Do a conversion based on perception. Perception is a 20 point scale so allow people to spend ep
> and no time on getting (PC-5)/2 Ranks in the weapon. Low characters will get rank 1 or 2 mediums
> 5-6 and highs 9-10 balancing it out. From there everone spends time as per weapons
> (possibly with the allowance that this one can be also ranked as per magical ranking.
>
> 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_01C5AC47.75AD3BF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:51
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative
> 
> 
> > Using MD favours fighter mages over pure mages.  The 20MD 5MA 
> > Namer should not be casting faster than the 20MA 5MD pure 
> > mage.
> 
> I don't see why not. (anti-bias in effect here) Magic 
> requires gestures
> and arm waving, someone who can perform smooth dextrous 
> movements should
> be able to cast better than the fumble fingered (if very 
> magical) mage.
> The MA should add to the success of the spell. Which it does. Kind of
> :-) 
> 
> Stops MD being a throwaway Stat for a mage :-)
> 

I find myself agreeing with Mandos here. Although I have no problem with a
formula that results in mages being slower than fighters in most cases - I
like that flavour.


> > If we were to use any stat other than AG for magic then it 
> > should be MA or WP.
> > 
> > And the low MA namers and mind mages get to be slow at magic.
> 
> Maybe it is the reason ancient namers did away with the 
> prepare action.
> It was the only way they could keep up :-)
> 

Note also that quickness is very handy for the Namer specials that let CSs
do special things for x seconds.

Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC47.75AD3BF0
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] General Initiative</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 14:51</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Using MD favours fighter mages over pure =
mages.&nbsp; The 20MD 5MA </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Namer should not be casting faster than =
the 20MA 5MD pure </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; mage.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I don't see why not. (anti-bias in effect here) =
Magic </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; requires gestures</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and arm waving, someone who can perform smooth =
dextrous </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; movements should</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; be able to cast better than the fumble fingered =
(if very </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; magical) mage.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; The MA should add to the success of the spell. =
Which it does. Kind of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; :-) </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Stops MD being a throwaway Stat for a mage =
:-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I find myself agreeing with Mandos here. Although I =
have no problem with a formula that results in mages being slower than =
fighters in most cases - I like that flavour.</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; If we were to use any stat other than AG =
for magic then it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; should be MA or WP.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; And the low MA namers and mind mages get =
to be slow at magic.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Maybe it is the reason ancient namers did away =
with the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; prepare action.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; It was the only way they could keep up =
:-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note also that quickness is very handy for the Namer =
specials that let CSs do special things for x seconds.</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC47.75AD3BF0--


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

Helen said ... 
> It works for me, but just how long would you train for it?
> 2x rank weeks as for weapons
> Rank weeks as skills
> Would it be like a talent just based on time on adventure.
> 
> I could see a lot of time and ep being spent on nothing else 
> emediatly after
> introduction.

Not a problem, if the skill was an improvement to the game -- witness the EP that was spent on Flying when it was intrdouced.


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

> Why not use (Purification / 2).  All mages have it, gives a 
> 1-10 scale.
> 
> Why create a new artificial magic skill thing when there is 
> an existing ritual which makes you better at handling magic?

Good thought. 

The only advantage of the weapon skill is if it didn't rank with spells
it provides a driver for mages to rank Skills and languages which many
don't find the time for :-) It would encourage fully rounded people
rather than pasty faced geeks :)

Mandos
/s


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

I agree. I propose this to be voted into playtest at the next Guild
meeting.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 2:49 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] General Initiative



Seems as if there are two aspects to all of this.

Some people think that Quickness can lead to a more complex set of
actions in a pulse mainly because of the extra action.

Some people think it is a general problem with IV and that new system of
spell casting IV which may involve MA, spell ranks, Gen Knowledge
spells, Spec Knowledge spells etc leading to a Spell casting IV.

I would like to simply look at play testing Philips post on Slow and
Quickness;

1st see if it address's the issues and impacts first on E&E mages, then 
2nd if it fix's the problems of complexity of the pulse, and then 
3rd is it fun for the GM and players?

I see this as maybe a small change to the current system and may provide
insight into a need for greater changes to the IV system - such as
moving
to: All figurers being engaged and a need for Spell Casting IV system.

Jonathan Bean


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

Eroll said 
> ... I have no problem with a formula that results in mages 
> being slower than fighters in most cases - I like that flavour.

I would also prefer that a Good fighter should have a definite advantage over a Good mage; that a High-level fighter with excellent skills and good stats should have have an advantage, a slim one, over a superlative Mage; but that a moderate mage has the drop on a pathertic fighter; and an excellent mage has the drop on a good fighter but not a superior fighter.

However I would prefer that MA was an important stat, if not THE stat -- its the one area where a *real* mage has the advantage over a fighter who dabbles in magic.  It is the only stat that contribute to the sucees of the cast (unless you're from some morally dubious college that also benefits from high WP)  What's wrong with a real mage having  MD or PS as a "Throw-away" stat?


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

> I agree. I propose this to be voted into playtest at the next 
> Guild meeting.

I think that given the scope of this and the fact that there is no real
agreement on the problem that simply putting a new version of quickness
into playtest is overly hasty and a bad idea. 

I think we should get a better idea of the actual issues and look at a
range of siolutions rather than rushing in with the first one to hand. 

Mandos
/s


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

Should we make MA count towards the IV of fighters to stop MA being a throwaway stat for a fighter?
A sharp well-trained mind => faster reactions in combat situations. - Anything can be justified.

MA & WP (but not as much) are the stats for magic.
PS, MD, and AG are the stats for fighting.
WP & EN are the stats for surviving.

Each stat has its role, each is sacrificed at a cost.  Those who choose to specialise in one area
should be good in that area and bad in others.  Or mediocre in them all.  It is a choice and one
of the nice parts of the game.


Errol Cavit said:
>
>> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
>>
>> Stops MD being a throwaway Stat for a mage :-)
>
> I find myself agreeing with Mandos here. Although I have no problem with a formula that results
> in mages being slower than fighters in most cases - I like that flavour.


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

Four issues have been raised so far about quickness. 

1. The additional complication to the combat sequence.

2. The dramatic balance swing is another. (I really would like and idea
of what is meant by this)

3. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third. (Again not 100%
certain of the problem)

4. It's not fun. 

The first can be resolved through changes to the combat sequence, the
second and third I would like some clarification on and I am not sure
the fourth can really be defined. 

It seems there is a rabidly anti-quickness push going on by a few people
who are ignoring other potential solutions in a crusade against the
spell. I am more than happy to join such a crusade if the reasons are
compelling but we seems to be short on the reasons and big on enthusiasm
for getting rid of the spell. 

Mandos
/s


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

> Why not use (Purification / 2).  All mages have it, gives a 
> 1-10 scale.
> 
> Why create a new artificial magic skill thing when there is 
> an existing ritual which makes you
> better at handling magic?

It still strikes me as odd that my Rank-1 spell would be cast as swiftly as my Rank-20.  However the key point is WHAT should contribute to high initiative for magic use; WHAT should hinder it. 

I confess that I had ignored Purification -- intuitively I feel that it is more important that PC.  Indeed why have PC at all for a mage's initiative?  I feel that good PC *should* make a fighter better in combat when one must take advantage of ever-changing conditions.  Drawing mana, perhaps because it is unreal to our everyday experience, has no such intutive association with perception.

MA is crucial -- perhaps though one should make it "free" MA, which for low-to-medium characters rewards "pure mage" character who have spent most of their EP on magic or the "applied mage" who has spent only modest EP on magic, but strategically.  "Free" MA is not as clean as actual MA, but all mages do know what it is & what their value is.

Clearly (Purification + MA +Rank) is unacceptably large;
and  (Purification + "free" MA + Rank) is almost as unacceptable ... especially once the mage is ranked byond the low end of medium.
But a penalty of  10 to these figures [making the Spell rank closer to weapon ranks] or something of that order, gets the balance-point in *roughly* the right region, since fighter can have ranks in Warrior to make up for, & then exceed, AG penalties.
Perhaps even a penalty of 15, to *confirm* the fighter bias at comparable levels ... or to allow an archer (who will not have Warrior bonuses) to maybe get the drop, except at the highest levels.


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

------=_Part_4820_4838407.1125288931048
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Where do get this "Get rid of the spell" idea?

I certainly haven't seen any sign of it in any of the emails (and I have=20
read almost all of them)

TTFN, Struan.

On 8/29/05, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>=20
> Four issues have been raised so far about quickness.
>=20
> 1. The additional complication to the combat sequence.
>=20
> 2. The dramatic balance swing is another. (I really would like and idea
> of what is meant by this)
>=20
> 3. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third. (Again not 100%
> certain of the problem)
>=20
> 4. It's not fun.
>=20
> The first can be resolved through changes to the combat sequence, the
> second and third I would like some clarification on and I am not sure
> the fourth can really be defined.
>=20
> It seems there is a rabidly anti-quickness push going on by a few people
> who are ignoring other potential solutions in a crusade against the
> spell. I am more than happy to join such a crusade if the reasons are
> compelling but we seems to be short on the reasons and big on enthusiasm
> for getting rid of the spell.
>=20
> Mandos
> /s
>=20
>=20
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_4820_4838407.1125288931048
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Where do get this &quot;Get rid of the spell&quot; idea?<br>
<br>
I certainly haven't seen any sign of it in any of the emails (and I have re=
ad almost all of them)<br>
<br>
TTFN, Struan.<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 8/29/05, <b class=
=3D"gmail_sendername">Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:MandosM@a=
dhb.govt.nz">MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0=
pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Four issues have been raised so far about quickness.<br><br>1. The addition=
al complication to the combat sequence.<br><br>2. The dramatic balance swin=
g is another. (I really would like and idea<br>of what is meant by this)
<br><br>3. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third. (Again not=
 100%<br>certain of the problem)<br><br>4. It's not fun.<br><br>The first c=
an be resolved through changes to the combat sequence, the<br>second and th=
ird I would like some clarification on and I am not sure
<br>the fourth can really be defined.<br><br>It seems there is a rabidly an=
ti-quickness push going on by a few people<br>who are ignoring other potent=
ial solutions in a crusade against the<br>spell. I am more than happy to jo=
in such a crusade if the reasons are
<br>compelling but we seems to be short on the reasons and big on enthusias=
m<br>for getting rid of the spell.<br><br>Mandos<br>/s<br><br><br>-- to uns=
ubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-reques=
t@dq.sf.org.nz
</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_4820_4838407.1125288931048--


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

Warning - opinions of a rabid crusader may follow:

(2) - a party with quickness can overwhelm an opposition, or without
quickness be crushed. Adding to the anecdotal evidence in this thread,
I've heard GMs say "I won't use quickness if you won't", and similar
tales. Certainly I balance combats based on whether the party has twice
as many actions as their opponents or not. I feel this spell has
significantly more impact than almost any other spell. Possible spells
in the same class are Rank 15+ hellfire/DF/whirlwind vortex and planar
magics. But Rank 4 quickness  (3 targets) can change an entire combat.

(3) On low to medium games not all figures will be quickened. If the
tougher half of a mixed party is quickened and the weaker half isn't,
then the tougher half is now having more fun, more actions, each of
which are more effective, etc., and are usually the more experienced
players.

It's the multiple actions, as well as their untidiness, that concern me.

Anrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 3:55 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Quickness issues. 


Four issues have been raised so far about quickness. 

1. The additional complication to the combat sequence.

2. The dramatic balance swing is another. (I really would like and idea
of what is meant by this)

3. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third. (Again not 100%
certain of the problem)

4. It's not fun. 

The first can be resolved through changes to the combat sequence, the
second and third I would like some clarification on and I am not sure
the fourth can really be defined. 

It seems there is a rabidly anti-quickness push going on by a few people
who are ignoring other potential solutions in a crusade against the
spell. I am more than happy to join such a crusade if the reasons are
compelling but we seems to be short on the reasons and big on enthusiasm
for getting rid of the spell. 

Mandos
/s


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC51.22A9588C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

To be voted on at the guild meeting.
=20
That the cost for purchasing addtional subskills for the following
skills be changed to the associated EP values=20
=20
extra subskill costs:
Armourer         5,000ep
Beastmaster      5,000ep=20
Courtier         1,000ep
Mechanician      2,500ep
Merchant         4,000ep
Military Sci     3,000ep
Spy (proposed)   2,500ep
Thief (proposed) 4,000ep
Troubadour       1,000ep
Weaponsmith      5,000ep
=20
All these subskills to take 4 weeks.
=20
For these skills, additional subskills can be learned at any Rank.=20
That the additional subskill EP & time to be reduced to 75% at Rank 8
and 50% at Rank 10.
=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=20
This closely matches current rates (except Armourer/Weaponsmith) for
Rank 8+. Its simple, has a "logical" foundation, and feels right to me.
=20
Andrew

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC51.22A9588C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=3DGENERATOR>
<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=3DEN-US vLink=3Dpurple link=3Dblue>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>To be=20
voted on at the guild meeting.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005>That the cost =
for purchasing=20
addtional subskills for the following skills be changed to =
the&nbsp;associated=20
EP values&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN =

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005>extra subskill =
costs:</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier =
New">Armourer&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5,000e=
p</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New">Beastmaster&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
5,000ep&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier =
New">Courtier&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1,000e=
p</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New">Mechanician&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
2,500ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier =
New">Merchant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4,000e=
p</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT face=3D"Courier New">Military=20
Sci&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>=

<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT face=3D"Courier New">Spy =
(proposed)&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
2,500ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT face=3D"Courier New">Thief=20
(proposed)&nbsp;4,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier =
New">Troubadour&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1,000ep</FONT></=
SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New">Weaponsmith&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
5,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005>All&nbsp;<SPAN =
class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>these subskills to </FONT></SPAN>take 4=20
weeks.</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff>For=20
these skills, additional subskills can be learned&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN>at =
any=20
Rank.<SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff>That=20
the&nbsp;additional subskill </FONT></SPAN>EP &amp; time&nbsp;<FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005>to be&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN =

class=3D807281804-29082005>reduced to 75% at Rank 8 and&nbsp;50% =
at&nbsp;Rank=20
10.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><SPAN=20
class=3D807281804-29082005></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D807281804-29082005><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005>This closely matches current rates (except=20
Armourer/Weaponsmith) for&nbsp;Rank 8+. Its simple, has a "logical"=20
foundation,&nbsp;and feels right to=20
me.</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DI=
V>
<DIV><SPAN style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN =

style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN=20
class=3D832570101-08072005>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN=20
class=3D807281804-29082005>Andrew</SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p>=
</SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>
=00
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC51.22A9588C--


-- 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_01C5AC55.2BE59130
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Merchant comes to mind as one that is over-priced IMO. The "logic" doesn't
take into account how useful extra specialties are in individual skills. You
can only specialise in luxury items, and it only gives a bonus to your assay
chance (and can take it over 90+rank). Handy, but nowhere near as useful as
a new group of Beastmaster subjects.
 
I like the mechanics, however.
 
Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 16:22
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] purchase of extra subskills below Rank 10


To be voted on at the guild meeting.
 
That the cost for purchasing addtional subskills for the following skills be
changed to the associated EP values 


 
extra subskill costs:
Armourer         5,000ep
Beastmaster      5,000ep 
Courtier         1,000ep
Mechanician      2,500ep
Merchant         4,000ep
Military Sci     3,000ep
Spy (proposed)   2,500ep
Thief (proposed) 4,000ep
Troubadour       1,000ep
Weaponsmith      5,000ep
 
All these subskills to take 4 weeks.
 
For these skills, additional subskills can be learned at any Rank. 
That the additional subskill EP & time to be reduced to 75% at Rank 8 and
50% at Rank 10.
 
========================== 
This closely matches current rates (except Armourer/Weaponsmith) for Rank
8+. Its simple, has a "logical" foundation, and feels right to me.
 
Andrew


------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC55.2BE59130
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><SPAN class=234413804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Merchant comes to mind as one that is over-priced IMO. The "logic" 
doesn't take into account how useful extra specialties are in individual skills. 
You can only specialise in luxury items, and it only gives a bonus to your assay 
chance (and can take it over 90+rank). Handy, but nowhere near as useful as a 
new group of Beastmaster subjects.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=234413804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=234413804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I like 
the mechanics, however.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=234413804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=234413804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=234413804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></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> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) 
  [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 29 August 2005 
  16:22<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> [dq] purchase of extra 
  subskills below Rank 10<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>To 
  be voted on at the guild meeting.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial 
  color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=807281804-29082005>That the cost for 
  purchasing addtional subskills for the following skills be changed to 
  the&nbsp;associated EP values&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005>
  <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005>extra subskill costs:</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Armourer&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Beastmaster&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
  5,000ep&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Courtier&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Mechanician&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
  2,500ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Merchant&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT face="Courier New">Military 
  Sci&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT face="Courier New">Spy (proposed)&nbsp;&nbsp; 
  2,500ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT face="Courier New">Thief 
  (proposed)&nbsp;4,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Troubadour&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><FONT 
  face="Courier New">Weaponsmith&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
  5,000ep</FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005>All&nbsp;<SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT 
  color=#0000ff>these subskills to </FONT></SPAN>take 4 
  weeks.</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT 
  color=#0000ff>For these skills, additional subskills can be 
  learned&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN>at any Rank.<SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT 
  color=#0000ff>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT 
  color=#0000ff>That the&nbsp;additional subskill </FONT></SPAN>EP &amp; 
  time&nbsp;<FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN class=807281804-29082005>to 
  be&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN class=807281804-29082005>reduced to 75% at Rank 8 
  and&nbsp;50% at&nbsp;Rank 10.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><SPAN 
  class=807281804-29082005></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=807281804-29082005><FONT 
  color=#0000ff>==========================</FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005>This closely matches current rates (except 
  Armourer/Weaponsmith) for&nbsp;Rank 8+. Its simple, has a "logical" 
  foundation,&nbsp;and feels right to 
  me.</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005><SPAN 
  style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><SPAN 
  class=832570101-08072005>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN 
  class=807281804-29082005>Andrew</SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></SPAN></o:p></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC55.2BE59130--


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

I think for one is:

E&E Turf.
Any replacement to Quickness needs to respect the fact that it is unique.
It is also almost always in demand from other players (an aspect I wish to
maintain).

These are both issues I have raised about Quickness which are not on your
list, but I would not describe you as being any more rabidly anti-quickness,
than Andrew is. I see them as truly core to the issue along with the effect
the spell has.

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: 29 August 2005 3:55 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Quickness issues.
> 
> Four issues have been raised so far about quickness.
> 
> 1. The additional complication to the combat sequence.
> 
> 2. The dramatic balance swing is another. (I really would like and idea
> of what is meant by this)
> 
> 3. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third. (Again not 100%
> certain of the problem)
> 
> 4. It's not fun.
> 
> The first can be resolved through changes to the combat sequence, the
> second and third I would like some clarification on and I am not sure
> the fourth can really be defined.
> 
> It seems there is a rabidly anti-quickness push going on by a few people
> who are ignoring other potential solutions in a crusade against the
> spell. I am more than happy to join such a crusade if the reasons are
> compelling but we seems to be short on the reasons and big on enthusiasm
> for getting rid of the spell.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

At 15:55 29/08/05, you wrote:
>1. The additional complication to the combat sequence.

The combat sequence is only as complicated as YOU make it.

As a rule you have basically 5-7 PCs and an assortment of NPCs... so you 
figure out the initiative order (including quickened actions) and work your 
way through it... there are never any more actions than twice the persons 
involved in the combat. NPCs can generally be treated in groups. This is 
not hard.

>2. The dramatic balance swing is another. (I really would like and idea
>of what is meant by this)
>
>3. The party dynamic when half are quickened is a third. (Again not 100%
>certain of the problem)
>
>4. It's not fun.

I'm inclined to disagree. Quickness/slowness can be fun.... the fun is in 
how it's played. Rules are generally speaking irrelevant to fun 
quotients...  and if you want something which is NOT fun try a) being an 
unquickened spellcaster when the fighters are quickened - magic is slow 
enough in this game as it is b) being under the effect of a windstorm or an 
agony spell - and if you want a spell that's much more annoying than 
quickness try agony. There's a reason I neither use that spell as a GM nor 
tolerate it in any game I'm running.

I would be in favour of whatever requires the least change - and that seems 
to me to be coming up with a good formula for spell-casting initiative. The 
idea of (PC + MA + Rank/2 - fudge factor) seems good. Hmmm... try 
subtracting armour rating, on the basis that tanking around in ceramic 
plate or dragonhide slows down spell-casting....

Just a few random thoughts from she who now plays more D20 than D&D...

Jacqui


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

Initative is a game mechanic, and as such it need not be realistic,
workable, quick and fun with a good outcome is in my opinion better.

I would prefer to see:

Each entity rolls D10+Agility (+10 for quickness, +MSci Rank of your
military scientist) at the start of the combat and does their rounds in
that fixed order, can't see why perception has anything to do with who
hits first, afterall agility is how quick you are. Engaged, unengaged,
movement and magic all mixed up with the same initative.

From a gm perspective you have a list of entities and their initatives
and run through them in that order for the entire combat, crossing them
off as they have finished their action. Its easy. 

Ive used a similar system in the D20 Dungeons and Dragons system and it
works fine and doesn't feel paticulary unrealistic. 

Cheers Noel


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

On 29/08/2005, at 14:51, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> Stops MD being a throwaway Stat for a mage :-)

Yes - which is a problem actually - stat choices are made once, and if 
a stat is a throwaway stat it's a bit rough to discover 10 years later 
that it was actually a vital stat...

cheers

clare


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

On 29/08/2005, at 15:20, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>> Why not use (Purification / 2).  All mages have it, gives a
>> 1-10 scale.
>>
>> Why create a new artificial magic skill thing when there is
>> an existing ritual which makes you better at handling magic?
>
> Good thought.
>
> The only advantage of the weapon skill is if it didn't rank with spells
> it provides a driver for mages to rank Skills and languages which many
> don't find the time for :-) It would encourage fully rounded people
> rather than pasty faced geeks :)

I don't think that is a problem...mages in general, unless they have 
lots of rituals to rank, have time to rank skills etc anyway. Its EP 
they lack,

cheers,

clare


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

well given the formula you could always use PC +
Modified AG + (Rank in spell being prepared/2) which
would give an IV value which is in line with the
current formula/weapon levels etc, and would also
benefit people that have got rank 20+ in a spell. That
is assuming that people are wanting an unengaged IV
value for individuals rather than the party as a
whole.

My vote would be to keep the unengaged IV system as
close to what it is now as once you start giving every
one/action an IV value it could very well break up any
group based actions unless there is a way to hold your
action but that in itself I have found in other
systems is a horrible thing.

Just my 2 pence worth

Zane

--- Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:

> > -- and using unarmed for mages is just silly; I
> can do magic
> > faster 'cos I know judo?! :-)
> 
> My feeling is that people who are trained to
> naturaly react to incoming
> threats by waving their arms in precise and
> ingrained patterns would be
> able to do so.
> 
> Whether the pattern they use is a block, strike or
> spell it is the same
> basic principle thus the increase speed and reflexes
> shown by the
> unarmed init.
> 
> Tai Chi kata's are like minute casting :-)
> 
> 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 --

Okay Michael Parkinson, has play tested a form of the all act on an IV value
system but had trouble with the Magic Initiative.

Although he says it was a bit slow, I see it speeding up as players and GMs
get used to it. I think if we get it right we should end up with a
reasonably static IV order as Martin Dickson says, one that doesn't change
much from Pulse to Pulse.

If magical IV was (MA + spell rank) + Purification Bonus would that work?

MA tops at 25- 26 (with Purification 30-31) so MA 26 + spell 20 + up to 5 =
46 (max 56) 

My non mage fighter PC 25, (Ag 25) Mod AG 19, H1/2 sword rank 7 + warrior
Bonus rank 5 = IV 59.

My Binder who started with 15 ag 15 Str and a High MA can still max weapon
IV at 52 with out the warrior skill. So you don't need great Stats for a
proper warrior to beat a mage.

Under this the Low Medium Binder would currently have a Magic IV of 32 with
her best spell, the same as her weapon IV

Will this give your straight fighter enough advantage, while still giving
the Pure Mage a good IV?

Helen


-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Michael Parkinson
Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative

Eroll said 
> ... I have no problem with a formula that results in mages 
> being slower than fighters in most cases - I like that flavour.

I would also prefer that a Good fighter should have a definite advantage
over a Good mage; that a High-level fighter with excellent skills and good
stats should have have an advantage, a slim one, over a superlative Mage;
but that a moderate mage has the drop on a pathertic fighter; and an
excellent mage has the drop on a good fighter but not a superior fighter.

However I would prefer that MA was an important stat, if not THE stat -- its
the one area where a *real* mage has the advantage over a fighter who
dabbles in magic.  It is the only stat that contribute to the sucees of the
cast (unless you're from some morally dubious college that also benefits
from high WP)  What's wrong with a real mage having  MD or PS as a
"Throw-away" stat?


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

I will reiterate and clarify.

The (possibly major) problem I see with using Spell Rank as a part of the IV
calculation is that it means you need to know which spell you are going to
be casting in order to determine when you get to decide which spell you are
going to be casting.

Though if we alter the convention of how we process a pulse to include an
"Announcement of Intended Action" phase either before Engagements are
determined or before each Melee Engagement and each Unengaged sides.

TTFN, Struan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On 
> Behalf Of Helen Saggers
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 6:23 PM
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] In for a Penny in for a shilling
> 
> Okay Michael Parkinson, has play tested a form of the all act 
> on an IV value system but had trouble with the Magic Initiative.
> 
> Although he says it was a bit slow, I see it speeding up as 
> players and GMs get used to it. I think if we get it right we 
> should end up with a reasonably static IV order as Martin 
> Dickson says, one that doesn't change much from Pulse to Pulse.
> 
> If magical IV was (MA + spell rank) + Purification Bonus 
> would that work?
> 
> MA tops at 25- 26 (with Purification 30-31) so MA 26 + spell 
> 20 + up to 5 =
> 46 (max 56) 
> 
> My non mage fighter PC 25, (Ag 25) Mod AG 19, H1/2 sword rank 
> 7 + warrior Bonus rank 5 = IV 59.
> 
> My Binder who started with 15 ag 15 Str and a High MA can 
> still max weapon IV at 52 with out the warrior skill. So you 
> don't need great Stats for a proper warrior to beat a mage.
> 
> Under this the Low Medium Binder would currently have a Magic 
> IV of 32 with her best spell, the same as her weapon IV
> 
> Will this give your straight fighter enough advantage, while 
> still giving the Pure Mage a good IV?
> 
> Helen
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Michael Parkinson
> Subject: Re: [dq] General Initiative
> 
> Eroll said 
> > ... I have no problem with a formula that results in mages being 
> > slower than fighters in most cases - I like that flavour.
> 
> I would also prefer that a Good fighter should have a 
> definite advantage over a Good mage; that a High-level 
> fighter with excellent skills and good stats should have have 
> an advantage, a slim one, over a superlative Mage; but that a 
> moderate mage has the drop on a pathertic fighter; and an 
> excellent mage has the drop on a good fighter but not a 
> superior fighter.
> 
> However I would prefer that MA was an important stat, if not 
> THE stat -- its the one area where a *real* mage has the 
> advantage over a fighter who dabbles in magic.  It is the 
> only stat that contribute to the sucees of the cast (unless 
> you're from some morally dubious college that also benefits 
> from high WP)  What's wrong with a real mage having  MD or PS 
> as a "Throw-away" stat?
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release 
> Date: 26/08/2005
>  
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 26/08/2005


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

How about Magic IV of PC + MA + Party Milsci Rank
Then change weapon IV to PC + mod AG + weapon rank + warrior + Party Milsci
Rank.
The weapon rank covers the Loss of AG for Armour and the warrior makes sure
a warrior is better than a Pure Mage.
The Milsci rank will make the difference between Identical warriors or
mages.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Struan Judd
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 6:34 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] In for a Penny in for a shilling

I will reiterate and clarify.

The (possibly major) problem I see with using Spell Rank as a part of the IV
calculation is that it means you need to know which spell you are going to
be casting in order to determine when you get to decide which spell you are
going to be casting.

Though if we alter the convention of how we process a pulse to include an
"Announcement of Intended Action" phase either before Engagements are
determined or before each Melee Engagement and each Unengaged sides.

TTFN, Struan


-- 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_01C5AC6F.71D0BDE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 18:23
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] In for a Penny in for a shilling
> 
> 
> Okay Michael Parkinson, has play tested a form of the all act 
> on an IV value
> system but had trouble with the Magic Initiative.
> 
> Although he says it was a bit slow, I see it speeding up as 
> players and GMs
> get used to it. I think if we get it right we should end up with a
> reasonably static IV order as Martin Dickson says, one that 
> doesn't change
> much from Pulse to Pulse.
> 
> If magical IV was (MA + spell rank) + Purification Bonus 
> would that work?
> 


Anything involving spell rank will vary from pulse to pulse - even mages who
tend to Prepare+Cast one spell eg Hellfire also move, take potions, give
potions etc. What spell rank do you use when trying to glug a healing potion
before you get hit by another Necrosis? Now that I think of it, why should
an archer-mage's MA govern when they get their bow off their back? 

Any set of formulae have to work over the normal range of actions, so we end
up with probably 3 IV formulas (something like engaged, unengaged with
weapon/magic prepared, unengaged other.) You can see why the system works
the way it does, can't you? That combat spellcasting 'weapon' (or surrogate)
has it's attractions.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC6F.71D0BDE0
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] In for a Penny in for a shilling</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Helen Saggers [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 18:23</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: [dq] In for a Penny in for a =
shilling</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Okay Michael Parkinson, has play tested a form =
of the all act </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; on an IV value</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; system but had trouble with the Magic =
Initiative.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Although he says it was a bit slow, I see it =
speeding up as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; players and GMs</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; get used to it. I think if we get it right we =
should end up with a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; reasonably static IV order as Martin Dickson =
says, one that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; doesn't change</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; much from Pulse to Pulse.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; If magical IV was (MA + spell rank) + =
Purification Bonus </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; would that work?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Anything involving spell rank will vary from pulse to =
pulse - even mages who tend to Prepare+Cast one spell eg Hellfire also =
move, take potions, give potions etc. What spell rank do you use when =
trying to glug a healing potion before you get hit by another Necrosis? =
Now that I think of it, why should an archer-mage's MA govern when they =
get their bow off their back? </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Any set of formulae have to work over the normal =
range of actions, so we end up with probably 3 IV formulas (something =
like engaged, unengaged with weapon/magic prepared, unengaged other.) =
You can see why the system works the way it does, can't you? That =
combat spellcasting 'weapon' (or surrogate) has it's =
attractions.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5AC6F.71D0BDE0--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5ACDC.38AFB8F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well so far I like the all engaged initiative option with Mados's Spell
caster weapon skill (perhaps ranked as a skill not a weapon).  Not every
Mage ranks purification - though the thought of giving it more value might
make me.  I like it because it seems to clarify and simplifies the order.  

 

Non casting unengaged could use unarmed, after all being good a karate does
seem to make those guys on the movies quicker at using chopsticks.  

 

Re: quickness - Andrew presents the issues clearly IMO.  

Also if one side has it they are at a considerable advantage acting 2x as
fast - if both sides have it combat is 4x as complicated with no advantage
to anybody.

 

I also like Phil's quickness adjustment.

 

H  

 

Hamish Brown

Director

 

Zenergy

Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world

119 Mt Eden Rd,

Auckland

www.zenergyglobal.com 

 

  _____  

From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Errol Cavit
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 7:59 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] In for a Penny in for a shilling

 

 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz] 
> Sent: Monday, 29 August 2005 18:23 
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz 
> Subject: [dq] In for a Penny in for a shilling 
> 
> 
> Okay Michael Parkinson, has play tested a form of the all act 
> on an IV value 
> system but had trouble with the Magic Initiative. 
> 
> Although he says it was a bit slow, I see it speeding up as 
> players and GMs 
> get used to it. I think if we get it right we should end up with a 
> reasonably static IV order as Martin Dickson says, one that 
> doesn't change 
> much from Pulse to Pulse. 
> 
> If magical IV was (MA + spell rank) + Purification Bonus 
> would that work? 
> 

 

Anything involving spell rank will vary from pulse to pulse - even mages who
tend to Prepare+Cast one spell eg Hellfire also move, take potions, give
potions etc. What spell rank do you use when trying to glug a healing potion
before you get hit by another Necrosis? Now that I think of it, why should
an archer-mage's MA govern when they get their bow off their back? 

Any set of formulae have to work over the normal range of actions, so we end
up with probably 3 IV formulas (something like engaged, unengaged with
weapon/magic prepared, unengaged other.) You can see why the system works
the way it does, can't you? That combat spellcasting 'weapon' (or surrogate)
has it's attractions.

Cheers 
Errol 


------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5ACDC.38AFB8F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
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)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>RE: [dq] In for a Penny in for a shilling</title>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"City"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"address"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"Book Antiqua";
	panose-1:2 4 6 2 5 3 5 3 3 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	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:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

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

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Well so far I like the all engaged =
initiative
option with Mados&#8217;s Spell caster weapon skill (perhaps ranked as a =
skill
not a weapon).&nbsp; Not every Mage ranks purification &#8211; though =
the
thought of giving it more value might make me.&nbsp; I like it because =
it seems
to clarify and simplifies the order.&nbsp; <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'>Non casting unengaged could use =
unarmed,
after all being good a karate does seem to make those guys on the movies
quicker at using chopsticks.&nbsp; <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'>Re: quickness &#8211; Andrew =
presents the
issues clearly IMO.&nbsp; <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'>Also if one side has it they are at =
a
considerable advantage acting 2x as fast &#8211; if both sides have it =
combat
is 4x as complicated with no advantage to =
anybody.<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'>I also like Phil&#8217;s quickness
adjustment.<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'>H =
&nbsp;<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>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D3 color=3Dblue face=3D"Book =
Antiqua"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua";color:blue'>Hamish =
Brown<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D3 color=3Dblue face=3D"Book =
Antiqua"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book =
Antiqua";color:blue'>Director<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D3 color=3Dblue face=3D"Book =
Antiqua"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book =
Antiqua";color:blue'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D4 color=3Dblue face=3D"Book =
Antiqua"><span
style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Book =
Antiqua";color:blue'>Zenergy<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3D"Book =
Antiqua"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua";color:blue'>Whole =
People
Co-operating in a Sustainable world<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><st1:Street w:st=3D"on"><st1:address =
w:st=3D"on"><font size=3D2
  color=3Dblack face=3D"Book Antiqua"><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
  "Book Antiqua";color:black'>119 Mt Eden =
Rd</span></font></st1:address></st1:Street><font
size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Book Antiqua"><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Book Antiqua";color:black'>,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on"><font =
size=3D2
  color=3Dblack face=3D"Book Antiqua"><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
  "Book =
Antiqua";color:black'>Auckland</span></font></st1:place></st1:City><font
size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Book Antiqua"><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Book Antiqua";color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3D"Book =
Antiqua"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Book =
Antiqua";color:black'>www.zenergyglobal.com
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<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 class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>

<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>

</span></font></div>

<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'>
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Errol Cavit<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, August 29, =
2005 7:59
PM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</st1:PersonName><br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] In for =
a Penny
in for a shilling</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

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

<p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt;
-----Original Message-----</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; From: Helen Saggers =
[<a
href=3D"mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz</a>]</span></f=
ont> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; Sent: Monday, 29 =
August 2005
18:23</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; To: <st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</st1:PersonName></span></font>
<br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; Subject: [dq] In =
for a Penny
in for a shilling</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; Okay Michael =
Parkinson, has
play tested a form of the all act </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; on an IV =
value</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; system but had =
trouble with
the Magic Initiative.</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; Although he says it =
was a bit
slow, I see it speeding up as </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; players and =
GMs</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; get used to it. I =
think if we
get it right we should end up with a</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; reasonably static =
IV order as
Martin Dickson says, one that </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; doesn't =
change</span></font> <br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; much from Pulse to =
Pulse.</span></font>
<br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; If magical IV was =
(MA + spell
rank) + Purification Bonus </span></font><br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; would that =
work?</span></font>
<br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>&gt; =
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

<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><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Anything
involving spell rank will vary from pulse to pulse - even mages who tend =
to
Prepare+Cast one spell eg Hellfire also move, take potions, give potions =
etc.
What spell rank do you use when trying to glug a healing potion before =
you get
hit by another Necrosis? Now that I think of it, why should an =
archer-mage's MA
govern when they get their bow off their back? =
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Any set
of formulae have to work over the normal range of actions, so we end up =
with
probably 3 IV formulas (something like engaged, unengaged with =
weapon/magic
prepared, unengaged other.) You can see why the system works the way it =
does,
can't you? That combat spellcasting 'weapon' (or surrogate) has it's
attractions.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Cheers</span></font>
<br>
<font size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Errol</span></font> =
<o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5ACDC.38AFB8F0--


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

On 29/08/2005, at 09:57, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> 1. Start of pulse stuff
> 2. First half Engaged actions
> 3. First half Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 4. First half Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 5. None-quickened people Engaged actions
> 6. None-quickened Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 7. None-quickened Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 8. Second half Engaged actions
> 9. Second half Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions
> 10. Second half Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions
> 11. End of pulse stuff.

I would tend to (ie always) combine phases 2 and 5 in the above, and 
feel there is quite a bit of worth to combining phases 3 and 6, and 4 
and 7. I am not particularly in favour of combining phases 2 and 8 - I 
like there being a chance for unengaged figures to act between the 
engaged figures two actions.

This only causes trouble when considering what to do when a side has 
some quickened and some unquickened people and determining unengaged 
initiative. My solution is to go by whether the military scientist is 
quickened - if they are then the side gains +10 to unengaged IV, 
otherwise the side does not. This gives a revised set of phases:

1. Start of pulse stuff
2. Engaged actions for both quickened and unquickened people
3. Unengaged team 1 figues perform actions (whether quickened or not)
4. Unengaged team 2 figues perform actions (whether quickened or not)
5. Second Engaged actions for quickened people
6. Second Unengaged team 1 actions quickened people
7. Second Unengaged team 2 actions quickened people
8. End of pulse stuff.

On the topic of quickness - I don't particularly think it is broken or 
needs fixing. None of the other versions suggested are nearly as tough 
as the current version.

On the topic of IV - initiative for mages is nice but a difficult 
problem. A solution that includes making a stat much more important for 
pure mages than it used to be is the wrong solution. Introducing a new 
skill seems silly, but if that is what happens then so be it, I can 
rank that along with the gazillion things I have to rank. Using 
purification instead seems like a better idea if you want a rank in 
something it seems to me.

well those are my current thoughts, and if a suggestion is put to 
voting that makes MD a necessary stat I'll be there to vote against it,

cheers,

clare


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

Johanna and Hamish wrote:

>
> Also if one side has it they are at a considerable advantage acting 2x 
> as fast – if both sides have it combat is 4x as complicated with no 
> advantage to anybody.
>
> I
>
I disagree here - if both sides have quickness (assuming everybody) it 
effectively comes back to a normal combat with both sides having 2 sets 
of actions run in normal initiative order, then the ned of pulse stuff.

Quickness is only awkward when on;ly some participants in a fight have it.

I really like the idea of a mage spell initiative and think it should 
include rank/2 not full rank - this puts spells on a 1-10 initiative as 
per weapons.

Scott Whitaker


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

On 29/08/2005, at 22:53, Kharsis wrote:

> Johanna and Hamish wrote:
>
>>
>> Also if one side has it they are at a considerable advantage acting 
>> 2x as fast – if both sides have it combat is 4x as complicated with 
>> no advantage to anybody.
>>
>> I
>>
> I disagree here - if both sides have quickness (assuming everybody) it 
> effectively comes back to a normal combat with both sides having 2 
> sets of actions run in normal initiative order, then the ned of pulse 
> stuff.
>
> Quickness is only awkward when on;ly some participants in a fight have 
> it.

I more or less agree with Scott on this point. Quickness causes most 
problems (although personally I think these problems are worth it) when 
only some on one side of the fight have it. If that side is the PC side 
then there also tends to develop slightly less fun for the unquickened 
PCs (especially if they are mages).

If absolutely everyone has it there is no more trouble than no-one 
having it, and there is no advantage to it. If only one side has it 
(but all on that side have it) then it is a great advantage and things 
are a little more complex but not much. See above for the mid-ground,

cheers,

clare


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