| Subject | Re: [dq] Racial bonuses and EMs |
|---|---|
| From | Mandos Mitchinson |
| Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:49:22 +1300 |
> I have tabulated the racial bonuses to estimate the value in EP of being non-human. > > The notes suggest what factors I used. Given that immunity to the special effects of Lesser undead actually means Ghosts cannot scare you, I suspect this is worth less than 5000ep :) Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March 2006?) |
|---|---|
| From | Errol Cavit |
| Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:52:55 +1300 |
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_01C5E31C.718F8DF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2005 09:46
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Rulebook March 2006?
On 10/26/05, Errol Cavit < ecavit@tollnz.co.nz <mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>
> wrote:
Perhaps identify any tricky issues to deal with as a priority?
Straight grammar changes etc are probably fine to dump into the wiki
(perhaps a separate page so as not to lose the real rule changes in the
clutter?)
Sounds like a good approach. Many are typos and the like; need to be dealt
with but probably don't need further discussion. Others require decisions
-- there are several where Andrew has written something like: "this isn't
the way we play it, what should be here?" These require discussion.
The only actual unresolved inconsistency that I found was the Backfire
chance for Rituals (the general case can be over-ruled by specific
descriptions of course) - see extracts below.
We should probably vote on this one in December, so what are people's
thoughts? Backfire on +30 or +40 for Rituals?
Cheers
Errol
p25, 3rd column (penultimate para of 7.2 How Magic Works)
...Magical effects from Ritual
Magic tend to be more powerful, prolonged or
delayed than those of Spells. Most rituals require a
Cast Check to determine whether the ritual was successful.
If not otherwise stated in the specific ritual
description, **** a ritual may backfire (roll greater than
Base Change + 30) **** with similar consequences to a
spell. Rituals may also cause a multiple effect similar
to spells.
p26, 3rd column (7.7 Backfires)
7.7 Backfires
Particularly inept Spell casts or Ritual performances
may cause backfires. If the Mage's Cast Check fails
by more than 30 for a 5 second Spell preparation,
**** or 40 for a longer Spell preparation or Ritual performance, ****
the Magic backfires.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E31C.718F8DF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Martin Dickson
[mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 27 October 2005
09:46<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Rulebook March
2006?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 10/26/05, <B class=gmail_sendername>Errol
Cavit</B> <<A href="mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</A>>
wrote:
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<P><FONT size=2>Perhaps identify any tricky issues to deal with as a
priority?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Straight grammar changes etc are probably
fine to dump into the wiki (perhaps a separate page so as not to lose the
real rule changes in the clutter?)</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>Sounds like a good approach. Many are typos and the like; need to be
dealt with but probably don't need further discussion. Others require
decisions -- there are several where Andrew has written something like: "this
isn't the way we play it, what should be here?" These require
discussion.<BR><BR><BR><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005> <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>The only actual unresolved inconsistency that I found was the Backfire
chance for Rituals (the general case can be over-ruled by specific descriptions
of course) - see extracts below.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>We
should probably vote on this one in December, so what are people's thoughts?
Backfire on +30 or +40 for Rituals?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>p25,
3rd column (penultimate para of 7.2 How Magic Works)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>...Magical effects from Ritual<BR>Magic tend to be more powerful,
prolonged or<BR>delayed than those of Spells. Most rituals require a<BR>Cast
Check to determine whether the ritual was successful.<BR>If not otherwise stated
in the specific ritual<BR>description, **** a ritual may backfire (roll greater
than<BR>Base Change + 30) **** with similar consequences to a<BR>spell. Rituals
may also cause a multiple effect similar<BR>to spells.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>p26,
3rd column (7.7 Backfires)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>7.7
Backfires<BR>Particularly inept Spell casts or Ritual performances<BR>may cause
backfires. If the Mage's Cast Check fails<BR>by more than 30 for a 5 second
Spell preparation,<BR>**** or 40 for a longer Spell preparation or Ritual
performance, ****<BR>the Magic backfires.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=088555620-06112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E31C.718F8DF0--
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March 2006?) |
|---|---|
| From | Mandos Mitchinson |
| Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:05:20 +1300 |
> The only actual unresolved inconsistency that I found was the > Backfire chance for Rituals (the general case can be over-ruled > by specific descriptions of course) - see extracts below. > > We should probably vote on this one in December, so what are > people's thoughts? Backfire on +30 or +40 for Rituals? Based on the more powerful magic angle I think +30 would be the way to go. Basically both options are valid but I think backfires should be part of the game and so opt for the lower number. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | [dq] Burglary |
|---|---|
| From | Jonathan Bean -TME |
| Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:15:18 +1300 |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C5E394.EA9FE6E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry in advance for the random post to the group:
My place got broken into in the weekend, and I lost half a few computers etc
so no longer have email or phone numbers for a range of random people. If I
have phoned you in the last 3 months can you please email me your details,
home work cell phones and email addresses please. I am now pleased that I
online backups for DQ stuff.
Thanks
Jonathan Bean
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C5E394.EA9FE6E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 9">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 9">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@01C5E394.E9AB4DB0">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
<w:EnvelopeVis/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.gmailquote
{mso-style-name:gmail_quote;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-AU link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue =
style=3D'tab-interval:36.0pt'>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle19><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><!=
[if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Sorry in advance for the random =
post to the
group:</span></font><font color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy;mso-color-alt:
windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><![if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]></span></font><font
color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></=
p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>My place got broken into in the =
weekend,
and I lost half a few computers etc so no longer have email or phone =
numbers
for a range of random people. If I have phoned you in the last 3 months =
can you
please email me your details, home work cell phones and email addresses =
please.
I am now pleased that I online backups for DQ stuff.</span></font><font
color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></=
p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><![if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]></span></font><font
color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></=
p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Thanks</span></font><font =
color=3Dnavy><span
style=3D'color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></=
p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Jonathan Bean</span></font><font
color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></=
p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle19><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><!=
[if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C5E394.EA9FE6E0--
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March20 06?) |
|---|---|
| From | Errol Cavit |
| Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:02:57 +1300 |
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_01C5E347.C16E5506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz] > Sent: Monday, 7 November 2005 11:05 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook > March 2 006?) > > > > The only actual unresolved inconsistency that I found was the > > Backfire chance for Rituals (the general case can be over-ruled > > by specific descriptions of course) - see extracts below. > > > > We should probably vote on this one in December, so what are > > people's thoughts? Backfire on +30 or +40 for Rituals? > > Based on the more powerful magic angle I think +30 would be the way to > go. Basically both options are valid but I think backfires should be > part of the game and so opt for the lower number. > I've just noticed in History of Edition 1.3 "October 7, 1999 Change to ritual description in general magic. Rituals now backfire on BC + 30% and can double and triple effect." So presumably the reference to rituals backfiring on 40+ in section 7.7 was merely overlooked, and no vote is required - just 7.7 needs changing. Obviously if people feel strongly that it should be 40+, we could vote to change it. Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E347.C16E5506 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 = 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>RE: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook = March 2006?)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</F= ONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Monday, 7 November 2005 11:05</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance = inconsistency (was Rulebook</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> March 2 006?)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > The only actual unresolved inconsistency = that I found was the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Backfire chance for Rituals (the general = case can be over-ruled</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > by specific descriptions of course) - see = extracts below.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > We should probably vote on this one in = December, so what are</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > people's thoughts? Backfire on +30 or +40 = for Rituals?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Based on the more powerful magic angle I think = +30 would be the way to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> go. Basically both options are valid but I = think backfires should be</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> part of the game and so opt for the lower = number. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I've just noticed in History of Edition 1.3</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>"October 7, 1999 Change to ritual description = in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>general magic. Rituals now backfire on BC + = 30%</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>and can double and triple effect."</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So presumably the reference to rituals backfiring on = 40+ in section 7.7 was merely overlooked, and no vote is required - = just 7.7 needs changing.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Obviously if people feel strongly that it should be = 40+, we could vote to change it.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5E347.C16E5506-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March20 06?) |
|---|---|
| From | |
| Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:35:22 +1300 |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=____1131334522200_L8nCXcgOdy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit yay for vigourous change control and tracking systems! either 7.7 gets deleted / amended to the rules, as per... or teh history gets deleted / amended to the rules, as per... Ian <fumes quietly that we do not have a searcheable database of decisions/changes/proposals.> > > From: Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> > Date: 2005/11/07 Mon PM 04:02:57 GMT+13:00 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March20 > 06?) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz] > > Sent: Monday, 7 November 2005 11:05 > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook > > March 2 006?) > > > > > > > The only actual unresolved inconsistency that I found was the > > > Backfire chance for Rituals (the general case can be over-ruled > > > by specific descriptions of course) - see extracts below. > > > > > > We should probably vote on this one in December, so what are > > > people's thoughts? Backfire on +30 or +40 for Rituals? > > > > Based on the more powerful magic angle I think +30 would be the way to > > go. Basically both options are valid but I think backfires should be > > part of the game and so opt for the lower number. > > > > I've just noticed in History of Edition 1.3 > > "October 7, 1999 Change to ritual description in > general magic. Rituals now backfire on BC + 30% > and can double and triple effect." > > So presumably the reference to rituals backfiring on 40+ in section 7.7 was > merely overlooked, and no vote is required - just 7.7 needs changing. > > Obviously if people feel strongly that it should be 40+, we could vote to > change it. > > Cheers > Errol > > ------=____1131334522200_L8nCXcgOdy Content-Type: text/html; name="reply" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="reply" <!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 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>RE: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March 2006?)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A HREF="mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Monday, 7 November 2005 11:05</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> March 2 006?)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > The only actual unresolved inconsistency that I found was the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Backfire chance for Rituals (the general case can be over-ruled</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > by specific descriptions of course) - see extracts below.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > We should probably vote on this one in December, so what are</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > people's thoughts? Backfire on +30 or +40 for Rituals?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Based on the more powerful magic angle I think +30 would be the way to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> go. Basically both options are valid but I think backfires should be</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> part of the game and so opt for the lower number. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>I've just noticed in History of Edition 1.3</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>"October 7, 1999 Change to ritual description in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>general magic. Rituals now backfire on BC + 30%</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>and can double and triple effect."</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>So presumably the reference to rituals backfiring on 40+ in section 7.7 was merely overlooked, and no vote is required - just 7.7 needs changing.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Obviously if people feel strongly that it should be 40+, we could vote to change it.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Errol </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------=____1131334522200_L8nCXcgOdy-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Ritual Backfire chance inconsistency (was Rulebook March20 06?) |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Smith |
| Date | Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:55:31 +1300 |
><fumes quietly that we do not have a searcheable database of >decisions/changes/proposals.> I could PDF all the minutes I have and make them searchable ... would that help? Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |