Or maybe not. The point you make is, once again, irrelevant. I wonder if you are
doing it intentionally.

Quoting RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com>:

> If GMs are making scenarios where you have to doubt the players sanity when
> they do anything other than protect the blast mage maybe you have to
> question the DMs skills.


Jim


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

Leaving aside any argument on your point, William, and there are plenty, this is
not solving the problem addressed by the original post. The spell is too tough
reducing any real choice of actions for a player.

Your post doesn't deal with this. You are talking about why the spell shouldn't
be altered with respect to what is a counter to their power. You, and others,
seem to be talking about the balance of these spells. Great.

Consider discussing it under a different thread, because this one is about ways
to give players with these abilities alternative and sensible action choices.

Jim.

Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

> I say keep things as they are and here's why.
>
> Q: What is the counter-move to zorch spells?
>
> A: Active resistance and for those with it highly ranked active resistance
> with an appropiate counterspell. Even a 12WP schmo with a R12 CS has 92 MR
> coming off the enemy's cast chance. Backfiring a zorch will ruin your and
> the entire gang's day. PCs, mutants that they are have the potential for
> higher MR.
>
> The zorch spells have this as their main weakness. As such, active
> resistance against a known air, fire, wiccan or necro of power is a viable
> option. And active resistance is a lot harder to determine than a prepare
> action.
>
> This does however put the onus on GMs to correctly narrate their battles.
> Just as PCs must declare their actions so should the GM for their NPCs.
>
> And NPCs can actively resist too. Nothing stopping them.
>
> So I say keep the big damage spells because casting them engenders a certain
> amount of risk that you'll target an active resistor.
>
> Complaining that the spells are broken is like complaining that scissors is
> over-powered because no-one plays rock.
>
> William
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 7/12/2005
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:


> The complaint initially was about people with zorch spells only having one
> real option in combat.

Yes, William. Please stick to that issue. If you want to talk about how the
spell is or is not balanced, or advanced tactical play, feel free to start
another thread.

Jim.


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

Actively resisting Dragonflames only has one outcome, your dead. It may not
be actively resisted and you have just taken potentially 210 Damage, resist
for half. You all resisted, congratulations, your all dead.

Under the rules, the toughest PC in the game is killed outright by any
effect that does 75 Dm or more.

A maximum EN PC giant is killed by greater than (33 EN x 1.5) + 25 Ft =74.5
Damage. So a triple effect Rank 14 Dragonflames wipes out the entire party
20% of the time (9 or a 10 on the damage dice). Mind you, only the giant has
a chance to be still alive (maybe the maximum EN shapechanger bear in animal
form is also alive), all the other PCs are dead outright even on a minimum
damage roll. A rank 14 spell @ 500 EM = 52,500 Exp / 1,800 exp per session =
30 sessions. The equivalent of a 3 session Fire Mage just wiped out the
party. So how is this nicely counter-balanced?

Michael Young


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Dymock" <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Options with: Necrosis, Whirlwind Vortex and Hellfire?


> Active resistance counter-balances zorch spells nicely.


-- 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_01C6001D.15B9529A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Michael Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 22:32
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Healing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > >I completely disagree, at the moment there is enough 
> healing around that
> > >it is (without thowing the very spells we are looking at fixing)
> > >virtually impossible to kill a party member.
> >
> >I dont want to kill a party but I do want to some form of 
> control on the
> >tention within the game. They are unkillable at the moment 
> because of the
> >dependance on Potions.
> >
> 
> isn't thier a Namer spell that renders potions useless while 
> in the area of 
> effect?
> 

Yes, Disjunction can be cast to stop Healing potions (and gutbusters,
potions of strength, investeds etc etc) in its area (10 + 10' radius from
place cast). Somewhat similar to Agony in usefulness to an adventuring
party, as it lasts minutes - great thing to put into a grenade (yes, I have
a mechanician namer and have considered this). A side with this available,
at a strong disadvantage in stored magics, and with the enemy within its
range should consider it. Probably looked upon as anti-social in polite
society as it increases the chance of deaths (a swallowed potion will work,
but after the spell's duration is up).

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6001D.15B9529A
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] Healing</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Michael Scott</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 22:32</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Healing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;I completely disagree, at the moment =
there is enough </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; healing around that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;it is (without thowing the very spells =
we are looking at fixing)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;virtually impossible to kill a party =
member.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;I dont want to kill a party but I do want =
to some form of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; control on the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;tention within the game. They are =
unkillable at the moment </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; because of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;dependance on Potions.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; isn't thier a Namer spell that renders potions =
useless while </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; in the area of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; effect?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Yes, Disjunction can be cast to stop Healing potions =
(and gutbusters, potions of strength, investeds etc etc) in its area =
(10 + 10' radius from place cast). Somewhat similar to Agony in =
usefulness to an adventuring party, as it lasts minutes - great thing =
to put into a grenade (yes, I have a mechanician namer and have =
considered this). A side with this available, at a strong disadvantage =
in stored magics, and with the enemy within its range should consider =
it. Probably looked upon as anti-social in polite society as it =
increases the chance of deaths (a swallowed potion will work, but after =
the spell's duration is up).</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6001D.15B9529A--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C6008F.B6012710
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The current concern is that the big spells are too big. Most of this comes
from inferior tactics being used in the game. Most PCs (and NPCs) line up
and hose one another. The effect is similar to "SMGs at 10 paces", combats
are very short, brutal and bloody as a result. My contention is that proper
awareness of actaul in-game tactics will demand a greater variety in spell
casting options.

Jim wrote
Leaving aside any argument on your point, William, and there are plenty,
this is
not solving the problem addressed by the original post. The spell is too
tough
reducing any real choice of actions for a player.

>Except that with Active resistance being a real concern the temptation to
use area effect spells becomes strong. Sure, they don't do the huge damage,
but they can often affect more targets and you don't run the risk of being
activly resisted. A single target spell also runs less risk of being activly
resisted since the target may have better things to do. Wheras, a
multi-target spell only requires one person taking the active resistance
action to benefit up to 7 people. It's much more economical.

>Awareness of tactics makes other options more attractive. Tired of some NPC
always actively resisting Necrosis? Use Stream of Corruption. While it
doesn't do as much damage, your brains are in much less danger of dribbling
out of your ears.
Fire and Air mages have a medley of spells that work better for different
circumstances. Wiccans are the odd man out since their only damaging attack
spell is Hellfire. And there you may have a point. 

Michael Young wrote
Actively resisting Dragonflames only has one outcome, your dead. It may not
be actively resisted and you have just taken potentially 210 Damage, resist
for half. You all resisted, congratulations, your all dead.

>DF has it's own disadvantages. It's AOE originates as a cone from the
caster. A narrow, short ranged cone at that. Up close DF can hit one maybe
two targets unless they're obligingly lined up. And any party who lines
themselves up nicely for the fire mage to cheerfully zorch them deserve to
be removed from the gene pool. Being AOE the mage has to go point and can't
fire into an active melee. A fire mage on point is a bit of a damn
give-away, especially given the way almost every fire mage advertises their
presence. At which point a competant party can defend itself.

A maximum EN PC giant is killed by greater than (33 EN x 1.5) + 25 Ft =74.5
Damage. So a triple effect Rank 14 Dragonflames wipes out the entire party
20% of the time (9 or a 10 on the damage dice).

If the PCs don't have Strength of Stone, if they don't have fire armour, if
they line up nicely for the fire mage, if they don't do anything about it,
if they don't have PC wierdnesses and if the mage gets a triple effect. I'm
happy with those odds. Being a mercanary is dangerous. Don't you think there
should be some actual danger?

Mind you, only the giant has a chance to be still alive (maybe the maximum
EN shapechanger bear in animal
form is also alive), all the other PCs are dead outright even on a minimum
damage roll. A rank 14 spell @ 500 EM = 52,500 Exp / 1,800 exp per session =
30 sessions. The equivalent of a 3 session Fire Mage just wiped out the
party. So how is this nicely counter-balanced?

And this is where the fine art of GMing comes in. If your antagonists
include enemy mages make sure the PCs have an oppotunity to find that out.
Knowing that the opposition has someone with the potential to wipe them all
out creates tension and a canny party will evolve a tactic to deal with it.
If not, they will have a valuable lesson to ponder over new character
generation. If they are truly a 'one trick pony' then they are only useful
in particular circumstances. Your putative mage is seriously shafted if the
PCs engage in melee or at over 80ft.

I want there to be real danger in the game. Big zorch spellls provide this.
They are not always applicable and in many cases damn dangerous to use. They
should be out there, being scary.

William

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 7/12/2005
 

------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C6008F.B6012710
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
	name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="winmail.dat"
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------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C6008F.B6012710--


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

At 15:22 13/12/05, you wrote:
>I don't think that FT should be uncapped because of profession. It should just
>be uncapped. Some years ago, I and some others took the FT caps of a number of
>people to see what effect that had on the game. I would like to know what the
>effect is on the game, now.

Speaking for Starflower - one of those PCs.
a) It provides a stat to rank every adventure now her perception is topped out.
b) It has made (so far) little difference in play... it's so incremental it 
really is hard to perceive. It's not like a big block of extra fatigue 
dropped on a PC at once.

Jacqui


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

At 15:02 13/12/05, you wrote:
>While I am not opposed to this I would have to ask why? Currently only
>yourself and Phaeton appear to be trying for this achetype and both seem
>to have managed it. I think this is a great character type for a MUD or
>a PC game but I don't think it is needed or adds anything to DQ.

I think healing as a combat option for more PCs than a handful of Mind 
mages and Celestials would add to the game by the simple arithmetic of 
adding another choice. It can easily come down to heal your fellow PC or 
attack the enemy... and that's often a very difficult call to make.

I seriously suspect that the party that went up against Rashak would not 
have survived if they hadn't had access to in-combat healing due to a 
special ability one PC had... and don't tell me that game wasn't made more 
interesting and exciting by that option.

It wouldn't take much...

1)      Drop the "5-minute" clause from the Earth College spell.
2)      Give the Celestial spell and Mind College Healing spells a range 
(say 5ft +5/Rank). It might be beneficial to make the Mind College Healing 
Spell multi-target (it has a fairly high EM if I recall correctly).
3)      Allow healers to transfer fatigue and heal endurance in two actions 
(retaining touch range).
4)      Add some healing ability to other Colleges (Wicca comes to mind as 
appropriate). I could see Rune having a spell that enhances natural healing 
to the extent that you heal x points per pulse. Heck, I can see 
Necromancers with a spell that heals undead by reinforcing the energies 
keeping them functioning... and at the same time would hurt living creatures.

There.... how painful would that be?

Jacqui


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

On 14/12/2005, at 04:52, mhyoung wrote:

> A maximum EN PC giant is killed by greater than (33 EN x 1.5) + 25 Ft 
> =74.5
> Damage. So a triple effect Rank 14 Dragonflames wipes out the entire 
> party
> 20% of the time (9 or a 10 on the damage dice). Mind you, only the 
> giant has
> a chance to be still alive (maybe the maximum EN shapechanger bear in 
> animal
> form is also alive), all the other PCs are dead outright even on a 
> minimum
> damage roll. A rank 14 spell @ 500 EM = 52,500 Exp / 1,800 exp per 
> session =
> 30 sessions. The equivalent of a 3 session Fire Mage just wiped out the
> party. So how is this nicely counter-balanced?

Well as has been said the "balance" of the spells is not the issue - 
the fact that they tend to restrict the choices of those who have them, 
and those around them is. Fun is the issue here, not balance. 
Dragonflames is a funner spell because it is area of effect, rather 
than allowing the mage to pick targets. This means that the mage has to 
consider friendly fire when casting the spell. This means it is only 
one of your choices. You don't get to cast it too many times before 
your sides fire armour has worn out. Not saying it isn't a problem, I 
really don;t know if it is or not, but if it is, its a different 
problem from the three spells being discussed.

cheers,

clare


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

I decided not to get hellfire with my witch for the
pure fact that it would change the type of games I
could take her on...

and given I haven't played her much I really didn't
want to see her put in games that were higher level
than what I would of been comfortable playing her
in... 

Personally I would like the spells to be split 1 mass
damage to 1 target spell with with a negative
resistance and a and 1 multi target low damage spell,
with the low damage spell you can still have the
resist for half effect and likely not over power the
spell. 

maybe something like this for example

Hellfire (A)
Range 5+5/rk
Duration Immediate
EM 500
BC 5%
Effect
Effects 1 target for D+2rk with target's MR reduced by
10+1/rk
Double Damage adds 1/rk damage, triple damage adds
2/rk damage

Hellfire (B)
Range 15+5/rk
Duration Immediate
EM 500
BC 5%
Effect
Effects 1+1/2 full rks targets with D+5+1/3rks, resist
for half
Double Damage adds 1/rk damage, triple damage adds
2/rk damage

that would give you a really hefty single target spell
and also a decent multi-target spell. I admit the
numbers might need to be fiddled with a bit but it's a
start?

The main problem is the spells might turn out to be
non-events in Extreme level games... 

Zane

"...SOmetimes the slower people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you win the race..."

__________________________________________________
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 --

------=_Part_23099_8628955.1134512140848
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Simple suggestion for Hellfire -- damage and number of potential targets
stay as is, but calculated damage represents the total damage from a single
cast of the spell and is split equally over the targets.

E.g. Rk 13 Hellfire, max 5 targets, D + 26 damage, avg of 31.5 (32).

All at one target =3D 32 pts, two targets get 16 each, three targets get 10
(or 11 depending on the rounding), etc.

------=_Part_23099_8628955.1134512140848
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Simple suggestion for Hellfire -- damage and number of potential targets st=
ay as is, but calculated damage represents the total damage from a single c=
ast of the spell and is split equally over the targets.<br><br>E.g. Rk 13 H=
ellfire, max 5 targets, D + 26 damage, avg of=20
31.5 (32).<br><br>All at one target =3D 32 pts, two targets get 16 each, th=
ree targets get 10 (or 11 depending on the rounding), etc.<br><br><br>

------=_Part_23099_8628955.1134512140848--


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

Hi all,

Given that we have a rule book coming out soon, I would like to see the
Namer College go back into play test.
I ask this as I feel that their are a number of Special Knowledge that I
feel have problems.

Putting the Namer College into play test would allow a group (who ever they
are) to address the issues if they are issues.
It would also 'scare the be-gee-bees' out of the Namers and that’s always
good for a laugh ;-)

Is there a formal process these days for requesting that a College move to
'play test'?
Does anyone else have a view on this issue?

Jonathan Bean


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

> Given that we have a rule book coming out soon, I would like 
> to see the Namer College go back into play test. I ask this 
> as I feel that their are a number of Special Knowledge that I 
> feel have problems.
> 
> Putting the Namer College into play test would allow a group 
> (who ever they
> are) to address the issues if they are issues.
> It would also 'scare the be-gee-bees' out of the Namers and 
> that's always good for a laugh ;-)
> 
> Is there a formal process these days for requesting that a 
> College move to 'play test'? Does anyone else have a view on 
> this issue?

Generally someone puts forward a description of the problem and their
proposed solution, we all argue for a week or so until everyone has
given up and no-one cares anymore. If at the end of that someone still
cares the changes get voted on to move into playtest. 

Once something is in the rules it doesn't move backwards into playtest
only changes to it move forward into playtest. 

Whats the problem?

Mandos
/s


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

I considered replying to this post.

I have decided that the aggravation of dealing with this is not worth ruining
what appears to be a fine day.

Jim.

Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

> The current concern is that the big spells are too big. Most of this comes
> from inferior tactics being used in the game. Most PCs (and NPCs) line up
> and hose one another. The effect is similar to "SMGs at 10 paces", combats
> are very short, brutal and bloody as a result. My contention is that proper
> awareness of actaul in-game tactics will demand a greater variety in spell
> casting options.
>
> Jim wrote
> Leaving aside any argument on your point, William, and there are plenty,
> this is
> not solving the problem addressed by the original post. The spell is too
> tough
> reducing any real choice of actions for a player.
>
> >Except that with Active resistance being a real concern the temptation to
> use area effect spells becomes strong. Sure, they don't do the huge damage,
> but they can often affect more targets and you don't run the risk of being
> activly resisted. A single target spell also runs less risk of being activly
> resisted since the target may have better things to do. Wheras, a
> multi-target spell only requires one person taking the active resistance
> action to benefit up to 7 people. It's much more economical.
>
> >Awareness of tactics makes other options more attractive. Tired of some NPC
> always actively resisting Necrosis? Use Stream of Corruption. While it
> doesn't do as much damage, your brains are in much less danger of dribbling
> out of your ears.
> Fire and Air mages have a medley of spells that work better for different
> circumstances. Wiccans are the odd man out since their only damaging attack
> spell is Hellfire. And there you may have a point.
>
> Michael Young wrote
> Actively resisting Dragonflames only has one outcome, your dead. It may not
> be actively resisted and you have just taken potentially 210 Damage, resist
> for half. You all resisted, congratulations, your all dead.
>
> >DF has it's own disadvantages. It's AOE originates as a cone from the
> caster. A narrow, short ranged cone at that. Up close DF can hit one maybe
> two targets unless they're obligingly lined up. And any party who lines
> themselves up nicely for the fire mage to cheerfully zorch them deserve to
> be removed from the gene pool. Being AOE the mage has to go point and can't
> fire into an active melee. A fire mage on point is a bit of a damn
> give-away, especially given the way almost every fire mage advertises their
> presence. At which point a competant party can defend itself.
>
> A maximum EN PC giant is killed by greater than (33 EN x 1.5) + 25 Ft =74.5
> Damage. So a triple effect Rank 14 Dragonflames wipes out the entire party
> 20% of the time (9 or a 10 on the damage dice).
>
> If the PCs don't have Strength of Stone, if they don't have fire armour, if
> they line up nicely for the fire mage, if they don't do anything about it,
> if they don't have PC wierdnesses and if the mage gets a triple effect. I'm
> happy with those odds. Being a mercanary is dangerous. Don't you think there
> should be some actual danger?
>
> Mind you, only the giant has a chance to be still alive (maybe the maximum
> EN shapechanger bear in animal
> form is also alive), all the other PCs are dead outright even on a minimum
> damage roll. A rank 14 spell @ 500 EM = 52,500 Exp / 1,800 exp per session =
> 30 sessions. The equivalent of a 3 session Fire Mage just wiped out the
> party. So how is this nicely counter-balanced?
>
> And this is where the fine art of GMing comes in. If your antagonists
> include enemy mages make sure the PCs have an oppotunity to find that out.
> Knowing that the opposition has someone with the potential to wipe them all
> out creates tension and a canny party will evolve a tactic to deal with it.
> If not, they will have a valuable lesson to ponder over new character
> generation. If they are truly a 'one trick pony' then they are only useful
> in particular circumstances. Your putative mage is seriously shafted if the
> PCs engage in melee or at over 80ft.
>
> I want there to be real danger in the game. Big zorch spellls provide this.
> They are not always applicable and in many cases damn dangerous to use. They
> should be out there, being scary.
>
> William
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/194 - Release Date: 7/12/2005
>
>


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

> I considered replying to this post.
> 
> I have decided that the aggravation of dealing with this is 
> not worth ruining what appears to be a fine day.

It must be the day....I looked at it and gave up as well :-) 

Mandos looks at upping Williams lithium dose. 

Mandos
/s


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Dymock"


> The current concern is that the big spells are too big. Most of this comes
> from inferior tactics being used in the game. Most PCs (and NPCs) line up
> and hose one another. The effect is similar to "SMGs at 10 paces", combats
> are very short, brutal and bloody as a result. My contention is that
proper
> awareness of actaul in-game tactics will demand a greater variety in spell
> casting options.

Too many battle fields are large clear areas with  no cover, if the Gms or
players have the PCs Or NPCs chose terrain that limits sight lines, gives
cover until melee range and have missle users and mages that snip from
cover, or maybe use a strategic counter spell or Bane low BC spells like we
are discussing become much harder to cast.
I remeber Aqulina once running along a wall looking for a place the
opposition hadn't water countered yet, and being flushed into the line of
fire of a mage we couldn't see from our position. Couldn't see couldn't
target.

> >Except that with Active resistance being a real concern the temptation to
> use area effect spells becomes strong. Sure, they don't do the huge
damage,
> but they can often affect more targets and you don't run the risk of being
> activly resisted. A single target spell also runs less risk of being
activly
> resisted since the target may have better things to do. Wheras, a
> multi-target spell only requires one person taking the active resistance
> action to benefit up to 7 people. It's much more economical.

Active resistance is under used against mages, go on take 62  of your 71 %
or so cast chance and see how many hellfires you cast at Thorn, and thats
with just a greater add a counterspell and you can put a mage with a greater
on into negatives.
>
[snip]
> And this is where the fine art of GMing comes in. If your antagonists
> include enemy mages make sure the PCs have an oppotunity to find that out.
> Knowing that the opposition has someone with the potential to wipe them
all
> out creates tension and a canny party will evolve a tactic to deal with
it.
> If not, they will have a valuable lesson to ponder over new character
> generation. If they are truly a 'one trick pony' then they are only useful
> in particular circumstances. Your putative mage is seriously shafted if
the
> PCs engage in melee or at over 80ft.

Not to mention 3 adventure Bunnies should not have quest spells or ones with
values of 35,000sp at at anything other than rank ) if at all.

>
> I want there to be real danger in the game. Big zorch spellls provide
this.
> They are not always applicable and in many cases damn dangerous to use.
They
> should be out there, being scary.

I think I agree with Willam take away the big damage spells and you take
away the posiblity of death.
Not only should your party be thinking of ways to avoid getting scorched but
the GMs should also find ways to counter the parties use of such spells,
often the NPCs  get to pick the battle site if you make targeting with a
multi target spell hard all they could get is a single valid target, then
there will be something left for the rest of us.

Helen


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

 
> I think I agree with Willam take away the big damage spells 
> and you take away the posiblity of death. Not only should 
> your party be thinking of ways to avoid getting scorched but 
> the GMs should also find ways to counter the parties use of 
> such spells, often the NPCs  get to pick the battle site if 
> you make targeting with a multi target spell hard all they 
> could get is a single valid target, then there will be 
> something left for the rest of us.

Nope, you change the method of death. If you remove the big spells then
GM's have far more leeway to use larger groups of mages against a party
intellegently without resorting to "Oh they never learned hellfire" At
the moment two mages with hellfire can destroy a party even if the party
resists. 

As for active resistance if more than a couple of mages are in a fight
it takes out half the party activly resisting, and while I accept it is
a valid option is is as boring as watching paint dry. We are supposed to
be making combat fun, not making half the party stand around with "I
activly resist" as the only thing they can do. 

This is why it is not used, because it is more fun to hit someone and we
are here for fun. Removing the top spells means that spell based combats
will become more interesting with more options and without having to
fudge a lack of of spells to avoid destorying a party utterly in 3 or 4
pulses. 

Mandos
/s


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

That is an interesting idea.

If you got doubles and triples, you might cast at more targets, so there is some
reason to get all seven.

Jim

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> Simple suggestion for Hellfire -- damage and number of potential targets
> stay as is, but calculated damage represents the total damage from a single
> cast of the spell and is split equally over the targets.
>
> E.g. Rk 13 Hellfire, max 5 targets, D + 26 damage, avg of 31.5 (32).
>
> All at one target = 32 pts, two targets get 16 each, three targets get 10
> (or 11 depending on the rounding), etc.
>


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

Please note: I play a Namer.

A couple of people asked so I figure I will add to my request:
GK = general Knowledge spells, SK = special Knowledge spells.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the important stuff:
I as a GM would like to see the Guide not teach the following spells (have
the teacher die, get a new teacher without them - whatever it takes).
	Bane S1,
	Spell Barrier S9.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems:
I would also like to see which PC Namers currently have then and see how
much trouble it would be to 'un-learn' them if possible, or leave it as
damage done (I don't know).

I think these spells are too tough and change the nature and balance of the
game. I think these spells also change the nature of Namers to dramatically
and should be moved to Quest level spells.

I think a general nurfing of the new Namer stuff is needed, or if no nurfing
is needed a re-balance of the GK spell EMs.

If the SK spells and focus of them (that results from the spells are
correct) then
the old focus on GK counter spells is reduced, and the cost of the 100 and
200 EM
GK spells value (being able to turn off a caster for one part [GK or SK]
college
at a time) has been reduced a lot and are no longer balanced (its the most
expensive college in turms of Exp).

I do not think it is wise that the focus move from needing to learn and rank
around 12+ counter spells to be offensive to leaning and ranking just one SK
spell to be offensive. I think this is a large change IMHO.

This is in effect - making the Namer version of Necrosis, Whirlwind Vortex
or Hellfire.
A one shot spell instead of the 12+ shot spells.

Kind regards,

Jonathan Bean


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

A reminder that Greater Enchantment doesn't affect your Active
Resistance. AR is like Defence - it's a number you subtract off the
enemy's roll - they get their GE, not yours. Your AR is your Passive MR
minus your GE if you have one.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Helen Saggers
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:01 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Sub-machineguns at 10 paces


Active resistance is under used against mages, go on take 62  of your 71
% or so cast chance and see how many hellfires you cast at Thorn, and
thats with just a greater add a counterspell and you can put a mage with
a greater on into negatives.


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

No problem with it as long as the number where worked out before play time.
What ever the result is - it has to be fast for a GM to use, at 10pm after a
hard days work.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:06 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] To Sum Up: Necrosis, Whirlwind Vortex and Hellfire?


That is an interesting idea.

If you got doubles and triples, you might cast at more targets, so there is
some
reason to get all seven.

Jim

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> Simple suggestion for Hellfire -- damage and number of potential targets
> stay as is, but calculated damage represents the total damage from a
single
> cast of the spell and is split equally over the targets.
>
> E.g. Rk 13 Hellfire, max 5 targets, D + 26 damage, avg of 31.5 (32).
>
> All at one target = 32 pts, two targets get 16 each, three targets get 10
> (or 11 depending on the rounding), etc.
>


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

> If the SK spells and focus of them (that results from the spells are
> correct) then the old focus on GK counter spells is reduced, and
> the cost of the 100 and 200 EM GK spells value (being able to turn off

> a caster for one part [GK or SK] college at a time) has been 
> reduced a lot and are no longer balanced (its the most 
> expensive college in turms of Exp).
> 
> I do not think it is wise that the focus move from needing to 
> learn and rank around 12+ counter spells to be offensive to 
> leaning and ranking just one SK spell to be offensive. I 
> think this is a large change IMHO.

I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for counterspells at all.
In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you are going the
throw the appropriate counterspell down on them. 

Spell barrier is there as a wall that might stop a spell coming through
so works in specific circumstances and in no way replaces the
counterspells which are far more effective. 

Bane effects everyone including the good guys and again makes casting
spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference. 

Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers or a Bane is going to be
better but in the main I don't see how this impacts at all on
counterspells. They are still the best thing to stop a mage, they are
cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job in most situations. 

Mandos
/s


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

ok. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:31 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer - 


> If the SK spells and focus of them (that results from the spells are
> correct) then the old focus on GK counter spells is reduced, and
> the cost of the 100 and 200 EM GK spells value (being able to turn off

> a caster for one part [GK or SK] college at a time) has been 
> reduced a lot and are no longer balanced (its the most 
> expensive college in turms of Exp).
> 
> I do not think it is wise that the focus move from needing to 
> learn and rank around 12+ counter spells to be offensive to 
> leaning and ranking just one SK spell to be offensive. I 
> think this is a large change IMHO.

I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for counterspells at all.
In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you are going the
throw the appropriate counterspell down on them. 

Spell barrier is there as a wall that might stop a spell coming through
so works in specific circumstances and in no way replaces the
counterspells which are far more effective. 

Bane effects everyone including the good guys and again makes casting
spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference. 

Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers or a Bane is going to be
better but in the main I don't see how this impacts at all on
counterspells. They are still the best thing to stop a mage, they are
cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job in most situations. 

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_01C6003E.DF965402
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:31
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer - 
> 
> 
> > If the SK spells and focus of them (that results from the spells are
> > correct) then the old focus on GK counter spells is reduced, and
> > the cost of the 100 and 200 EM GK spells value (being able 
> to turn off
> 
> > a caster for one part [GK or SK] college at a time) has been 
> > reduced a lot and are no longer balanced (its the most 
> > expensive college in turms of Exp).
> > 
> > I do not think it is wise that the focus move from needing to 
> > learn and rank around 12+ counter spells to be offensive to 
> > leaning and ranking just one SK spell to be offensive. I 
> > think this is a large change IMHO.
> 
> I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for 
> counterspells at all.
> In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you 
> are going the
> throw the appropriate counterspell down on them. 
> 
> Spell barrier is there as a wall that might stop a spell 
> coming through
> so works in specific circumstances and in no way replaces the
> counterspells which are far more effective. 
> 
> Bane effects everyone including the good guys 

Clarification on this, Bane has a range of 10+10, and a radius of effect of
15 + 10'/5 (which makes it somewhat different from  say Disruption).

> and again makes casting
> spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference. 

Some situations you prefer Bane (I infer, I haven't seen it used), some CSs
(fast, 1 FT, but small area)


> 
> Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers or a Bane is 
> going to be
> better but in the main I don't see how this impacts at all on
> counterspells. They are still the best thing to stop a mage, they are
> cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job in most situations. 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6003E.DF965402
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] Problem I have with Namer - </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Mandos Mitchinson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 12:31</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer - =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; If the SK spells and focus of them (that =
results from the spells are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; correct) then the old focus on GK counter =
spells is reduced, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; the cost of the 100 and 200 EM GK spells =
value (being able </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; to turn off</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; a caster for one part [GK or SK] college =
at a time) has been </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; reduced a lot and are no longer balanced =
(its the most </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; expensive college in turms of Exp).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; I do not think it is wise that the focus =
move from needing to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; learn and rank around 12+ counter spells =
to be offensive to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; leaning and ranking just one SK spell to =
be offensive. I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; think this is a large change IMHO.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I cannot see how these spells reduce the need =
for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; counterspells at all.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; In combat if you know the college of the =
opposing mage you </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; are going the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; throw the appropriate counterspell down on =
them. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Spell barrier is there as a wall that might =
stop a spell </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; coming through</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; so works in specific circumstances and in no =
way replaces the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; counterspells which are far more effective. =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Bane effects everyone including the good guys =
</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Clarification on this, Bane has a range of 10+10, and =
a radius of effect of 15 + 10'/5 (which makes it somewhat different =
from&nbsp; say Disruption).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and again makes casting</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; spells harder, a counterspell is again the =
preference. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Some situations you prefer Bane (I infer, I haven't =
seen it used), some CSs (fast, 1 FT, but small area)</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers =
or a Bane is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; going to be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; better but in the main I don't see how this =
impacts at all on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; counterspells. They are still the best thing to =
stop a mage, they are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job =
in most situations. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Mandos</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; /s</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6003E.DF965402--


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

Quoting Helen Saggers <helen@owbn.net.nz>:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Dymock"
>
>
> > The current concern is that the big spells are too big. Most of this comes
> > from inferior tactics being used in the game. Most PCs (and NPCs) line up
> > and hose one another. The effect is similar to "SMGs at 10 paces", combats
> > are very short, brutal and bloody as a result. My contention is that
> proper
> > awareness of actaul in-game tactics will demand a greater variety in spell
> > casting options.
>
> Too many battle fields are large clear areas with  no cover, if the Gms or
> players have the PCs Or NPCs chose terrain that limits sight lines, gives
> cover until melee range and have missle users and mages that snip from
> cover, or maybe use a strategic counter spell or Bane low BC spells like we
> are discussing become much harder to cast.

Battlefields are chosen so that commanders can see what their troops are doing.
They're almost always clear areas without much cover.

However, I don't think that criticism is a valid one. Most encounters I've seen
are ones where there has been cover available, one way or another. If nothing
else, it adds some excitement to the game.

However occluded the 'battlefield' is, if there is a target available, then the
spell of choice would be HF, Necrosis or WV. No further ahead.

> > >Except that with Active resistance being a real concern the temptation to
> > use area effect spells becomes strong. Sure, they don't do the huge
> damage,
> > but they can often affect more targets and you don't run the risk of being
> > activly resisted. A single target spell also runs less risk of being
> activly
> > resisted since the target may have better things to do. Wheras, a
> > multi-target spell only requires one person taking the active resistance
> > action to benefit up to 7 people. It's much more economical.
>
> Active resistance is under used against mages, go on take 62  of your 71 %
> or so cast chance and see how many hellfires you cast at Thorn, and thats
> with just a greater add a counterspell and you can put a mage with a greater
> on into negatives.

It's underused because it's uninteresting.
> >
> [snip]
> > And this is where the fine art of GMing comes in. If your antagonists
> > include enemy mages make sure the PCs have an oppotunity to find that out.
> > Knowing that the opposition has someone with the potential to wipe them
> all
> > out creates tension and a canny party will evolve a tactic to deal with
> it.
> > If not, they will have a valuable lesson to ponder over new character
> > generation. If they are truly a 'one trick pony' then they are only useful
> > in particular circumstances. Your putative mage is seriously shafted if
> the
> > PCs engage in melee or at over 80ft.
>
> Not to mention 3 adventure Bunnies should not have quest spells or ones with
> values of 35,000sp at at anything other than rank ) if at all.

So, deferring the problem to when you're at some special point makes it go away?
Seidarr is a 3 adventure bunny? I'll bet he'll be surprised to hear this.
>
> >
> > I want there to be real danger in the game. Big zorch spellls provide
> this.
> > They are not always applicable and in many cases damn dangerous to use.
> They
> > should be out there, being scary.
>
> I think I agree with Willam take away the big damage spells and you take
> away the posiblity of death.
> Not only should your party be thinking of ways to avoid getting scorched but
> the GMs should also find ways to counter the parties use of such spells,
> often the NPCs  get to pick the battle site if you make targeting with a
> multi target spell hard all they could get is a single valid target, then
> there will be something left for the rest of us.

The number of players who sit around attracting heavy magical damage can be
counted on the fingers of one...Can be counted on one finger. It would be an
elven finger, and it would belong to GoK. Normal characters spend a lot of time
avoiding ways of being afflicted with even the tiniest hurt.

One way of making the game more interesting for characters with the spells in
question is to reduce the damage, because this would increase the tactical
value of other options. It's not the only way being discussed.

High damage means that players exert pressure on the game to get better healing
or protection, if they're subject to it regularly. In the end, the game finds a
natural equilibrium so that damage is in some kind of perceived balance.
Ultimately, the numbers don't mean very much, by themselves, except at the
limit of the ruleset. And, given the way DQ works, even the most high level
party cannot survive an ambush from a character who has high ranks in spells
like DF,HF, WV, or Necrosis, if a triple is rolled.

However, that is just an extreme example. The spell doesn't need to kill all of
the party to lead to a total party wipeout. If half of them are dead, and the
tough half are out of FT, then when the mage's mates come over the hill to pay
them a visit, they are as likely to bite the big one, anyway.

If you're going to talk about this new Naming magic which I have to say is
amongtst the most broken I have seen for a while, then perhaps I should mention
what is going to happen when the blast mage triggers a damage Enhance.

Jim


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

------=_Part_24408_30594140.1134518169654
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Bane is harder (20% base), more FT (SK) and slower (prepare & cast) than a
CS, and while it only reduces cast chances (a la Active Resist), it does
have the advantage of effecting every mage in the area of effect, and the
equal disadvantage should one of the party be in the area.

I do agree with Jono however that it runs some risk at high ranks of being =
a
"one trick" style spell, and may detract from the College focus on CS.

My suggestion to Jono off list was to reduce its current effect somewhat.
Currently each Rk in Bane effectively cancels a Rk from mages in the area.
This might be a bit much, and should perhaps be reduced to 2% per Rk, or
even 3%/2 Rks.

Spell Barrier again moves focus away from the CS. My suggestion to Jono was
to change the spell to make the Rk used in the "Rk vs. Rk" dissipation
chance based on the appropriate CS -- e.g. Rk 10 Wall, Rk 6 CS Necro SK,
Necrosis cast with line of sight through Wall uses the Rk 6 of the CS rathe=
r
than the Rk 10 of the Wall in the dissipation chance.

In both cases the EM of the spells may need reconsidering if these changes
were made.

Cheers,
Martin


On 12/14/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Clarification on this, Bane has a range of 10+10, and a radius of effect
> of 15 + 10'/5 (which makes it somewhat different from  say Disruption).
>
> > and again makes casting
> > spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference.
>
> Some situations you prefer Bane (I infer, I haven't seen it used), some
> CSs (fast, 1 FT, but small area)
>

------=_Part_24408_30594140.1134518169654
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Bane is harder (20% base), more FT (SK) and slower (prepare &amp; cast) tha=
n a CS, and while it only reduces cast chances (a la Active Resist), it doe=
s have the advantage of effecting every mage in the area of effect, and the=
 equal disadvantage should one of the party be in the area.
<br><br>I do agree with Jono however that it runs some risk at high ranks o=
f being a &quot;one trick&quot; style spell, and may detract from the Colle=
ge focus on CS.<br><br>My suggestion to Jono off list was to reduce its cur=
rent effect somewhat. Currently each Rk in Bane effectively cancels a Rk fr=
om mages in the area. This might be a bit much, and should perhaps be reduc=
ed to 2% per Rk, or even 3%/2 Rks.
<br><br>Spell Barrier again moves focus away from the CS. My suggestion to =
Jono was to change the spell to make the Rk used in the &quot;Rk vs. Rk&quo=
t; dissipation chance based on the appropriate CS -- e.g. Rk 10 Wall, Rk 6 =
CS Necro SK, Necrosis cast with line of sight through Wall uses the Rk 6 of=
 the CS rather than the Rk 10 of the Wall in the dissipation chance.
<br><br>In both cases the EM of the spells may need reconsidering if these =
changes were made.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br><br><br><div><span class=3D"=
gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> &lt=
;
<a href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</=
span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(=
204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><p><font siz=
e=3D"2">
Clarification on this, Bane has a range of 10+10, and a radius of effect of=
 15 + 10'/5 (which makes it somewhat different from&nbsp; say Disruption).<=
/font></p><span class=3D"q">

<p><font size=3D"2">&gt; and again makes casting</font>
<br><font size=3D"2">&gt; spells harder, a counterspell is again the prefer=
ence. </font>
</p></span>

<p><font size=3D"2">Some situations you prefer Bane (I infer, I haven't see=
n it used), some CSs (fast, 1 FT, but small area)</font>
</p></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_24408_30594140.1134518169654--


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

Mandos said:

>I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for counterspells at all.


>In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you are going the
>throw the appropriate counterspell down on them.
Thats a 'If'.

>Bane effects everyone including the good guys and again makes casting
>spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference.

Its a range attack with a large area effect not normally cast on the party
by PC Namers.

>Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers or a Bane is going to be
>better but in the main I don't see how this impacts at all on
>counterspells.

As the offensive option for the Name in the past you had to range and the
focus was counter spells. With the new one shot spell vrs all casters and
lots of them (any in teh area) you can effect a large group.

Before you had to rank a number of counters to effect a range of casters.
Now you do not. You only need one spell.

>They are still the best thing to stop a mage, they are cheaper, quicker
>to cast and do a superior job in most situations.

Vrs a none-discript group of NPCs then it is often very hard to work out
which are casters (maybe a GM sytle thing) and to work out what college
they are going to be. If you are faced with more than one, then your new
option of Bane is better in almost every way. It is as fast as a DA/Counter
being a Pre/Cast and it effects an area.

Again its one set of ranking to get an effect which is often the better (or
only) option that counter spells (more than one target).
Given you are only ranking one thing - then range and BC etc improves vrs
all
casters. Counters you needed 12+ spells to be ranked.

Also;
The why this was done in the past was making the spell effect self with
Banishment.
This was cast on self and then allowed the Namer to add the effect to conter
spells that elements etc where banished. This maintained the dependance on
ranking of counter spells for range BC etc.

With these spells you remove this. It in effect replaces counter spells when
faced by what the character thinks is more than one caster. Becuase of the
bland
effect of effecting all casters in the area, you are able to tailor your
counter
spells under the party (protecting them with +MR) to the colleges you think
will
be able to cast even in your Bane. All in all, its too large an effect.

It removes to larger part of the depenance on Ranking counterspells as an
offensive option.

Jonathan


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:


> >
> > I do not think it is wise that the focus move from needing to
> > learn and rank around 12+ counter spells to be offensive to
> > leaning and ranking just one SK spell to be offensive. I
> > think this is a large change IMHO.
>
> I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for counterspells at all.
> In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you are going the
> throw the appropriate counterspell down on them.
>
> Spell barrier is there as a wall that might stop a spell coming through
> so works in specific circumstances and in no way replaces the
> counterspells which are far more effective.

It means that you don't need to bother with a counterspell, because
counterspells start with a 30 point bonus to MR. This is free, and
counterspells that are Rank 0 don't count against a namers MA.

Spellwall, for the expenditure of one chunk of xp, works against every spell
that crosses it, meaning that some percentage of spells that you might have
been subject to don't even need to be resisted, and their secondary effects
don't apply, either.


> Bane effects everyone including the good guys and again makes casting
> spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference.

Bane, for the expenditure of one chunk of xp, works against every spell that is
cast in the area of effect, meaning that some percentage of spells fail, some
backfire, some that might have had critical effects are now ordinary effects.
>
> Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers or a Bane is going to be
> better but in the main I don't see how this impacts at all on
> counterspells. They are still the best thing to stop a mage, they are
> cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job in most situations.


No, I don't think so. A counterspell can't help you against the fear affects of
blackfire, or being dazzled from ball lightning, or from half damage effects.

For the same cost it would take to raise the counterspells of two colleges, you
can reduce the cast chance of any colleged base chance by up to 65 points. More
spells will fail to be cast, so there will not be any need to successfully
resist. Those that spells that are cast have a significant chance of being
dissipated when they cross the spell barrier.

But, ultimately, the reason that these spells are complete crap is because they
require so much administration from the DM, and I for one won't wear it. I am
not sitting around spending half the night rolling backfires and spell failure
chances. I run games for fun, not to watch numbers turn up on plastic polygons
and checking against my notes.

Jim


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

I see three options ahead of me:

1 Dont warry about the Namer spells and do nothing.
2 Try to put something into play test.
3 Get the Guild to not sell the spells to members.

I would like to have option 3 carried out right away effective ASAP before
the next Players Guide goes to print.
I would like someone else to come up with something for option 2, if people
think its an issue.

Jonathan Bean


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C600B8.54C75590
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


----- Original Message -----=20
From: jim
>=20
> The number of players who sit around attracting heavy magical damage =
can be
> counted on the fingers of one...Can be counted on one finger. It would =
be an
> elven finger, and it would belong to GoK. Normal characters spend a =
lot of time
> avoiding ways of being afflicted with even the tiniest hurt.
>=20
> One way of making the game more interesting for characters with the =
spells in
> question is to reduce the damage, because this would increase the =
tactical
> value of other options. It's not the only way being discussed.
>=20
> High damage means that players exert pressure on the game to get =
better healing
> or protection, if they're subject to it regularly. In the end, the =
game finds a
> natural equilibrium so that damage is in some kind of perceived =
balance.
> Ultimately, the numbers don't mean very much, by themselves, except at =
the
> limit of the ruleset. And, given the way DQ works, even the most high =
level
> party cannot survive an ambush from a character who has high ranks in =
spells
> like DF,HF, WV, or Necrosis, if a triple is rolled.
=20
So as a GM you wouldn't open with some other spell or ignore the triple =
for the sake of dramatic effect?

> However, that is just an extreme example. The spell doesn't need to =
kill all of
> the party to lead to a total party wipeout. If half of them are dead, =
and the
> tough half are out of FT, then when the mage's mates come over the =
hill to pay
> them a visit, they are as likely to bite the big one, anyway.

Who needs a heavy damage spell to do this knockout gass, and take out =
those who resist first
A nice volley of arrows, some will get though. Brigetta was once killed =
outright by a volley of javelins from abush.
Again as a GM you can do something other than killem all, how about =
asking the party to surender?

> If you're going to talk about this new Naming magic which I have to =
say is
> amongtst the most broken I have seen for a while, then perhaps I =
should mention
> what is going to happen when the blast mage triggers a damage Enhance.

As a GM why use the damage Enhance except to kill the unkillable, and if =
the players can thats what the (not) broken Namer is for. The first =
namer spell cast is disjuntion sorry no triggering, potions, etc.
As Willam said tactics and the art of GMing.

Helen
------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C600B8.54C75590
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1522" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From: jim<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; The number =
of players=20
who sit around attracting heavy magical damage can be<BR>&gt; counted on =
the=20
fingers of one...Can be counted on one finger. It would be an<BR>&gt; =
elven=20
finger, and it would belong to GoK. Normal characters spend a lot of=20
time<BR>&gt; avoiding ways of being afflicted with even the tiniest=20
hurt.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; One way of making the game more interesting for=20
characters with the spells in<BR>&gt; question is to reduce the damage, =
because=20
this would increase the tactical<BR>&gt; value of other options. It's =
not the=20
only way being discussed.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; High damage means that =
players exert=20
pressure on the game to get better healing<BR>&gt; or protection, if =
they're=20
subject to it regularly. In the end, the game finds a<BR>&gt; natural=20
equilibrium so that damage is in some kind of perceived balance.<BR>&gt; =

Ultimately, the numbers don't mean very much, by themselves, except at=20
the<BR>&gt; limit of the ruleset. And, given the way DQ works, even the =
most=20
high level<BR>&gt; party cannot survive an ambush from a character who =
has high=20
ranks in spells<BR>&gt; like DF,HF, WV, or Necrosis, if a triple is=20
rolled.<BR>&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT color=3D#0000ff>So as a GM you =
wouldn't open=20
with some other spell or ignore the triple for the sake of dramatic=20
effect?</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff></FONT>
<DIV><BR>&gt; However, that is just an extreme example. The spell =
doesn't need=20
to kill all of<BR>&gt; the party to lead to a total party wipeout. If =
half of=20
them are dead, and the<BR>&gt; tough half are out of FT, then when the =
mage's=20
mates come over the hill to pay<BR>&gt; them a visit, they are as likely =
to bite=20
the big one, anyway.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff>Who needs a heavy damage spell to do this =
knockout=20
gass, and take out those who resist first</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff>A nice volley of arrows, some will get =
though. Brigetta=20
was once killed outright by a volley of javelins from =
abush.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff>Again as a GM you can do something other than =
killem=20
all, how about asking the party to surender?<BR></FONT><BR>&gt; If =
you're going=20
to talk about this new Naming magic which I have to say is<BR>&gt; =
amongtst the=20
most broken I have seen for a while, then perhaps I should =
mention<BR>&gt; what=20
is going to happen when the blast mage triggers a damage Enhance.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff>As a GM why use the damage Enhance except to =
kill the=20
unkillable, and if the players can thats what the (not) broken Namer is =
for. The=20
first namer spell cast is disjuntion sorry no triggering, potions,=20
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff>As Willam said tactics and the art of=20
GMing.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff>Helen</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00D7_01C600B8.54C75590--


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

We've had a couple of people saying the Namer spells are broken and a
couple disagreeing. The next step shouldn't be to push for a ban on
selling some spells - this will just slow down the detection/resolution
of any problem, not fix it.

I think that the statement "I would like to have option 3 carried out
right away effective ASAP " based on 2 yes and 2 no opinions is a little
pushy. The latest Namer has been around for a few years. A few weeks is
neither here nor there.


Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 2:45 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Namer spells


I see three options ahead of me:

1 Dont warry about the Namer spells and do nothing.
2 Try to put something into play test.
3 Get the Guild to not sell the spells to members.

I would like to have option 3 carried out right away effective ASAP
before the next Players Guide goes to print. I would like someone else
to come up with something for option 2, if people think its an issue.

Jonathan Bean


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

--0-145587601-1134525167=:22869
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Confirming sooty is affected by this
   
  *puts player hat on*
  I can't say I've noticed these spells as an only option, especially with the fire college.  The fire college particularly has a nice variety of attack spells that can be used for differing effects.  Pyrotechnics for blinding everyone else, walls of fire for channeling them in towards your fighters, weapons of flame pre combat, Fire arcs for strategic positioning.
  Admitadly I am dealing at low to middle ranks, not rank 20's with these, but the base chance difference makes a serious affect to my spell choices.  If my base chances are currently dropped for some reason(usually silvered weapons and it's damp) I revert all the way back to my bolt of fire, simply because it's more reliable and less likely to kill the party on a backfire.
   
  *puts GM hat on*
  Using firemages myself as opposition NPC's, I can see some of the argument, however I found a high ranked malignent flame very effective for chipping away at a party and really making them feel under fire as they accrued a variety of curses to various stats, and have also run parties around playing counterspell hopscotch and even used active resistance on a party a couple of times.
  Hellfire is a big spell, but most Adventurers and bad guys, if they resist even on a rank 20 triple are probably only looking at fatigue being stripped, and a rank 20 triple is an extreme case.  Necrosis isn't in the same boat I'll admit, and in this case a triple is resist and die anyway.
   
  That said, I personally would still use the spell if it was resist for none, but all the other effects remained as they are currently.  Over 7 targets(especially with hellfires lowering of resistance) at least a couple of them are likely to fail to resist unless they are under a high ranked fire counter, in which case I can switch to a different spell like Fireball, thus providing the variety people want.  EM should be dropped appropriatly of course, but details can be argued over later.
   
  However I don't see any of the other options people are putting foward as being needed.  they will end up over complicating the issue and making the spell fiddly.  We don't want to have to spend 10 minutes working out exactly where the fire mage stands so they can cast, or working out where that fraction of damage goes, or dividing 53 by 3.  It takes people long enough to do their maths in the middle of combat allready, myself included.
   
  Williams point on using advanced tactics is also very valid, if the NPC/PC's are activly resisting, then suddenly people are having their Rank 20 hellfire cast at 30% Base chance with a 40% backfire chance.  Thats a pretty high random target chance....., and the same can be said for keeping cover.  Sure hellfire on one person is nasty, but mental attack or sleep have the same effective result taking the one person out of the combat.  A succesful percieve tactics by the party mil-sci should allow targets to be worked out after all.
   
  However...., if this is being addressed, I'd like to see several other spells also addressed.  Dragonflames as has been pointed out, not even being able to be actively resisted, and can we say a dragonflames mage with a fly spell up...., then you get to play with angled cones, and your number of targets is far greater, and a higher base damage to begin with.
  Malignent flames, currently a single target, D+2 resist for none.  With a high EM(550).
  And I'm sure there are several other spells out there that just aren't practical options due to being resist for none single targets with high EM also.  I'm just most familiar with the fire college. ((Note I am not including the bolt spells here as generally they are much lower EM than the spells being discussed, so should be expected to be less dangerous.))
  

Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
  Just a note it would be good to know who is actually affected by this
directly.
I am aware of

Amber
Saydar
Blaze
Brightflare
Flamis?
Mortimer
Father Rowan
Doroin

Are there any other characters?

Mandos
/s


From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
--0-145587601-1134525167=:22869
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>Confirming sooty is affected by this</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>*puts player hat on*</DIV>  <DIV>I can't say I've noticed these spells as an only option, especially with the fire college.&nbsp; The fire college particularly has a nice variety of attack spells that can be used for differing effects.&nbsp; Pyrotechnics for blinding everyone else, walls of fire for channeling them in towards your fighters, weapons of flame pre combat, Fire arcs for strategic positioning.</DIV>  <DIV>Admitadly I am dealing at low to middle ranks, not rank 20's with these, but the base chance difference makes a serious affect to my spell choices.&nbsp; If my base chances are currently dropped for some reason(usually silvered weapons and it's damp)&nbsp;I revert all the way back to my bolt of fire, simply because it's more reliable and less likely to kill the party on a backfire.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>*puts GM hat on*</DIV>  <DIV>Using firemages myself as opposition NPC's, I can see some
 of the argument, however I found a high ranked malignent flame very effective for chipping away at a party and really making them feel under fire as they accrued a variety of curses to various stats, and have also run parties around playing counterspell hopscotch and even used active resistance on a party a couple of times.</DIV>  <DIV>Hellfire is a big spell, but most Adventurers and bad guys, if they resist even on a rank 20 triple are probably only looking at fatigue being stripped, and a rank 20 triple is an extreme case.&nbsp; Necrosis isn't in the same boat I'll admit, and in this case a triple is resist and die anyway.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>That said, I personally would still use the spell if it was resist for none, but all the other effects remained as they are currently.&nbsp; Over 7 targets(especially with hellfires lowering of resistance) at least a couple of them are likely to fail to resist unless they are under a high ranked fire counter, in which case I can
 switch to a different spell like Fireball, thus providing the variety people want.&nbsp; EM should be dropped appropriatly of course, but details can be argued over later.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>However I don't see any of the other options people are putting foward as being needed.&nbsp; they will end up over complicating the issue and making the spell fiddly.&nbsp; We don't want to have to spend 10 minutes working out exactly where the fire mage stands so they can cast, or working out where that fraction of damage goes, or dividing 53 by 3.&nbsp; It takes people long enough to do their maths in the middle of combat allready, myself included.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Williams point on using advanced tactics is also very valid, if the NPC/PC's are activly resisting, then suddenly people are having their Rank 20 hellfire cast at 30% Base chance with a 40% backfire chance.&nbsp; Thats a pretty high random target chance....., and the same can be said for keeping
 cover.&nbsp; Sure hellfire on one person is nasty, but mental attack or sleep have the same effective result taking the one person out of the combat.&nbsp; A succesful percieve tactics by the party mil-sci should allow targets to be worked out after all.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>However...., if this is being addressed, I'd like to see several other spells also addressed.&nbsp; Dragonflames as has been pointed out, not even being able to be actively resisted, and can we say a dragonflames mage with a fly spell up...., then you get to play with angled cones, and your number of targets is far greater, and a higher base damage to begin with.</DIV>  <DIV>Malignent flames, currently a single target, D+2 resist for none.&nbsp; With a high EM(550).</DIV>  <DIV>And I'm sure there are several other spells out there that just aren't practical options due to being resist for none single targets with high EM also.&nbsp; I'm just most familiar with the fire college. ((Note I am not
 including the bolt spells here as generally they are much lower EM than the spells being discussed, so should be expected to be less dangerous.))</DIV>  <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Mandos Mitchinson &lt;MandosM@adhb.govt.nz&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>  <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Just a note it would be good to know who is actually affected by this<BR>directly.<BR>I am aware of<BR><BR>Amber<BR>Saydar<BR>Blaze<BR>Brightflare<BR>Flamis?<BR>Mortimer<BR>Father Rowan<BR>Doroin<BR><BR>Are there any other characters?<BR><BR>Mandos<BR>/s<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
--0-145587601-1134525167=:22869--


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

Quoting Helen Saggers <helen@owbn.net.nz>:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jim

> > High damage means that players exert pressure on the game to get better
> healing
> > or protection, if they're subject to it regularly. In the end, the game
> finds a
> > natural equilibrium so that damage is in some kind of perceived balance.
> > Ultimately, the numbers don't mean very much, by themselves, except at the
> > limit of the ruleset. And, given the way DQ works, even the most high level
> > party cannot survive an ambush from a character who has high ranks in
> spells
> > like DF,HF, WV, or Necrosis, if a triple is rolled.
>
> So as a GM you wouldn't open with some other spell or ignore the triple for
> the sake of dramatic effect?

For the record, I don't have a problem with high damage spells per se. I have a
problem with spells that do not make for an interesting game. As I said, damage
levels find their own point of equilibrium in the game.

I do, however, have a problem with a system that allows for death on a die roll,
where the players don't even get to squirm. I DM, after all, to watch players
squirm.

As for fudging...If you find that you are fudging die rolls a lot, then there is
either something wrong with your DMing, or there is something wrong with the
game. If you have become blase about fudging, I can really only suggest that
you re-evaluate how you put your game together.

If you cannot find a flaw in your DMing, then, perforce, there must be something
wrong with the game. In which case, a solution that gets rid of the need to
fudge will be better than developing a more casual attitude to lying to players
about your die roll.
>
> > However, that is just an extreme example. The spell doesn't need to kill
> all of
> > the party to lead to a total party wipeout. If half of them are dead, and
> the
> > tough half are out of FT, then when the mage's mates come over the hill to
> pay
> > them a visit, they are as likely to bite the big one, anyway.
>
> Who needs a heavy damage spell to do this knockout gass, and take out those
> who resist first
> A nice volley of arrows, some will get though. Brigetta was once killed
> outright by a volley of javelins from abush.
> Again as a GM you can do something other than killem all, how about asking
> the party to surender?

Knockout gas is a binary effect spell unlikely to take out the entire party in
the first pass. Plus, once you get people out of the area of effect, they come
to in short order. This is not true of HF, DF, WV or necrosis. For knockout gas
to lead to a total party wipeout, everyone in the entire party would have to
fail their saving throws. Same with the other examples.

What was originally posted was that spells like these lead to the wiping out of
the party on a single roll of the dice. If I want to use a necromancer against
a party, then I must find a reason why they do not have necrosis because to use
one against the party might lead to a total party wipeout. Total party wipeouts
are BAD things.

If none of my necromancers have necrosis or enough rank in it to matter, I will
be stretching the bounds of credibility because players can read the rule book
as well, and they know what necros can learn. I'm not saying that every necro
has to have necrosis, but if NONE of your NPC necros have necrosis, then it's
more than a little odd if the tougher ones never have it. In this case, you
have failed your first obligation as a DM, which is to create a believable
world.

>
> > If you're going to talk about this new Naming magic which I have to say is
> > amongtst the most broken I have seen for a while, then perhaps I should
> mention
> > what is going to happen when the blast mage triggers a damage Enhance.
>
> As a GM why use the damage Enhance except to kill the unkillable, and if the
> players can thats what the (not) broken Namer is for. The first namer spell
> cast is disjuntion sorry no triggering, potions, etc.

Um...Because the logic of the encounter leaves me no other sensible choice?

> As Willam said tactics and the art of GMing.

I eagerly anticipate your growing experience in this art. Perhaps you will win
an award, one day.

Jim.


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

> So as a GM you wouldn't open with some other spell or ignore the
triple for the sake of dramatic effect?

It occours to me that if you cannot accept the roll of a dice without
resorting to lying about it, you have either failed to set your game
level correctly or the game is broken in some way that you have to fix
on the fly. 

And no, I wouldn't ignore it. 

> As Willam said tactics and the art of GMing.

So the art of GM'ing is to fudge the dice rolls in order to make up for
either a broken spell or bad GM'ing?

Mandos
/s


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

> As for fudging...If you find that you are fudging die rolls a 
> lot, then there is either something wrong with your DMing, or 
> there is something wrong with the game. If you have become 
> blase about fudging, I can really only suggest that you 
> re-evaluate how you put your game together.
>
> > As Willam said tactics and the art of GMing.
> 
> I eagerly anticipate your growing experience in this art. 
> Perhaps you will win an award, one day.

Damn beaten to the sarcasm :-( I gotta get out of some of these
meetings!

Well said Jim! :-)

Mandos
/s


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

Lets try to stop this becoming personal.

Oops too late.

Insulting each other's GMing is not productive.

Andrew


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

Quoting Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk>:

>   *puts GM hat on*
>   Using firemages myself as opposition NPC's, I can see some of the argument,
> however I found a high ranked malignent flame very effective for chipping
> away at a party and really making them feel under fire as they accrued a
> variety of curses to various stats, and have also run parties around playing
> counterspell hopscotch and even used active resistance on a party a couple of
> times.
>   Hellfire is a big spell, but most Adventurers and bad guys, if they resist
> even on a rank 20 triple are probably only looking at fatigue being stripped,
> and a rank 20 triple is an extreme case.  Necrosis isn't in the same boat
> I'll admit, and in this case a triple is resist and die anyway.

WV does the same thing. And, even if HF has been nerfed so that you can't do the
high damage, DF certainly can, and the attack geometry means that you can get
the entire party. It has a longer range than HF, and the base is pretty damned
wide.
>
>   That said, I personally would still use the spell if it was resist for
> none, but all the other effects remained as they are currently.  Over 7
> targets(especially with hellfires lowering of resistance) at least a couple
> of them are likely to fail to resist unless they are under a high ranked fire
> counter, in which case I can switch to a different spell like Fireball, thus
> providing the variety people want.  EM should be dropped appropriatly of
> course, but details can be argued over later.
>
>   However I don't see any of the other options people are putting foward as
> being needed.  they will end up over complicating the issue and making the
> spell fiddly.  We don't want to have to spend 10 minutes working out exactly
> where the fire mage stands so they can cast, or working out where that
> fraction of damage goes, or dividing 53 by 3.  It takes people long enough to
> do their maths in the middle of combat allready, myself included.
>
>   Williams point on using advanced tactics is also very valid, if the
> NPC/PC's are activly resisting, then suddenly people are having their Rank 20
> hellfire cast at 30% Base chance with a 40% backfire chance.  Thats a pretty
> high random target chance....., and the same can be said for keeping cover.
> Sure hellfire on one person is nasty, but mental attack or sleep have the
> same effective result taking the one person out of the combat.  A succesful
> percieve tactics by the party mil-sci should allow targets to be worked out
> after all.

William's point is only valid if you like DMing boring games. I don't mind a
weakened character or a bunny playing out of the usual level taking actions
like evading or actively resisting. I'm not interested in seeing it as a
general form of play. It is a clayton's action.

I recall when two high level fighters would walk up to adjacent hexes and evage
against each other until someone couldn't stand it and made an attack roll. It
was a stupid rule then, and it's a stupid rule now. It rewards players who do
nothing, contribute no degree of excitement and who have no ideas.



>
>   However...., if this is being addressed, I'd like to see several other
> spells also addressed.  Dragonflames as has been pointed out, not even being
> able to be actively resisted, and can we say a dragonflames mage with a fly
> spell up...., then you get to play with angled cones, and your number of
> targets is far greater, and a higher base damage to begin with.

I don't know how much further I can be bothered saying this, but this discussion
is not about tough spells. It's about why you might choose HF over any other
spell in your college.

Now, as it happens, Fire mages do have a range of options, you're not always
going to want to use HF. The alternative spells offer abilities that, say, HF
doesn't offer. There are times when you're going to want to cast DF, times when
you're going to want to cast HF, and times when you're going to want to cast
FB. And, these are just a few attack spells. The problem talked about probably
doesn't affect Fire casters.

It does have an effect on Necros, Wiccans and Air mages. Of these, Air mages
have the best range of choices, because they do have one or two other spell
choices from time to time. But, really, the chance of the player being forced
to make a critical decision about whether to cast WV or, say, Knockout Gas is
pretty unusual. In the same way, a wiccan might cast an Earth Tremor on
occasion, but it's unusual.

The overwhelming pressure on these characters is to simply cast their spell
again and again and again. And, that's dull. It's not that it's tough, although
it definitely is tough. It's that the range of alternatives is so much less
attractive an option.

>   Malignent flames, currently a single target, D+2 resist for none.  With a
> high EM(550).

There's no particular reason for this spell to be easy to cast and to have a low
Exp.Mult. So what if the spell is expensive and does crap? Players probably
won't pursue it, unless they have no choice. That's okay. An NPC might have no
other alternative, and so have ranked this spell, in which case it's an
interesting alternative, as you have found in your game.

In fact, it's the kind of thing that DM's often use on players, because it
creates interesting situations. Players hardly ever choose abilities like this,
because to them, an interesting situation is where they are all alive,
reasonably safe and sitting on a huge pile of treasure. They would hold out for
a half damage spell, I expect.


Jim


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=____1134527569420_BMO)INl.q'
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Is Bane an all-college spell? cant remember and not anywhere near a rule book.\

if so, perhaps make it lesser against all colleges, but can have one CS added to provide a focused increase in effect.

an idea only,

BTW - i am deleting the unneeded emails, as i assume the orinator of each topic will provide a summary of the germaine points.
Ian

> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed PM 12:56:09 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -
> 
> Bane is harder (20% base), more FT (SK) and slower (prepare & cast) than a
> CS, and while it only reduces cast chances (a la Active Resist), it does
> have the advantage of effecting every mage in the area of effect, and the
> equal disadvantage should one of the party be in the area.
> 
> I do agree with Jono however that it runs some risk at high ranks of being a
> "one trick" style spell, and may detract from the College focus on CS.
> 
> My suggestion to Jono off list was to reduce its current effect somewhat.
> Currently each Rk in Bane effectively cancels a Rk from mages in the area.
> This might be a bit much, and should perhaps be reduced to 2% per Rk, or
> even 3%/2 Rks.
> 
> Spell Barrier again moves focus away from the CS. My suggestion to Jono was
> to change the spell to make the Rk used in the "Rk vs. Rk" dissipation
> chance based on the appropriate CS -- e.g. Rk 10 Wall, Rk 6 CS Necro SK,
> Necrosis cast with line of sight through Wall uses the Rk 6 of the CS rather
> than the Rk 10 of the Wall in the dissipation chance.
> 
> In both cases the EM of the spells may need reconsidering if these changes
> were made.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> On 12/14/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Clarification on this, Bane has a range of 10+10, and a radius of effect
> > of 15 + 10'/5 (which makes it somewhat different from  say Disruption).
> >
> > > and again makes casting
> > > spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference.
> >
> > Some situations you prefer Bane (I infer, I haven't seen it used), some
> > CSs (fast, 1 FT, but small area)
> >
> 
> 

------=____1134527569420_BMO)INl.q'
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="reply"
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="reply"

Bane is harder (20% base), more FT (SK) and slower (prepare &amp; cast) than a CS, and while it only reduces cast chances (a la Active Resist), it does have the advantage of effecting every mage in the area of effect, and the equal disadvantage should one of the party be in the area.
<br><br>I do agree with Jono however that it runs some risk at high ranks of being a &quot;one trick&quot; style spell, and may detract from the College focus on CS.<br><br>My suggestion to Jono off list was to reduce its current effect somewhat. Currently each Rk in Bane effectively cancels a Rk from mages in the area. This might be a bit much, and should perhaps be reduced to 2% per Rk, or even 3%/2 Rks.
<br><br>Spell Barrier again moves focus away from the CS. My suggestion to Jono was to change the spell to make the Rk used in the &quot;Rk vs. Rk&quot; dissipation chance based on the appropriate CS -- e.g. Rk 10 Wall, Rk 6 CS Necro SK, Necrosis cast with line of sight through Wall uses the Rk 6 of the CS rather than the Rk 10 of the Wall in the dissipation chance.
<br><br>In both cases the EM of the spells may need reconsidering if these changes were made.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> &lt;
<a href="mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><p><font size="2">
Clarification on this, Bane has a range of 10+10, and a radius of effect of 15 + 10'/5 (which makes it somewhat different from&nbsp; say Disruption).</font></p><span class="q">

<p><font size="2">&gt; and again makes casting</font>
<br><font size="2">&gt; spells harder, a counterspell is again the preference. </font>
</p></span>

<p><font size="2">Some situations you prefer Bane (I infer, I haven't seen it used), some CSs (fast, 1 FT, but small area)</font>
</p></blockquote></div><br>


------=____1134527569420_BMO)INl.q'--


-- 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_01C60058.DA6E8AFC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:33
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -
> 
> 
> 
> Is Bane an all-college spell? 

Oui. And non-colleged. And Talents with a base chance.

Note stored magics (including investeds) are NOT affected.

> cant remember and not anywhere 
> near a rule book.\


It's not on your little Hard Drive? Or the cafe won't let you plug it in,
the wimps?

Cheers
Errol 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C60058.DA6E8AFC
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] Problem I have with Namer - for Ian</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:33</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer =
-</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Is Bane an all-college spell? </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Oui. And non-colleged. And Talents with a base =
chance.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note stored magics (including investeds) are NOT =
affected.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; cant remember and not anywhere </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; near a rule book.\</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It's not on your little Hard Drive? Or the cafe won't =
let you plug it in, the wimps?</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60058.DA6E8AFC--


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

Quoting dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz:

>
> Is Bane an all-college spell? cant remember and not anywhere near a rule
> book.\

All magical base chances are reduced by 5+3/Rank. Talents, spells and rituals
with a Base Chance are affected if they are in the area of effect, which is a
megahex, and an additional 10 ft of diameter/Rank. (So, every five ranks you
get another ring of hexes...Gigahex at rank 5, Terahex at rank 10...I don't
know what the other orders of magnitude are).
>
> if so, perhaps make it lesser against all colleges, but can have one CS added
> to provide a focused increase in effect.

Well...Martin's suggestion is to reduce it by some smaller amount across the
board.

I would rather it were a single target spell, with a penalty on resistance. I
would also rather have it apply a stepped penalty, so that we're looking at
numbers that are easy to subtract.

My main objection is that I don't want to be going through all of my NPCs and
working out what their new base chances are. Where's the fun in that, I ask
you?

As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue this option big time,
rather than your counterspells. There are still reasons to use counterspells,
because they entirely stop someone from casting, but this is an extremely cheap
way of getting good magical defence, with the added advantage that it ignores
spells with secondary effects and spells that are not resistable. Once this
spell is at rank 20, I suppose a namer is going to rank his counter spells.
But, then, they'll probably not have as much need of them.

It involves lots of die rolling, and I'm just not that fond of shaking the
damned things and counting off the numbers. Plus, it's a single spell that
applies against just about all other college magic.

Jim


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

------=_Part_26618_28220424.1134529486099
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Well...Martin's suggestion is to reduce it by some smaller amount across
> the
> board.
>
> ...
>
> My main objection is that I don't want to be going through all of my NPCs
> and
> working out what their new base chances are. Where's the fun in that, I
> ask
> you?


Perhaps not that much fun I'll grant. :-)  But, it does provide a means for
the Namer to add "texture" (for want of a better term) to a battlefield...
an area denial weapon of sorts, that can be used to make some places bad fo=
r
enemy mages, at the expense of making them bad for the party.

I do understand your reluctance to recalculate on the fly... on the other
hand graduated effects do seem generally preferable to binary ones.

As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue this option big
> time,
> rather than your counterspells....


You are right. I was saying to Jono that it would have been a much better
idea to tie it to counterspells (in the way of Banish), making the degree o=
f
the protection the wall gave based directly on Rk in CS.  A little more
calculation perhaps (if the incoming magic is from a wide varoety of
Colleges), but a much better way of keeping the focus on ranking the
Counterspells.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_26618_28220424.1134529486099
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/14/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auc=
kland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro00=
2@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Well..=
.Martin's suggestion is to reduce it by some smaller amount across the<br>b=
oard.
<br><br>...<br><br>My main objection is that I don't want to be going throu=
gh all of my NPCs and<br>working out what their new base chances are. Where=
's the fun in that, I ask<br>you?</blockquote><div><br>Perhaps not that muc=
h fun I'll grant. :-)&nbsp; But, it does provide a means for the Namer to a=
dd &quot;texture&quot; (for want of a better term) to a battlefield... an a=
rea denial weapon of sorts, that can be used to make some places bad for en=
emy mages, at the expense of making them bad for the party.
<br><br>I do understand your reluctance to recalculate on the fly... on the=
 other hand graduated effects do seem generally preferable to binary ones.<=
br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue this option big =
time,<br>rather than your counterspells....</blockquote><div><br>You are ri=
ght. I was saying to Jono that it would have been a much better idea to tie=
 it to counterspells (in the way of Banish), making the degree of the prote=
ction the wall gave based directly on Rk in CS.&nbsp; A little more calcula=
tion perhaps (if the incoming magic is from a wide varoety of Colleges), bu=
t a much better way of keeping the focus on ranking the Counterspells.
<br></div><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div><br>

------=_Part_26618_28220424.1134529486099--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=____1134529515371_unR5aZGFl=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

there are a few security issues where i am right now. :-D 
using someone's pda.

may get near the work site sometime tomorrow. Or not.

Ian

> 
> From: Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed PM 03:48:24 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer - for Ian
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:33
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Is Bane an all-college spell? 
> 
> Oui. And non-colleged. And Talents with a base chance.
> 
> Note stored magics (including investeds) are NOT affected.
> 
> > cant remember and not anywhere 
> > near a rule book.\
> 
> 
> It's not on your little Hard Drive? Or the cafe won't let you plug it in,
> the wimps?
> 
> Cheers
> Errol 
> 
> 

------=____1134529515371_unR5aZGFl=
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] Problem I have with Namer - for Ian</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><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 Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:33</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Is Bane an all-college spell? </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Oui. And non-colleged. And Talents with a base chance.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Note stored magics (including investeds) are NOT affected.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; cant remember and not anywhere </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; near a rule book.\</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>It's not on your little Hard Drive? Or the cafe won't let you plug it in, the wimps?</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>

------=____1134529515371_unR5aZGFl=--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=____1134530030249_i.,)tWksU1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


perhaps, to synthesise Martins and Jims emails, (IIRC)

what if: Bane is self only, so that CS can be cast on a target entity as a cast-blocker(or reducer) (if cast on an area then normal effect).

What if: Spell wall is a self only, so that the namer can cast a CS on a string of hexes (similar to hands of earth?) that reduces teh effect of selected college spells passing through it.

alternatively, i would be helped by a table with three collumns: CS / bane / barrier with pluses and minuses of each type. if bane / barrier makes CS less than useful then a reballance is needed...

Ian

> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed PM 04:04:46 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -
> 
> On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well...Martin's suggestion is to reduce it by some smaller amount across
> > the
> > board.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > My main objection is that I don't want to be going through all of my NPCs
> > and
> > working out what their new base chances are. Where's the fun in that, I
> > ask
> > you?
> 
> 
> Perhaps not that much fun I'll grant. :-)  But, it does provide a means for
> the Namer to add "texture" (for want of a better term) to a battlefield...
> an area denial weapon of sorts, that can be used to make some places bad for
> enemy mages, at the expense of making them bad for the party.
> 
> I do understand your reluctance to recalculate on the fly... on the other
> hand graduated effects do seem generally preferable to binary ones.
> 
> As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue this option big
> > time,
> > rather than your counterspells....
> 
> 
> You are right. I was saying to Jono that it would have been a much better
> idea to tie it to counterspells (in the way of Banish), making the degree of
> the protection the wall gave based directly on Rk in CS.  A little more
> calculation perhaps (if the incoming magic is from a wide varoety of
> Colleges), but a much better way of keeping the focus on ranking the
> Counterspells.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 

------=____1134530030249_i.,)tWksU1
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="reply"
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="reply"

On 12/14/05, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href="mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Well...Martin's suggestion is to reduce it by some smaller amount across the<br>board.
<br><br>...<br><br>My main objection is that I don't want to be going through all of my NPCs and<br>working out what their new base chances are. Where's the fun in that, I ask<br>you?</blockquote><div><br>Perhaps not that much fun I'll grant. :-)&nbsp; But, it does provide a means for the Namer to add &quot;texture&quot; (for want of a better term) to a battlefield... an area denial weapon of sorts, that can be used to make some places bad for enemy mages, at the expense of making them bad for the party.
<br><br>I do understand your reluctance to recalculate on the fly... on the other hand graduated effects do seem generally preferable to binary ones.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue this option big time,<br>rather than your counterspells....</blockquote><div><br>You are right. I was saying to Jono that it would have been a much better idea to tie it to counterspells (in the way of Banish), making the degree of the protection the wall gave based directly on Rk in CS.&nbsp; A little more calculation perhaps (if the incoming magic is from a wide varoety of Colleges), but a much better way of keeping the focus on ranking the Counterspells.
<br></div><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div><br>


------=____1134530030249_i.,)tWksU1--


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

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well...Martin's suggestion is to reduce it by some smaller amount across
> > the
> > board.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > My main objection is that I don't want to be going through all of my NPCs
> > and
> > working out what their new base chances are. Where's the fun in that, I
> > ask
> > you?
>
>
> Perhaps not that much fun I'll grant. :-)  But, it does provide a means for
> the Namer to add "texture" (for want of a better term) to a battlefield...
> an area denial weapon of sorts, that can be used to make some places bad for
> enemy mages, at the expense of making them bad for the party.
>
> I do understand your reluctance to recalculate on the fly... on the other
> hand graduated effects do seem generally preferable to binary ones.

The important issue here is that the workload is on the DM. Just because it's a
nice idea doesn't mean that it's feasible. Plus, it has a lot of the same
effects of a spell wall, except there is no penalty to cast into the area.

A single target, low resist spell would be a better option, although personally,
I think this kind of effect just closes down characters, pc or npc. I would
prefer something that reduced MR rather than reduced cast chance. MR is
usually, on the DM side of things, a number you generally apply to your NPCs,
so a general subtraction is not too severe there.


>
> As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue this option big
> > time,
> > rather than your counterspells....
>
>
> You are right. I was saying to Jono that it would have been a much better
> idea to tie it to counterspells (in the way of Banish), making the degree of
> the protection the wall gave based directly on Rk in CS.  A little more
> calculation perhaps (if the incoming magic is from a wide varoety of
> Colleges), but a much better way of keeping the focus on ranking the
> Counterspells.

The game is only going to be run by DMs, and if a spell is hard to administer,
then it will magically fail to execute for one reason or another. I know for a
fact that on some people's games, if you were Undetectable (old Mind Mage
spell), ALL of the NPCs spotted you, and PCs always manage to fail. I predict
that something very similar will happen here, if it is too annoying to deal
with.

The spell must be DM feasible. Not just doable. It must be something that you
can execute after you have come home from work, had some dinner, read a story
to  the fruit of your loins, and poured yourself a long cold one.

Your latest suggestion would require many different calculations, and you'd have
to have an eye to what sort of ranks of the various counterspells the party
namer(s) had, plus the ranks of any of the npcs.

If I wanted to administer this, I think I would have become an accountant. Or an
electoral returns officer. For those people who want to DM massed battle from
to time, and it is, after all, something that is kind of fun to take part in
from time to time, then they would just implode.

Ever since the death of Rashak, John McSpadden hasn't been able to look at a
pair of dice without bursting into tears. Julia says some nights, he still
wakes up screaming.

We'll just point him in your direction, shall we?

Jim

PS: It occurs to me that a control might be that the wall fails entirely if the
wall is breached, i.e. by a spell successfully getting through the wall.

J


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

Don't know about BAne (too expensive & still ranking other spells); but as both GM & PC I find that the Spell Wall is useful but not too useful.  And NO, it does NOT replace counterspell or reduce the demand for counters. 

Yes, Spell Wall gives a chance at cutting out incoming magic (only a chance) -- but this works both ways:  Often protects the party, but cuts out some of your attack spells (e.g., partially protecting the party from Evil Necromancer & vice versa).  Likewise, recently SF tried to cast beneficial magic on a party-member but failed because, through party movement, the party was split by the NPC's Spell Wall.

As a GM it has many delightful effects that add *terrain features* to a combat, even in an open chamber --rewarding the skillful party & punishing the terminally slow. E.g., Actual examples that were fun in play:
# Used to give protection to missile troops;
# forcing the party to move from a secure spot
# in particular, reducing the potential of the fire mage to destory everything in sight from one physically & magically safe place.

Also don't forget the chance of stopping the magic is dependant on its rank -- a very cute effect, yet NOT to be relied upon even at max rank.  E.g. at SF's moderately good rank (12), his wall has a 73% chance of stopping a Rank-1 magic but only 16% chance of stopping Rank-20.  Note that such percentages are NOT modified by greater, luck, death buzz, etc; unlike magic resistance through counters which, for any medium-plus party, should over 100% MR if you've got the right counter.

> What if: Spell wall is a self only, so that the namer can 
> cast a CS on a string of hexes (similar to hands of earth?) 
> that reduces teh effect of selected college spells passing through it.

This is surely making it TOO powerful?...  Protecting guild fire mage from Evil necromancer, but NOT vice versa


-- 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_01C6006B.430929D4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:48
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -
> 
> 
<snip>

> 
> As for the spell wall, I can't see why you wouldn't pursue 
> this option big time,
> rather than your counterspells. There are still reasons to 
> use counterspells,
> because they entirely stop someone from casting, but this is 
> an extremely cheap
> way of getting good magical defence, with the added advantage 
> that it ignores
> spells with secondary effects and spells that are not 
> resistable. Once this
> spell is at rank 20, I suppose a namer is going to rank his 
> counter spells.
> But, then, they'll probably not have as much need of them.


As a low namer (at the time I was choosing my first special), I considered
Spell Barrier, and instead chose Forbidding. My thought processes, perhaps
faulty, ran something like:
If you put SB between the parties, than both their offensive magic is
affected. I judged that guild parties (at least at low-medium) tend to have
more offensive magic than the opposition.
Placing it between the opposition's front line and blast mages would be
ideal (so your blast mages can beat up their fighters), but I couldn't see
this working that well in practice - the opposition would tend to move to be
all on one side of the barrier.
SB is moderately easy to move around/through in general.
As Mike says, it needs to be high-ish ranks to have a real impact (on
average).

I have found Forbidding useful in non-obvious ways, at least at low levels. 



> 
> It involves lots of die rolling, and I'm just not that fond 
> of shaking the
> damned things and counting off the numbers. 

Good point. The effect 'feels right', but I can see it being a pain for the
GM (I assume you have players roll for their own spells getting through the
SB?). I'd certainly be open to some other mechanism.


Plus, it's a 
> single spell that
> applies against just about all other college magic.
> 

And that vicious stuff without a college (or a new one).

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6006B.430929D4
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] Spell Barrier</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:48</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer =
-</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; As for the spell wall, I can't see why you =
wouldn't pursue </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; this option big time,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; rather than your counterspells. There are still =
reasons to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; use counterspells,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; because they entirely stop someone from =
casting, but this is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; an extremely cheap</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; way of getting good magical defence, with the =
added advantage </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; that it ignores</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; spells with secondary effects and spells that =
are not </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; resistable. Once this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; spell is at rank 20, I suppose a namer is going =
to rank his </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; counter spells.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; But, then, they'll probably not have as much =
need of them.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As a low namer (at the time I was choosing my first =
special), I considered Spell Barrier, and instead chose Forbidding. My =
thought processes, perhaps faulty, ran something like:</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If you put SB between the parties, than both their =
offensive magic is affected. I judged that guild parties (at least at =
low-medium) tend to have more offensive magic than the =
opposition.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Placing it between the opposition's front line and =
blast mages would be ideal (so your blast mages can beat up their =
fighters), but I couldn't see this working that well in practice - the =
opposition would tend to move to be all on one side of the =
barrier.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>SB is moderately easy to move around/through in =
general.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>As Mike says, it needs to be high-ish ranks to have =
a real impact (on average).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I have found Forbidding useful in non-obvious ways, =
at least at low levels. </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; It involves lots of die rolling, and I'm just =
not that fond </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of shaking the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; damned things and counting off the numbers. =
</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Good point. The effect 'feels right', but I can see =
it being a pain for the GM (I assume you have players roll for their =
own spells getting through the SB?). I'd certainly be open to some =
other mechanism.</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Plus, it's a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; single spell that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; applies against just about all other college =
magic.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>And that vicious stuff without a college (or a new =
one).</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6006B.430929D4--


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

Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>:

> Don't know about BAne (too expensive & still ranking other spells); but as
> both GM & PC I find that the Spell Wall is useful but not too useful.  And
> NO, it does NOT replace counterspell or reduce the demand for counters.

I predict that when a namer gets this spell, they stop ranking their
counterspells until Spell Wall is very highly ranked. Then, they will probably
rank other stuff, but this spell will always be higher than their counterspells
until they start topping out.

That would seem the rational behaviour. If you see another development path that
makes sense with respect to counterspells, then I would like to know about it.
>
> Yes, Spell Wall gives a chance at cutting out incoming magic (only a chance)
> -- but this works both ways:  Often protects the party, but cuts out some of
> your attack spells (e.g., partially protecting the party from Evil
> Necromancer & vice versa).  Likewise, recently SF tried to cast beneficial
> magic on a party-member but failed because, through party movement, the party
> was split by the NPC's Spell Wall.

Counterspells only give you a chance of resisting any magic that is at all
resistable. This gives you a chance of resisting every part of a spell, whether
it is resistable or not.

For some effects like Agony, I could care less. Otherwise, I become a bit
concerned at how good it is.

Yes, it has limitations, but the caster chooses where to apply it, after all.
They don't have to make it hard on themselves if they don't want to.
>
> As a GM it has many delightful effects that add *terrain features* to a
> combat, even in an open chamber --rewarding the skillful party & punishing
> the terminally slow. E.g., Actual examples that were fun in play:
> # Used to give protection to missile troops;
> # forcing the party to move from a secure spot
> # in particular, reducing the potential of the fire mage to destory
> everything in sight from one physically & magically safe place.

Great. Now, if only you didn't have to roll dice all day...
>
> Also don't forget the chance of stopping the magic is dependant on its rank
> -- a very cute effect, yet NOT to be relied upon even at max rank.  E.g. at
> SF's moderately good rank (12), his wall has a 73% chance of stopping a
> Rank-1 magic but only 16% chance of stopping Rank-20.  Note that such
> percentages are NOT modified by greater, luck, death buzz, etc; unlike magic
> resistance through counters which, for any medium-plus party, should over
> 100% MR if you've got the right counter.

Well, yes, but you get to apply your MR to incoming spells that make it through.
And, as you point out, it is rank dependent. There are even more reasons for
the namer to advance this to a point where it is all the more effective.

With a few unpleasant exceptions, this spell is going to stop at least 40% of
incoming spells, and possibly more. The same can be true of outgoing spells,
but the namer who cast it can always get rid of it.

And, finally, when you have a lot going on in a battle, this just adds to the
workload. And, if you don't want players knowing the ranks of the incoming
magic, you really can't let them roll it all for you.
>
> > What if: Spell wall is a self only, so that the namer can
> > cast a CS on a string of hexes (similar to hands of earth?)
> > that reduces teh effect of selected college spells passing through it.
>
> This is surely making it TOO powerful?...  Protecting guild fire mage from
> Evil necromancer, but NOT vice versa

I agree. Scrap it entirely.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_30451_1002467.1134555666354
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> I would prefer something that reduced MR rather than reduced cast chance.
> MR is
> usually, on the DM side of things, a number you generally apply to your
> NPCs,
> so a general subtraction is not too severe there.


One of the general themes that the rewrite of Namer tried to stay true to
was having it prevent or reduce, but not generally enhance magic (that bein=
g
more the domain of E&Es).

Reducing a Target's MR is effectively improving the party's magic --
indirectly, but still.

Another, perhaps simpler to administer approach to Bane would be a (smaller=
)
addition to cast rolls in the area, rather than a reduction in BC.  This
would make calculation easier, and could easily be combined with having the
spell (if desired) effect only one branch of magic (per Jono's suggestion).

Your latest suggestion would require many different calculations, and you'd
> have
> to have an eye to what sort of ranks of the various counterspells the
> party
> namer(s) had, plus the ranks of any of the npcs.
>
> If I wanted to administer this, I think I would have become an accountant=
.
> Or an
> electoral returns officer.


:-)  Different GMs have diffeent ideas of doable, or desirable in a game
system.  For better or worse the basis of the system we have was designed b=
y
wargamers, and is number heavy.  Making graduated spell effects in the DQ
system risks more numbers.

There are simpler solutions -- put only one CS / College into the wall, or
have it effect one branch, (though both of these reduce its disadvantages
too), or (assuming its the PC using it) have them do the work of rolling an=
d
calculating and working out what Rank that roll would have protected
against.

Ever since the death of Rashak, John McSpadden hasn't been able to look at =
a
> pair of dice without bursting into tears. Julia says some nights, he stil=
l
> wakes up screaming.


:-) Well, yes, I can understand that... but then I'm not sure we should use
the Rashak adventure as a DQ yardstick... more like a surveyor's chain
perhaps...

We'll just point him in your direction, shall we?


I'm sure that if he can handle that fracas then these spells would be a wal=
k
in the woods... but if Jon has opinions on either of these I'd be intereste=
d
to hear them.

Regards,
Martin


> PS: It occurs to me that a control might be that the wall fails entirely
> if the
> wall is breached, i.e. by a spell successfully getting through the wall.


yep, that could be a good limitation.

------=_Part_30451_1002467.1134555666354
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/14/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auc=
kland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro00=
2@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I would pr=
efer something that reduced MR rather than reduced cast chance. MR is<br>us=
ually, on the DM side of things, a number you generally apply to your NPCs,
<br>so a general subtraction is not too severe there.</blockquote><div><br>
One of the general themes that the rewrite of Namer tried to stay true
to was having it prevent or reduce, but not generally enhance magic
(that being more the domain of E&amp;Es).<br>
<br>
Reducing a Target's MR is effectively improving the party's magic -- indire=
ctly, but still.<br>
<br>
Another, perhaps simpler to administer approach to Bane would be a
(smaller) addition to cast rolls in the area, rather than a reduction
in BC.&nbsp; This would make calculation easier, and could easily be
combined with having the spell (if desired) effect only one branch of
magic (per Jono's suggestion).<br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Your la=
test suggestion would require many different calculations, and you'd have<b=
r>
to have an eye to what sort of ranks of the various counterspells the party=
<br>namer(s) had, plus the ranks of any of the npcs.<br><br>If I wanted to =
administer this, I think I would have become an accountant. Or an<br>electo=
ral returns officer.
</blockquote><div><br>
:-)&nbsp; Different GMs have diffeent ideas of doable, or desirable in
a game system.&nbsp; For better or worse the basis of the system we
have was designed by wargamers, and is number heavy.&nbsp; Making
graduated spell effects in the DQ system risks more numbers.<br>
<br>
There are simpler solutions -- put only one CS / College into the wall,
or have it effect one branch, (though both of these reduce its
disadvantages too), or (assuming its the PC using it) have them do the
work of rolling and calculating and working out what Rank that roll
would have protected against.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Ever si=
nce the death of Rashak, John McSpadden hasn't been able to look at a<br>pa=
ir of dice without bursting into tears. Julia says some nights, he still
<br>wakes up screaming.</blockquote><div><br>
:-) Well, yes, I can understand that... but then I'm not sure we should
use the Rashak adventure as a DQ yardstick... more like a surveyor's
chain perhaps...<br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">We'll j=
ust point him in your direction, shall we?</blockquote><div><br>
I'm sure that if he can handle that fracas then these spells would be a
walk in the woods... but if Jon has opinions on either of these I'd be
interested to hear them.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Martin<br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>PS:=
 It occurs to me that a control might be that the wall fails entirely if th=
e
<br>wall is breached, i.e. by a spell successfully getting through the wall=
.</blockquote><div><br>
yep, that could be a good limitation. <br>
</div></div><br>

------=_Part_30451_1002467.1134555666354--


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

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer something that reduced MR rather than reduced cast chance.
> > MR is
> > usually, on the DM side of things, a number you generally apply to your
> > NPCs,
> > so a general subtraction is not too severe there.
>
>
> One of the general themes that the rewrite of Namer tried to stay true to
> was having it prevent or reduce, but not generally enhance magic (that being
> more the domain of E&Es).
>
> Reducing a Target's MR is effectively improving the party's magic --
> indirectly, but still.

Themes are great things. I love them deeply.

I am never going to contrive a theme to fit a game, though. It works the other
way around. This kind of thing is simple rationalisation, and it can be read
either way. So, if you want the theme to be about preventing or reducing magic,
then you say that they are preventing those flows of mana that enourage
resistance or some other rubbish.
>
> Another, perhaps simpler to administer approach to Bane would be a (smaller)
> addition to cast rolls in the area, rather than a reduction in BC.  This
> would make calculation easier, and could easily be combined with having the
> spell (if desired) effect only one branch of magic (per Jono's suggestion).
>
> Your latest suggestion would require many different calculations, and you'd
> > have
> > to have an eye to what sort of ranks of the various counterspells the
> > party
> > namer(s) had, plus the ranks of any of the npcs.
> >
> > If I wanted to administer this, I think I would have become an accountant.
> > Or an
> > electoral returns officer.
>
>
> :-)  Different GMs have diffeent ideas of doable, or desirable in a game
> system.  For better or worse the basis of the system we have was designed by
> wargamers, and is number heavy.  Making graduated spell effects in the DQ
> system risks more numbers.

There's no good reason to accede to the fact that it is number heavy by making
it more so. There are, however, many good reasons to reduce the accounting.
Making it more fun to DM being right up there, really.
>
> There are simpler solutions -- put only one CS / College into the wall, or
> have it effect one branch, (though both of these reduce its disadvantages
> too), or (assuming its the PC using it) have them do the work of rolling and
> calculating and working out what Rank that roll would have protected
> against.

If you give the players the work, then they get to work out your NPC spell
ranks, which may not be what you want. A lot of spells have stealthy profiles,
after all. Still, if they're going to cast the bloody thing, then I will
endeavour to find ways to make them do all of the hard work.
>
> We'll just point him in your direction, shall we?
>
>
> I'm sure that if he can handle that fracas then these spells would be a walk
> in the woods... but if Jon has opinions on either of these I'd be interested
> to hear them.

I don't know that it's a walk in the woods. These die rolls are in addition to
anything else that a DM has to admininster. So, you have to make these rolls,
and then you have to wait for the players to resist, and then you can start
working out what spell has affected whom.

Jim


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