------=_Part_4660_302531.1134558629320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I play a namer just to get that whole Biased/knowledgable thing out of the
way. I've ranked over 20 counter spells and collected the counter spells to
colleges many of you have never heard of. Including the fae college, the
shamanic college, the dimensional weaving college and the temporal college.
While I've been tempted to get bane many times I've never had enough time t=
o
even do the counter spells I want let alone learn every new spell that come=
s
my way. I would like to get it one day but the mere fact I'm collecting and
ranking new counterspells should tell you something about the validity of
bane or spell wall replacing counterspells.

Also why are we complaining that some spells are too hard to survive and at
the same time complaining that namers have to great a potential to make suc=
h
spells survivable. Could we at least debate one of these issues at a time?

Also as several of you have already brought up no one of the spells is good
enough for even the fairly average situations you encounter on low
adventures. In a Medium or higher no one is going to keep you even moderatl=
y
safe. How many of the DMs out there honestly feel they can't quite easily
set up times when bane will either work against the party even more than th=
e
enemy? And spell wall is both ways isn't it? Maybe they can't blast me but
my teams firemage probably isn't too happy with me either.

Dylan

P.S. Banishment requires counterspells. This is a great reason to learn at
least 5 counterspells to high ranks. Then you have dispell magic which also
is based on counter spells. Theres probably several other namer tricks whic=
h
need counterspells.

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 beneficia=
l
> 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 & punishin=
g
> 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 fo=
r
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 fro=
m
> Evil necromancer, but NOT vice versa

I agree. Scrap it entirely.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_4660_302531.1134558629320
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I play a namer just to get that whole Biased/knowledgable thing out of=
 the way. I've ranked over 20 counter spells and collected the counter spel=
ls to colleges many of you have never heard of. Including the fae college, =
the shamanic college, the dimensional weaving college and the temporal coll=
ege. While I've been tempted to get bane many times I've never had enough t=
ime to even do the counter spells I want let alone learn every new spell th=
at comes my way. I would like to get it one day but the mere fact I'm colle=
cting and ranking new counterspells should tell you something about the val=
idity of bane or spell wall replacing counterspells.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Also why are we complaining that some spells are too hard to survive a=
nd at the same time complaining that namers have to great a potential to ma=
ke such spells survivable. Could we at least debate one of these issues at =
a time?
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Also as several of you have already brought up no one of the spells is=
 good enough for even the fairly average situations you encounter on low ad=
ventures. In a Medium or higher no one is going to keep you even moderatly =
safe. How many of the DMs out there honestly feel they can't quite easily s=
et up times when bane will either work against the party even more than the=
 enemy? And spell wall is both ways isn't it? Maybe they can't blast me but=
 my teams firemage probably isn't too happy with me either.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br>&nbsp;</div>
<div>P.S. Banishment requires counterspells. This is a great reason to lear=
n at least 5 counterspells to high ranks. Then you have dispell magic which=
 also is based on counter spells. Theres probably several other namer trick=
s which need counterspells.
<br><br>I predict that when a namer gets this spell, they stop ranking thei=
r<br>counterspells until Spell Wall is very highly ranked. Then, they will =
probably<br>rank other stuff, but this spell will always be higher than the=
ir counterspells
<br>until they start topping out.<br><br>That would seem the rational behav=
iour. If you see another development path that<br>makes sense with respect =
to counterspells, then I would like to know about it.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Yes, =
Spell Wall gives a chance at cutting out incoming magic (only a chance)
<br>&gt; -- but this works both ways:&nbsp;&nbsp;Often protects the party, =
but cuts out some of<br>&gt; your attack spells (e.g., partially protecting=
 the party from Evil<br>&gt; Necromancer &amp; vice versa).&nbsp;&nbsp;Like=
wise, recently SF tried to cast beneficial
<br>&gt; magic on a party-member but failed because, through party movement=
, the party<br>&gt; was split by the NPC's Spell Wall.<br><br>Counterspells=
 only give you a chance of resisting any magic that is at all<br>resistable=
. This gives you a chance of resisting every part of a spell, whether
<br>it is resistable or not.<br><br>For some effects like Agony, I could ca=
re less. Otherwise, I become a bit<br>concerned at how good it is.<br><br>Y=
es, it has limitations, but the caster chooses where to apply it, after all=
.
<br>They don't have to make it hard on themselves if they don't want to.<br=
>&gt;<br>&gt; As a GM it has many delightful effects that add *terrain feat=
ures* to a<br>&gt; combat, even in an open chamber --rewarding the skillful=
 party &amp; punishing
<br>&gt; the terminally slow. E.g., Actual examples that were fun in play:<=
br>&gt; # Used to give protection to missile troops;<br>&gt; # forcing the =
party to move from a secure spot<br>&gt; # in particular, reducing the pote=
ntial of the fire mage to destory
<br>&gt; everything in sight from one physically &amp; magically safe place=
.<br><br>Great. Now, if only you didn't have to roll dice all day...<br>&gt=
;<br>&gt; Also don't forget the chance of stopping the magic is dependant o=
n its rank
<br>&gt; -- a very cute effect, yet NOT to be relied upon even at max rank.=
&nbsp;&nbsp;E.g. at<br>&gt; SF's moderately good rank (12), his wall has a =
73% chance of stopping a<br>&gt; Rank-1 magic but only 16% chance of stoppi=
ng Rank-20.&nbsp;&nbsp;Note that such
<br>&gt; percentages are NOT modified by greater, luck, death buzz, etc; un=
like magic<br>&gt; resistance through counters which, for any medium-plus p=
arty, should over<br>&gt; 100% MR if you've got the right counter.<br><br>
Well, yes, but you get to apply your MR to incoming spells that make it thr=
ough.<br>And, as you point out, it is rank dependent. There are even more r=
easons for<br>the namer to advance this to a point where it is all the more=
 effective.
<br><br>With a few unpleasant exceptions, this spell is going to stop at le=
ast 40% of<br>incoming spells, and possibly more. The same can be true of o=
utgoing spells,<br>but the namer who cast it can always get rid of it.<br>
<br>And, finally, when you have a lot going on in a battle, this just adds =
to the<br>workload. And, if you don't want players knowing the ranks of the=
 incoming<br>magic, you really can't let them roll it all for you.<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; &gt; What if: Spell wall is a self only, so that the namer can<br>=
&gt; &gt; cast a CS on a string of hexes (similar to hands of earth?)<br>&g=
t; &gt; that reduces teh effect of selected college spells passing through =
it.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt; This is surely making it TOO powerful?...&nbsp;&nbsp;Prote=
cting guild fire mage from<br>&gt; Evil necromancer, but NOT vice versa<br>=
<br>I agree. Scrap it entirely.<br><br>Jim.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe no=
tify mailto:
<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<b=
r>&nbsp;</div><br>

------=_Part_4660_302531.1134558629320--


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

------=_Part_4700_206067.1134558747535
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Just taking an example from Tuesdays game. When three vampires landed in th=
e
middle of our party and started preparing everyone wanted me to cast the
mind counter on the area. No one even mentioned bane. That seems somewhat
significant to me.

Dylan


On 12/14/05, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> > 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 --
>

------=_Part_4700_206067.1134558747535
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Just taking an example from Tuesdays game. When three vampires landed =
in the middle of our party and started preparing everyone wanted me to cast=
 the mind counter on the area. No one even mentioned bane. That seems somew=
hat significant to me.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@=
adhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt; If the SK spells and focus =
of them (that results from the spells are<br>&gt; correct) then the old foc=
us on GK counter spells is reduced, and
<br>&gt; the cost of the 100 and 200 EM GK spells value (being able to turn=
 off<br><br>&gt; a caster for one part [GK or SK] college at a time) has be=
en<br>&gt; reduced a lot and are no longer balanced (its the most<br>&gt; e=
xpensive college in turms of Exp).
<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I do not think it is wise that the focus move from needing=
 to<br>&gt; learn and rank around 12+ counter spells to be offensive to<br>=
&gt; leaning and ranking just one SK spell to be offensive. I<br>&gt; think=
 this is a large change IMHO.
<br><br>I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for counterspells at =
all.<br>In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you are goin=
g the<br>throw the appropriate counterspell down on them.<br><br>Spell barr=
ier is there as a wall that might stop a spell coming through
<br>so works in specific circumstances and in no way replaces the<br>counte=
rspells which are far more effective.<br><br>Bane effects everyone includin=
g the good guys and again makes casting<br>spells harder, a counterspell is=
 again the preference.
<br><br>Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers or a Bane is going t=
o be<br>better but in the main I don't see how this impacts at all on<br>co=
unterspells. They are still the best thing to stop a mage, they are<br>
cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job in most situations.<br><br>M=
andos<br>/s<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq=
-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div=
>
<br>

------=_Part_4700_206067.1134558747535--


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

------=_Part_8932_5798075.1134589492323
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/15/05, Dylan wrote:
>
>
> P.S. Banishment requires counterspells. This is a great reason to learn a=
t
> least 5 counterspells to high ranks. Then you have dispell magic which al=
so
> is based on counter spells. Theres probably several other namer tricks wh=
ich
> need counterspells.
>

Yes, Dispel being an obvious example.

If I might channel Jono for a moment, he wasn't saying that these other
Namer spells were necessarily too tough, but that they moved the focus away
from counterspells to the detriment of the college. I'm not sure that they
do -- there seems insufficient hard evidence -- but if they do then it migh=
t
be worth looking for ways to tie them back to CS, or otherwise push the
focus back in that direction.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_8932_5798075.1134589492323
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/15/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Dylan</b> wrote:<div><span class=
=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-l=
eft: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:=
 1ex;">
<br><div>P.S. Banishment requires counterspells. This is a great reason to =
learn at least 5 counterspells to high ranks. Then you have dispell magic w=
hich also is based on counter spells. Theres probably several other namer t=
ricks which need counterspells.
</div></blockquote><div><br>Yes, Dispel being an obvious example.<br><br>If=
 I might channel Jono for a moment, he wasn't saying that these other Namer=
 spells were necessarily too tough, but that they moved the focus away from=
 counterspells to the detriment of the college. I'm not sure that they do -=
- there seems insufficient hard evidence -- but if they do then it might be=
 worth looking for ways to tie them back to CS, or otherwise push the focus=
 back in that direction.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div><br></div><br>

------=_Part_8932_5798075.1134589492323--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C60153.15730290
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Asking you to cast Bane would have been very optimistic of the other players
as when they asked you to banash the earth elemental you said 'I'm not that
kind of Namer' :-) so they are expecting you have limited SK spells.

Vampires are almost always Mind mages so their is almost no question as to
which Namer GK counter spell you should cast under them which would have
been your Mind SK counter spell, to stop them casting. If it was 3 random
casters then it would have been differnet.

Jonathan

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
RPer 4eva
  Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:12 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -


  Just taking an example from Tuesdays game. When three vampires landed in
the middle of our party and started preparing everyone wanted me to cast the
mind counter on the area. No one even mentioned bane. That seems somewhat
significant to me.

  Dylan


  On 12/14/05, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
    > 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 --



------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C60153.15730290
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></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Asking=20
you to cast Bane would have been very optimistic of the other players as =
when=20
they asked you to banash the earth elemental you said 'I'm not that kind =
of=20
Namer' :-) so they are expecting you have limited SK spells.=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Vampires are almost always Mind mages so their is =
almost&nbsp;no question=20
as to which Namer GK counter spell you should cast under them which =
would have=20
been your Mind SK counter spell,&nbsp;to stop them casting. If it was 3 =
random=20
casters then it would have been differnet.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jonathan</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D538393520-14122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>RPer =
4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Wednesday, 14 December 2005 11:12 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer=20
  -<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>Just taking an example from Tuesdays game. When three vampires =
landed in=20
  the middle of our party and started preparing everyone wanted me to =
cast the=20
  mind counter on the area. No one even mentioned bane. That seems =
somewhat=20
  significant to me. </DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan<BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote>On 12/14/05, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername>Mandos=20
  Mitchinson</B> &lt;<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>&gt; =
wrote:</SPAN>=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
#ccc 1px solid">&gt;=20
    If the SK spells and focus of them (that results from the spells =
are<BR>&gt;=20
    correct) then the old focus on GK counter spells is reduced, and =
<BR>&gt;=20
    the cost of the 100 and 200 EM GK spells value (being able to turn=20
    off<BR><BR>&gt; a caster for one part [GK or SK] college at a time) =
has=20
    been<BR>&gt; reduced a lot and are no longer balanced (its the =
most<BR>&gt;=20
    expensive college in turms of Exp). <BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I do not think =
it is=20
    wise that the focus move from needing to<BR>&gt; learn and rank =
around 12+=20
    counter spells to be offensive to<BR>&gt; leaning and ranking just =
one SK=20
    spell to be offensive. I<BR>&gt; think this is a large change IMHO.=20
    <BR><BR>I cannot see how these spells reduce the need for =
counterspells at=20
    all.<BR>In combat if you know the college of the opposing mage you =
are going=20
    the<BR>throw the appropriate counterspell down on them.<BR><BR>Spell =
barrier=20
    is there as a wall that might stop a spell coming through <BR>so =
works in=20
    specific circumstances and in no way replaces the<BR>counterspells =
which are=20
    far more effective.<BR><BR>Bane effects everyone including the good =
guys and=20
    again makes casting<BR>spells harder, a counterspell is again the=20
    preference. <BR><BR>Sure there are times when a couple of Barriers =
or a Bane=20
    is going to be<BR>better but in the main I don't see how this =
impacts at all=20
    on<BR>counterspells. They are still the best thing to stop a mage, =
they=20
    are<BR>cheaper, quicker to cast and do a superior job in most=20
    situations.<BR><BR>Mandos<BR>/s<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify=20
    mailto:<A =
href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A>=20
    --<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C60153.15730290--


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

> Yes, Dispel being an obvious example.
> 
> If I might channel Jono for a moment, he wasn't saying that these
other
> Namer spells were necessarily too tough, but that they moved the focus
> away from counterspells to the detriment of the college. I'm not sure
> that they do -- there seems insufficient hard evidence -- but if they
> do then it might be worth looking for ways to tie them back to CS, or
> otherwise push the focus back in that direction. 

After lookingat the Email Convo's and re-reading the spell I think I
agree with Jono in regards to Bane. I had misunderstood (by not really
reading) the spell and thought it was like Agony where it was an area
effect around the caster, a misunderstanding that depowers the spell
considerably. With it's ranged placed area all of Jono's comments make a
lot more sence and I agree it may need fixing. 

Spell barrier I still think is ok, primarily because of the two way
nature of it. When I have seen it in use (by Silverfoam in a high level
combat) it immediately seemed to be the perfect solution until we
realised it was screwing up our ability to get to the enemy, it was used
more to provide cover for a pulse or two before we advanced. I think
this has a place in the game, the GM work didn't appear to add too much
(comments Phil) and the spell was definatly balanced and the
counterspells used a little later to stop the mages were far more
effective. 

Mandos
/s


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

[I said]
> > NO, it does NOT replace counterspell or reduce the demand 
> for counters.
[Jim said]
> 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 counterspellsuntil they start topping out.
[I reply]
No, Actually both your predictions are totally wrong for SilverFoam, the only guild namer I've see use Spell Barrier -- but he would take it as a compliment that he couldn't be predicted properly.  
Aside: before the latest round of ranking I have 391 ranks total in GK & WILL be putting more ranks into counters; I may put Spell Barrier up a rank or two [max], but I doubt it -- and the main reason I pushed it to 12 was to make sure it didn't backfire on casting.  Not only do Dylan's later comments [Thu 15/12/2005 12:10 a.m] apply, but there are *always* reasons to rank counterspells.

> 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.

see above ... however I probably will puase once every couterspell is over 15 ... except for those you do want at max -- e.g. fire, necro, mind, black/wicked, to give maximum active resistance (always a pleasure reducing an evil mage's chance of casting by about 130)

> 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.

Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  How does this mean that Spell Barrier is a broken spell (it doesn't stop Agony)

> Great. Now, if only you didn't have to roll dice all day...

Well ONE roll for each spell crossing the barrier -- NOT extreme ...especially since
1. The maths is so easy (WAY easier than a single combat strike check).
2. And if it is stopped, then you don't need to roll the MR of target or Targets.

>[...] 
>And, finally, when you have a lot going on in a battle, this 
> just adds to the workload. 

Should we avoid combat because it involved rolling dice? </sarcasm> 

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

Faulty logic -- if we scrapped everything where someone suggested a change that somone else thought too powerful, we would have very little combat, magic or skills rules


-- 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_01C600EC.21F226FC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 08:45
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spell Wall


On 12/15/05, Dylan wrote: 



P.S. Banishment requires counterspells. This is a great reason to learn at
least 5 counterspells to high ranks. Then you have dispell magic which also
is based on counter spells. Theres probably several other namer tricks which
need counterspells. 


Yes, Dispel being an obvious example. 
 
 

Martin, I think you need more coffee this morning. Did you mean to type
'Dissipation' (Q-1)?
The Banish and Dispell that Dylan mentioned are the only 'cast on self then
use the CS' SK spells. Other uses for CSs are the traditional 'stop them
casting' (one of their colleges anyway), 'suppress the ward', 'turn off the
E&E Sleep', and boost MR, plus 'zap the treasure' with T-2 Expel Magic. I've
also had rank-with-appropriate-CS used by a GM or 2 to help them decide how
much info to give me from a Div/DA IIRC.
 

<snip>
 

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C600EC.21F226FC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Martin Dickson 
  [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 15 December 2005 
  08:45<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Spell 
  Wall<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 12/15/05, <B class=gmail_sendername>Dylan</B> 
  wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote 
  style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR>
    <DIV>P.S. Banishment requires counterspells. This is a great reason to learn 
    at least 5 counterspells to high ranks. Then you have dispell magic which 
    also is based on counter spells. Theres probably several other namer tricks 
    which need counterspells. </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>Yes, Dispel being an obvious example.<SPAN 
  class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Martin, I think you need more coffee this morning. Did you mean to type 
'Dissipation' (Q-1)?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The 
Banish and Dispell that Dylan mentioned are the only 'cast on self then use the 
CS' SK spells. Other uses for CSs are the traditional 'stop them casting' (one 
of their colleges anyway), 'suppress the ward', 'turn off the E&amp;E Sleep', 
and boost MR, plus 'zap the treasure' with T-2 Expel Magic. I've also had 
rank-with-appropriate-CS used by a GM or 2 to help them decide how much info to 
give me from a Div/DA IIRC.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=412125719-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C600EC.21F226FC--


-- 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_01C600F1.9429EAF2
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -


Just taking an example from Tuesdays game. When three vampires landed in the
middle of our party and started preparing everyone wanted me to cast the
mind counter on the area. No one even mentioned bane. That seems somewhat
significant to me. 
 
Dylan


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 09:40
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -


 
Asking you to cast Bane would have been very optimistic of the other players
as when they asked you to banash the earth elemental you said 'I'm not that
kind of Namer' :-) so they are expecting you have limited SK spells.  
 

You're adventuring with a Namer and you haven't already asked which of the
hoopy Namer specials they have? Give that Mil Sci a clip round the ears.
(they have down-sides in combat that require planning to work around).
Especially as many players haven't encountered them (or, in the case of
Banish, they forget that it can take a long time to be effective), I give a
single-sentence explanation of the 3 my Namer has during the intros.

 
Vampires are almost always Mind mages so their is almost no question as to
which Namer GK counter spell you should cast under them which would have
been your Mind SK counter spell, to stop them casting. If it was 3 random
casters then it would have been differnet.
 
 

Also in that particular case the Mind SK CS would presumably come to effect
before they cast, where the Bane wouldn't have. Even if none of them were
preparing mind SK spells, the party isn't any worse off next pulse than if
you prepared Bane (it's more complicated after that, but with 3 vamps
teleporting in you worry about the short term). Which just reinforces the
point about CSs being something to rank too.
 
Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C600F1.9429EAF2
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
  class=892512320-14122005><FONT color=#000000><FONT 
  face=Tahoma><STRONG>Subject:</STRONG> Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer 
  -<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
  <DIV>Just taking an example from Tuesdays game. When three vampires landed in 
  the middle of our party and started preparing everyone wanted me to cast the 
  mind counter on the area. No one even mentioned bane. That seems somewhat 
  significant to me. </DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of</B> Jonathan Bean - 
  TME<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 15 December 2005 09:40<BR><B>To:</B> 
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer 
  -<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
  size=2>Asking you to cast Bane would have been very optimistic of the other 
  players as when they asked you to banash the earth elemental you said 'I'm not 
  that kind of Namer' :-) so they are expecting you have limited SK 
  spells.&nbsp;<SPAN 
  class=892512320-14122005>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
  size=2><SPAN 
  class=892512320-14122005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial><FONT 
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=892512320-14122005>You're adventuring 
with a Namer and you haven't already asked which of the hoopy Namer specials 
they have? Give that Mil Sci a clip round the ears. (they&nbsp;have down-sides 
in combat that require planning to work 
around).</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial><FONT 
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=892512320-14122005>Especially as many 
players haven't encountered them (or, in the case of Banish, they forget that it 
can take a long time to be effective), I give a single-sentence explanation of 
the 3 my Namer has during the intros.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2>Vampires are almost always Mind mages so their is almost&nbsp;no 
  question as to which Namer GK counter spell you should cast under them which 
  would have been your Mind SK counter spell,&nbsp;to stop them casting. If it 
  was 3 random casters then it would have been differnet.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT 
  size=2><SPAN 
  class=892512320-14122005>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr><SPAN class=538393520-14122005><FONT face=Arial><FONT 
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=892512320-14122005>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=892512320-14122005>Also 
in that particular case the Mind SK CS would presumably come to effect before 
they cast, where the Bane wouldn't have. Even if none of them were preparing 
mind SK spells, the party isn't any worse off next pulse than if you prepared 
Bane (it's more complicated after that, but with 3 vamps teleporting in you 
worry about the short term). Which just reinforces the point about CSs being 
something to rank too.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=892512320-14122005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=892512320-14122005>Cheers</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=892512320-14122005>Errol</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C600F1.9429EAF2--


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

------=_Part_11514_3360727.1134597371770
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/15/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Martin, I think you need more coffee this morning.
>

Definitely.

Did you mean to type 'Dissipation' (Q-1)?
>

Err... sure... yep,  absolutely. :-)

------=_Part_11514_3360727.1134597371770
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/15/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border=
-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-lef=
t: 1ex;">







<div><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font>&nbsp;</div>

<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Martin, I thin=
k you need more coffee this morning. </font></span></div></blockquote><div>=
<br>Definitely.<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"bor=
der-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-=
left: 1ex;">
<div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Did you mean t=
o type=20
'Dissipation' (Q-1)?</font></span></div></blockquote><div><br>Err... sure..=
. yep,&nbsp; absolutely. :-)<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_11514_3360727.1134597371770--


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

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

> [I said]
> > > NO, it does NOT replace counterspell or reduce the demand
> > for counters.
> [Jim said]
> > 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 counterspellsuntil they start topping out.
> [I reply]
> No, Actually both your predictions are totally wrong for SilverFoam, the only
> guild namer I've see use Spell Barrier -- but he would take it as a
> compliment that he couldn't be predicted properly.
> Aside: before the latest round of ranking I have 391 ranks total in GK & WILL
> be putting more ranks into counters; I may put Spell Barrier up a rank or two
> [max], but I doubt it -- and the main reason I pushed it to 12 was to make
> sure it didn't backfire on casting.  Not only do Dylan's later comments [Thu
> 15/12/2005 12:10 a.m] apply, but there are *always* reasons to rank
> counterspells.

I don't think that Silverfoam is a standard case, really, and I wouldn't dream
of predicting how you might advance him. But, as you point out, Silverfoam has
391 ranks in counterspells to start with. He's not going to be making the same
kinds of decisions that a medium or lower level namer will.

I hadn't read Dispel Magic properly, and I agree that this provides a reason to
rank counters, but Banishment isn't part of that reason. I don't rezile from my
prediction, though. Spell Barrier is a big advantage, it's a much lower nett
experience point cost to advance, and it only occupies one track of magical
ranking. The large number of counterspells make them very time consuming to
rank, and they take quite a lot of experience, as well.
>
> > 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.
>
> see above ... however I probably will puase once every couterspell is over 15
> ... except for those you do want at max -- e.g. fire, necro, mind,
> black/wicked, to give maximum active resistance (always a pleasure reducing
> an evil mage's chance of casting by about 130)

Which only works if you are the target, and if you have worked out the correct
college. If the person you're thinking of actively resisting is triggering
something, it's a complete punt.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  How does this
> mean that Spell Barrier is a broken spell (it doesn't stop Agony)

Are you sure?

It's not the way I read it. And, if I were interpreting it as I think you are,
then I don't see how it would work against Blackfire, Dragonflames, Fireball or
any of the other magic that affects areas.

>
> > Great. Now, if only you didn't have to roll dice all day...
>
> Well ONE roll for each spell crossing the barrier -- NOT extreme
> ...especially since
> 1. The maths is so easy (WAY easier than a single combat strike check).
> 2. And if it is stopped, then you don't need to roll the MR of target or
> Targets.

It's more that if it isn't stopped, that it's a pain. And, if the exchange is
one where lots of magic is having to be administered.
>
> >[...]
> >And, finally, when you have a lot going on in a battle, this
> > just adds to the workload.
>
> Should we avoid combat because it involved rolling dice? </sarcasm>

We should try and make the game as easy to administer as possible, as a general
rule. It makes it more fun to DM and it means you can get on with the business
of letting the story unfold.
>
> > > This is surely making it TOO powerful?...  Protecting guild
> > fire mage from
> > > Evil necromancer, but NOT vice versa
> >
> > I agree. Scrap it entirely.
>
> Faulty logic -- if we scrapped everything where someone suggested a change
> that somone else thought too powerful, we would have very little combat,
> magic or skills rules

Well, but...isn't your objection that that particular option was too powerful?


Jim


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

Yes counter spells are faster(pulse cast), help protect against or stops the
casting of all SK or GKof the collage, has over  twice the range and last
minutes.
Where as bane takes a prepare and cast, only reduces the cast chance, not
stops casting, and has less range.
Its got the same Area as a counter until rank 5, costs more to rank and more
to cast.
Its only advantage over a counter is you don't need to know the kind of
mage, and with rank the size of the effect.
In an attack if the opposition are close and clumped, bane may buy you an
extra pulse or two to DA their mages and drop the required counter/s on your
side, but if you know what kind of mage your facing your better off pulse
casting a counter on him and then the other mage way over there next pulse.

Helen

Errol wrote:
You're adventuring with a Namer and you haven't already asked which of the
hoopy Namer specials they have? Give that Mil Sci a clip round the ears.
(they have down-sides in combat that require planning to work around).
Especially as many players haven't encountered them (or, in the case of
Banish, they forget that it can take a long time to be effective), I give a
single-sentence explanation of the 3 my Namer has during the intros.

Also in that particular case the Mind SK CS would presumably come to effect
before they cast, where the Bane wouldn't have. Even if none of them were
preparing mind SK spells, the party isn't any worse off next pulse than if
you prepared Bane (it's more complicated after that, but with 3 vamps
teleporting in you worry about the short term). Which just reinforces the
point about CSs being something to rank too.

Cheers
Errol


-- 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_01C600FE.B8556E1C
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 16:28
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Problem I have with Namer -
<snip>
> 
> 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
> 

A thought for a easier-for-the-GM mechanism than the current
comparative-rank-based die-roll per spell:

Spell Barrier (ablative version)
This Barrier will absorb [some rank-based number] of (ranks of magic
attempting to pass through it on its way from caster to target).

Just brain-storming at this stage, fire away.

Cheers
Errol

PS if SK spells wear down the Barrier faster than GK ones then Darien will
be casting Shadow Wings at the enemy if he wants to get rid of a barrier
fast (Rk12 with BC in 80s with greater, vs say rk20 Darkness fail on 00)...

------_=_NextPart_001_01C600FE.B8556E1C
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; raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2005 16:28</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>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; PS: It occurs to me that a control might be =
that the wall </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; fails entirely if the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; wall is breached, i.e. by a spell successfully =
getting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; through the wall.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; J</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>A thought for a easier-for-the-GM mechanism than the =
current comparative-rank-based die-roll per spell:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Spell Barrier (ablative version)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>This Barrier will absorb [some rank-based number] of =
(ranks of magic attempting to pass through it on its way from caster to =
target).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Just brain-storming at this stage, fire away.</FONT>
</P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>PS if SK spells wear down the Barrier faster than GK =
ones then Darien will be casting Shadow Wings at the enemy if he wants =
to get rid of a barrier fast (Rk12 with BC in 80s with greater, vs say =
rk20 Darkness fail on 00)...</FONT></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C600FE.B8556E1C--


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

Errol wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.  How does
this
> > mean that Spell Barrier is a broken spell (it doesn't stop Agony)

Jim Wrote:
> Are you sure?
>
> It's not the way I read it. And, if I were interpreting it as I think you
are,
> then I don't see how it would work against Blackfire, Dragonflames,
Fireball or
> any of the other magic that affects areas.

I'll go with Errol on the Agony,  it's a wall the spell effect goes around.
BF and DF are short range, cone type effects. If the cone goes though the
hex next to the end of the wall, Id say it goes around, if it goes wholy
though the midle then I'd check for the far side.
Fire ball much the same.
You could ring the casting mage with a barrier, but there is little point he
only has to move two on his prepare pulse to be clear of it.
A ring around a key fighter to help protect them now that makes sence, but a
ring around a mage don't.

Helen


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C60101.8EEED650
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz [mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 11:03
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spell Wall
> 
> 
> Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>:
> 
<snip>
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. 
>  How does this
> > mean that Spell Barrier is a broken spell (it doesn't stop Agony)
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> It's not the way I read it. And, if I were interpreting it as 
> I think you are,
> then I don't see how it would work against Blackfire, 
> Dragonflames, Fireball or
> any of the other magic that affects areas.
> 

"Agony (S-1)
Range: 30 feet + 15 / Rank
Duration: 10 seconds + 10 / Rank
Target: Area
Effects: This spell causes all entities in the affected
area, except the Adept, to suffer extreme agony."

"Affected area" is clearly a circle (globe?) with radius range from adept.
Note the adept is NOT the target.

"Spell Barrier (S-9)
Effects: This spell creates a thin, invisible wall, 10
feet high and 20 feet long. 
...
Any magic cast in such a way that a direct line drawn
from the caster to their target passes through the wall
(from either side) has a 40% [(+ 3 / Rank with this
spell) (- 3 / Rank of the target magic)] chance of having
its energies dissipated."


The entire area of effect of the agony (except the adept) is the target,
correct?
Same thing happens with TK Rage.

And if any part of the spell is stopped then the entire spell's energies are
dissipated, yes?


<snip>

Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C60101.8EEED650
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 Wall</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.=
nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 11:03</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Spell Wall</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Quoting Michael Parkinson =
&lt;m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz&gt;:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sorry, I don't understand what point =
you're trying to make. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp; How does this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; mean that Spell Barrier is a broken spell =
(it doesn't stop Agony)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Are you sure?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; It's not the way I read it. And, if I were =
interpreting it as </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I think you are,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; then I don't see how it would work against =
Blackfire, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Dragonflames, Fireball or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; any of the other magic that affects =
areas.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;Agony (S-1)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Range: 30 feet + 15 / Rank</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Duration: 10 seconds + 10 / Rank</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Target: Area</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Effects: This spell causes all entities in the =
affected</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>area, except the Adept, to suffer extreme =
agony.&quot;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;Affected area&quot; is clearly a circle =
(globe?) with radius range from adept. Note the adept is NOT the =
target.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;Spell Barrier (S-9)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Effects: This spell creates a thin, invisible wall, =
10</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>feet high and 20 feet long. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Any magic cast in such a way that a direct line =
drawn</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>from the caster to their target passes through the =
wall</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(from either side) has a 40% [(+ 3 / Rank with =
this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>spell) (- 3 / Rank of the target magic)] chance of =
having</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>its energies dissipated.&quot;</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The entire area of effect of the agony (except the =
adept) is the target, correct?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Same thing happens with TK Rage.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>And if any part of the spell is stopped then the =
entire spell's energies are dissipated, yes?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60101.8EEED650--


-- 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_01C60103.7BD11A0E
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
> Helen Saggers
> Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 12:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spell Wall
> 
> 
> ****Mike P**** -E-r-r-o-l- wrote:
> > > Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to 
> make.  How does
> this
> > > mean that Spell Barrier is a broken spell (it doesn't stop Agony)
> 
> Jim Wrote:
> > Are you sure?
> >
> > It's not the way I read it. And, if I were interpreting it 
> as I think you
> are,
> > then I don't see how it would work against Blackfire, Dragonflames,
> Fireball or
> > any of the other magic that affects areas.
> 
> I'll go with ***Mike P*** -E-r-r-o-l- on the Agony,  it's a wall the spell

> effect goes around.
> BF and DF are short range, cone type effects. If the cone 
> goes though the
> hex next to the end of the wall, Id say it goes around, if it 
> goes wholy
> though the midle then I'd check for the far side.
> Fire ball much the same.
> You could ring the casting mage with a barrier, but there is 
> little point he
> only has to move two on his prepare pulse to be clear of it.

At Rk5 plus they need to take an extra action/be high AG as it can be a ring
with radius 10'.


> A ring around a key fighter to help protect them now that 
> makes sence, but a
> ring around a mage don't.
> 

Generally a bad option, yes. Once they move outside the ring they are next
to partial cover if they want to say glug a potion.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C60103.7BD11A0E
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 Wall</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; Helen Saggers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 12:00</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Spell Wall</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ****Mike P**** -E-r-r-o-l- wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Sorry, I don't understand what point =
you're trying to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; make.&nbsp; How does</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; mean that Spell Barrier is a broken =
spell (it doesn't stop Agony)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Jim Wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Are you sure?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; It's not the way I read it. And, if I were =
interpreting it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; as I think you</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; are,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; then I don't see how it would work against =
Blackfire, Dragonflames,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Fireball or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; any of the other magic that affects =
areas.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I'll go with ***Mike P*** -E-r-r-o-l- on the =
Agony,&nbsp; it's a wall the spell </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; effect goes around.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; BF and DF are short range, cone type effects. =
If the cone </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; goes though the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; hex next to the end of the wall, Id say it goes =
around, if it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; goes wholy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; though the midle then I'd check for the far =
side.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Fire ball much the same.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; You could ring the casting mage with a barrier, =
but there is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; little point he</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; only has to move two on his prepare pulse to be =
clear of it.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At Rk5 plus they need to take an extra action/be high =
AG as it can be a ring with radius 10'.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; A ring around a key fighter to help protect them =
now that </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; makes sence, but a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ring around a mage don't.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Generally a bad option, yes. Once they move outside =
the ring they are next to partial cover if they want to say glug a =
potion.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60103.7BD11A0E--


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

Given that the Demons are Evil (one of the few points everyone agreed
on) I just wondered what Evil is. 

In the religious context as far as I can tell it is leading people away
from the word of God. But on Allusia we don't have a specific God to be
led away from. 

Historically and in most Literature Evil tends to have a clear purpose
generally to help understand whats happening. We don't really have that
in DQ which makes me wonder what the Role of the Pod, and conversly the
Pol, is. 

I mean, they can sacrifice people, eat babies etc etc but those are
simply bad actions they don't help define what it is that keeps the
Demons doing what they do. While I am happy to come up with my own
reasons and explainations for them doing what they do I wondered what
other people thought. 

Are they out there gaining power to work against each other like people
do? Is there a greater aim that characters may not be aware of but GM's
should be aware of? Are they simply mindless soul sucking villains with
no purpose?

And before Jim lets loose a rant about how this is unimportant and up to
the DM at the time I am interested in what other people think and how
they play the them not in creating any kind of uniform direction for the
Demons.


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

At 13:15 15/12/05, you wrote:
>Given that the Demons are Evil (one of the few points everyone agreed
>on) I just wondered what Evil is.

I guess in that case, we have to go the moral route. As I see it, 
evil are acts that would adversely affect anyone else, i.e. killing, 
lying, stealing, that sort of thing. Selfish acts basically and 
that's what I see the PoD doing, encouraging the Me first attitude in 
order to get ahead of the others regardless of the consequences.

The PoL, on the other hand, have a moral code that they would follow, 
although it can be difficult to perceive by outsiders.

That's my opinion anyway,

Keith


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

Some things are clearly evil;

	Having great cleavage which is covered.
:-)

Jonathan


-- 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_01C60116.34BCF0C6
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hey dude, what's the address. Haven't heard from Bernard.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zane Mendoza [mailto:zcmendoza@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 00:12
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] OT:: RPers seeking like minded nutcase for flat
> 
> 
> Hey all
> 
> Apologies for OT post but...
> 
> Michael Scott and myself are starting a new flat out
> in Mt Albert this monday and in preference for a
> flatmate we would like someone that is a Roleplayer,
> hence sending this to the DQ groups.
> 
> Anyways anyone interested feel free to email me or
> grab me or mike at the guild meeting, to find out the
> particulars etc.
> 
> Zane
> 
> "...SOmetimes the slower people think you are, the more 
> surprised they're going to be when you win the race..."
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C60116.34BCF0C6
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] OT:: RPers seeking like minded nutcase for flat</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hey dude, what's the address. Haven't heard from Bernard.</FONT>
</P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Zane Mendoza [<A HREF="mailto:zcmendoza@yahoo.com">mailto:zcmendoza@yahoo.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2005 00:12</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: [dq] OT:: RPers seeking like minded nutcase for flat</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Hey all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Apologies for OT post but...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Michael Scott and myself are starting a new flat out</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; in Mt Albert this monday and in preference for a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; flatmate we would like someone that is a Roleplayer,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; hence sending this to the DQ groups.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Anyways anyone interested feel free to email me or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; grab me or mike at the guild meeting, to find out the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; particulars etc.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Zane</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &quot;...SOmetimes the slower people think you are, the more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; surprised they're going to be when you win the race...&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60116.34BCF0C6--


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

--0-657195034-1134611026=:2314
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

    Personally I was allways of the school of thought that the Powers of Darkness more represent Chaos, and the powers of light represent order.  A more abstract concept, but that more accuratly represents the singleness of the powers of dark vs the groups of the powers of light.
   
  Not to say that some of the Demons aren't evil, requiring baby sacrifices to then raise them as demented undead spirits is pretty nasty, but Chaos and Law seem to be better reflections of the powers than good & evil.
   
  Bernard
   
  P.S. Sorry Jono for the direct reply, sometimes it makes it's mind up to do that rather than reply to list.

Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
  Some things are clearly evil;

Having great cleavage which is covered.
:-)

Jonathan


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



From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk  Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 




From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
--0-657195034-1134611026=:2314
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV id=RTEContent>  <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">  <DIV>Personally I was allways of the school of thought that the Powers of Darkness more represent Chaos, and the powers of light represent order.&nbsp; A more abstract concept, but that more accuratly represents the singleness of the powers of dark vs the groups of the powers of light.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Not to say that some of the Demons aren't evil, requiring baby sacrifices to then raise them as demented undead spirits is pretty nasty, but Chaos and Law seem to be better reflections of the powers than good &amp; evil.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Bernard</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>P.S. Sorry Jono for the direct reply, sometimes it makes it's mind up to do that rather than reply to list.<BR><BR><B><I>Jonathan Bean - TME &lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>  <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
 BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Some things are clearly evil;<BR><BR>Having great cleavage which is covered.<BR>:-)<BR><BR>Jonathan<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>  <DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<BR>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk  <div>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
--0-657195034-1134611026=:2314--


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

> In the religious context as far as I can tell it is
> leading people away from the word of God. But on Allusia
> we don't have a specific God to be led away from.

But DQ has only slightly less gods than reality. Even the
ancient hebrews were monolatralists (our god is the best
among many). Leading people away from their gods could be a
viable motivation for the Daemons. It's just that each
region has it's own set of dieties to be led astray from.

> I mean, they can sacrifice people, eat babies etc etc but
> those are simply bad actions they don't help define what
> it is that keeps the Demons doing what they do. While I am
> happy to come up with my own reasons and explainations for
> them doing what they do I wondered what other people
> thought.

Souls clearly have value. Your basic soul is created and
stuck into a being at birth (or conception) and putters
around until it shuffles off the mortal coil. It then goes
back to whatever made it.

Why various gods do this is a mystery. The reasons differ.
Most boil down to the mortal realm being a
improvement/quality assurance area for souls.

Soul stuff is really useful if you can get your hands on it.
Daemons want souls because they can't grow their own. They
therefore have to tempt beings to their cause while they are
mortal. Another way is through elaborate and arcane rituals
(sacrifices) which still requires some followers on the
ground.

> Are they out there gaining power to work against each
> other like people do? Is there a greater aim that
> characters may not be aware of but GM's should be aware
> of? Are they simply mindless soul sucking villains with no
> purpose?

Undoubtably they have future goals. Many want to rule a
sizable chunk of Allusia and farm all the souls in there.
Some want adoration. Others just want to not die. Some may
even have achieved everything they want and are goofing off
for a few millenia (Sallos springs to mind). Some are
running little social experiments or philosophical arguments
(naw, I say a total warrior culture would work). Some may
just be truly bad-ass adventurers still out there looting
and pillaging across the cosmos.

William


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

Elves don't have souls.

I am guessing that Elves do not have souls. I am guessing this as they can
not interact with them in the way that other rank 8+ healers can. I also
guess that since they are immune to the effects of lesser undead that we can
say that those effects only  happen on those with souls? I am also guessing
this is why their are less Elven Necromancers since they as a race do not
have them.

What do others think?

Jonathan Bean


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

> Elves don't have souls.

So how do they Pact? Does that mean if an Elf pacts there are no
downside cos they havn't sold anything?

> I am guessing that Elves do not have souls. I am guessing 
> this as they can not interact with them in the way that other 
> rank 8+ healers can. 

I always assumed it was a natural assumption that things die when their
time is up, which is why all the elves that muck around at the guild
learn how to ressurect, they have caught human thinking.


> I also guess that since they are immune 
> to the effects of lesser undead that we can say that those 
> effects only  happen on those with souls? 

Given that the only effect of lesser undead is ghosts abilities to say
'boo' and have people be scared I would say that this comes from Elves
knowing that Ghosts cannot hurt you and so they don't panic like humans
and sheep :-)

> I am also guessing 
> this is why their are less Elven Necromancers since they as a 
> race do not have them.

Less Elven Necromancers? Given that ~30% of Guild necromancers are Elves
I am not sure where that supposition comes from?

> What do others think?

I think my workday is too long and I should really be going home. 

Mandos
/s


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

--0-840072878-1134612458=:10842
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

  Quoting Jim

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
  And this is exactly why it should be addessed.  If the issue is that there is no reason to use any other spells, then perhaps the answer lies in making some of the other attack spells in the colleges better, so they do compare and have reasons to be used.  Rather than argueing over how we should reduce the spells, maybe over how we should improve un-used spells to make them worth using instead.  Malignent flames being one of those(Hands up any Fire Mage who has ranked it past 7 and actually uses it in a fight please?).  Your Quoted maybe Earth Tremor probably another.


From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
--0-840072878-1134612458=:10842
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">  <div>Quoting Jim<BR><BR>There's no particular reason for this spell to be easy to cast and to have a low&nbsp;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.<BR><BR>In fact, it's the kind of thing that DM's often use on players, because it<BR>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.<BR><BR>Jim</div></BLOCKQUOTE>  <div>And this is exactly why it should be addessed.&nbsp; If the issue is that there is no reason to use any other spells,
 then perhaps the answer lies in making some of the other attack spells in the colleges better, so they do compare and have reasons to be used.&nbsp; Rather than argueing over how we should reduce the spells, maybe over how we should improve un-used spells to make them worth using instead.&nbsp; Malignent flames being one of those(Hands up any Fire Mage who has ranked it past 7 and actually uses it in a fight please?).&nbsp; Your Quoted maybe Earth Tremor probably another.</div><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
--0-840072878-1134612458=:10842--


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

> And this is exactly why it should be addessed.  If the issue is that
there
> is no reason to use any other! spells, then perhaps the answer lies in
making
> some of the other attack spells in the colleges better, so they do
compare
> and have reasons to be used.  Rather than argueing over how we should
reduce
> the spells, maybe over how we should improve un-used spells to make
them worth
> using instead.  Malignent flames being one of those(Hands up any Fire
Mage
> who has ranked it past 7 and actually uses it in a fight please?).
Your
> Quoted maybe Earth Tremor probably another.

Mandos takes away Bernards drugs. Stoppit. 

The arguments to change three spells to bring them more in line with the
rest of the game are bad enough, you want to suggest rewriting the game
to fit three spells!!!!

Arrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!!

Mandos
/s


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

If an elf character takes the healer skill, the elf pays three-quarters the
EP to advance ranks, though they cannot resurrect the dead.

Ok let me take a step back -
Why are Elves not allowed/unable to Resurrect the Dead?

Jonathan


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

one rationalisation may be ...

Elves are more attuned to Nature, Gaia, whaddever, & thus they get an EP discount (which, by the way, the re-write of the Character section of the rules has made much less than it used to be).  The life-force being part of this Nature/Gaia.  Death is a part of Nature.

Humans, the *norm* of our rules, have a different philosophy:  Nature is to be conquered; death too.  

> If an elf character takes the healer skill, the elf pays 
> three-quarters the
> EP to advance ranks, though they cannot resurrect the dead.
> 
> Ok let me take a step back -
> Why are Elves not allowed/unable to Resurrect the Dead?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Mumble mumble stupid damn reply to headers....resending to list.

> If an elf character takes the healer skill, the elf pays
> three-quarters the EP to advance ranks, though they cannot 
> resurrect the dead.
> 
> Ok let me take a step back -
> Why are Elves not allowed/unable to Resurrect the Dead?

I came up with two or three rationalisations for this and then ended up
with the real reason....

Cos the rules say so. 

There is no other reason, there are no explainations anywhere else in
the rules as to why this is, it simply is. 

Mandos
/s


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

Rationalisation is cool but if its a cultural thing that they do not do
this, then it should not be a rule. Since it is a rule I am guessing its
that they can not do this - so I come back to why?

What do people think about Spirits for Elves and Souls for others?

Jonathan


one rationalisation may be ...

Elves are more attuned to Nature, Gaia, whaddever, & thus they get an EP
discount (which, by the way, the re-write of the Character section of the
rules has made much less than it used to be).  The life-force being part of
this Nature/Gaia.  Death is a part of Nature.

Humans, the *norm* of our rules, have a different philosophy:  Nature is to
be conquered; death too.

> If an elf character takes the healer skill, the elf pays
> three-quarters the
> EP to advance ranks, though they cannot resurrect the dead.
>
> Ok let me take a step back -
> Why are Elves not allowed/unable to Resurrect the Dead?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Humans & Halflings, live 90 years, Dwarves  150, Orcs 45, shape changers 65
and giants 500 all are short lived sentient, yes?
Elves lives are measured in thousands of years they are long lived sentient,
perhaps they can't resurrect because they are not close enough to death.
Death is like healing its natural to human bodies. However to elves natural
Death is so remote as to be foreign to them, they fail as healers to grasp
the process on that quasimagical level and so also fail to learn to reverse
it.
PC elves that get around the rule, well as an adventurer after you have been
dead and resurrected a few times even the thickest elf can understand it.
:-)

Helen
>
> If an elf character takes the healer skill, the elf pays three-quarters
the
> EP to advance ranks, though they cannot resurrect the dead.
>
> Ok let me take a step back -
> Why are Elves not allowed/unable to Resurrect the Dead?
>
> Jonathan
>


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

> What do people think about Spirits for Elves and Souls for others?

Unless it changes the rules or affects the campaign world it doesn't
really matter, you can come up with any rationalisation you like for it.


If the rationalisation is going to change the rules, then it would be
good to see the rule change you are proposing. If there is no change to
the rules then the impact is......nil. 

People can come up with whatever rationalisation they like. 

Mandos
/s


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

Which Elven Healers have got aroud the rules?

Lysander is an Elf and a Healer but she is not able to resurrect as such.
Her 'pact' does allow her to ask the PoL to resurrect someone with a
percentage based on
100% for Pacted to PoL, 50/50 for non-pacted and 0% for Pacted to PoD.

Are their other Elves other than Lysander (who doesnt really count).


Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Helen Saggers
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 3:18 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Elves


Humans & Halflings, live 90 years, Dwarves  150, Orcs 45, shape changers 65
and giants 500 all are short lived sentient, yes?
Elves lives are measured in thousands of years they are long lived sentient,
perhaps they can't resurrect because they are not close enough to death.
Death is like healing its natural to human bodies. However to elves natural
Death is so remote as to be foreign to them, they fail as healers to grasp
the process on that quasimagical level and so also fail to learn to reverse
it.
PC elves that get around the rule, well as an adventurer after you have been
dead and resurrected a few times even the thickest elf can understand it.
:-)

Helen
>
> If an elf character takes the healer skill, the elf pays three-quarters
the
> EP to advance ranks, though they cannot resurrect the dead.
>
> Ok let me take a step back -
> Why are Elves not allowed/unable to Resurrect the Dead?
>
> Jonathan
>


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

Mandos said:
>If the rationalisation is going to change the rules, then it would be
>good to see the rule change you are proposing. If there is no change to
>the rules then the impact is......nil.

I dont have a rule change in mind.

I was hoping someone else has considered this and had a 'bamm' here is
something we can look at.
I would like to see the rules remain the same and for me to understand what
they are trying to tell me, but I dont think I 'get it' what ever it is they
ment by doing it this way.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2005 3:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Elves


> What do people think about Spirits for Elves and Souls for others?

Unless it changes the rules or affects the campaign world it doesn't
really matter, you can come up with any rationalisation you like for it.


If the rationalisation is going to change the rules, then it would be
good to see the rule change you are proposing. If there is no change to
the rules then the impact is......nil.

People can come up with whatever rationalisation they like.

Mandos
/s


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

Opps missed a bit.
That it is easier to learn healer for elves (3/4 ep) could be due to their
stronger life force, healing promotes, maintains life.
And elves with the stronger life force find it easier to understand this
process than the short lived types who are virtually dying from the day they
are born.

Helen

From: "Helen Saggers"

> Humans & Halflings, live 90 years, Dwarves  150, Orcs 45, shape changers
65
> and giants 500 all are short lived sentient, yes?
> Elves lives are measured in thousands of years they are long lived
sentient,
> perhaps they can't resurrect because they are not close enough to death.
> Death is like healing its natural to human bodies. However to elves
natural
> Death is so remote as to be foreign to them, they fail as healers to grasp
> the process on that quasimagical level and so also fail to learn to
reverse
> it.
> PC elves that get around the rule, well as an adventurer after you have
been
> dead and resurrected a few times even the thickest elf can understand it.
> :-)
>
> Helen


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

Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>:


>
> The entire area of effect of the agony (except the adept) is the target,
> correct?
> Same thing happens with TK Rage.
>
> And if any part of the spell is stopped then the entire spell's energies are
> dissipated, yes?
>

That's the way I read it, Errol.

Jim


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

Deamons Evil - self centered me oriented, power/domination hungry, don't
mind using others to get own ends met, amounts to - see power as a way to
win/get what they want for themselves (immortal life / sex whatever)

POL Good - collective centered, take actions to forward humanity, sometimes
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, some times the greater
good is not terribly visable to us lesser mortals, amounts to - see power as
a necessary thing to be able to serve the greater good (betterment of all
souls etc).

In contempory society it is not always possible for people (who aren't
necessarily very on to it) to tell the difference, hence the popularity of
cults where the cult leader is actually out for themselves (and probably a
bit mad) but charismatically convince people they are really out for the
greater good.  That's why I like the sear temple in Seagate - its realistic.
Of cause this is beautifully complicated because cults don't want to be seen
as cults and may not know they are cults (e.g. some modern religions).

In short - its OK to have some powers designated as evil and some as good,
and for us players generally not to be able to tell why the actions in
questions are good/evil, but because of our special guild knowledge that the
actor is good/evil - and there for the killing of X must be good/evil... or
is it???

H

Hamish Brown
Director

Zenergy
Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world
119 Mt Eden Rd,
Auckland
www.zenergyglobal.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
dworkin@ihug.co.nz
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:44 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Evil - Query (not rules or campaign rant)


> In the religious context as far as I can tell it is
> leading people away from the word of God. But on Allusia
> we don't have a specific God to be led away from.

But DQ has only slightly less gods than reality. Even the
ancient hebrews were monolatralists (our god is the best
among many). Leading people away from their gods could be a
viable motivation for the Daemons. It's just that each
region has it's own set of dieties to be led astray from.

> I mean, they can sacrifice people, eat babies etc etc but
> those are simply bad actions they don't help define what
> it is that keeps the Demons doing what they do. While I am
> happy to come up with my own reasons and explainations for
> them doing what they do I wondered what other people
> thought.

Souls clearly have value. Your basic soul is created and
stuck into a being at birth (or conception) and putters
around until it shuffles off the mortal coil. It then goes
back to whatever made it.

Why various gods do this is a mystery. The reasons differ.
Most boil down to the mortal realm being a
improvement/quality assurance area for souls.

Soul stuff is really useful if you can get your hands on it.
Daemons want souls because they can't grow their own. They
therefore have to tempt beings to their cause while they are
mortal. Another way is through elaborate and arcane rituals
(sacrifices) which still requires some followers on the
ground.

> Are they out there gaining power to work against each
> other like people do? Is there a greater aim that
> characters may not be aware of but GM's should be aware
> of? Are they simply mindless soul sucking villains with no
> purpose?

Undoubtably they have future goals. Many want to rule a
sizable chunk of Allusia and farm all the souls in there.
Some want adoration. Others just want to not die. Some may
even have achieved everything they want and are goofing off
for a few millenia (Sallos springs to mind). Some are
running little social experiments or philosophical arguments
(naw, I say a total warrior culture would work). Some may
just be truly bad-ass adventurers still out there looting
and pillaging across the cosmos.

William


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

Jim said:

"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."

The pressure to cast these spells again and again is a function of their "toughness". These spells, once highly ranked, are so superior to their other attacking spell options that there is no longer any real choice to be made. 

Other systems have other constraints on what they consider their toughest spells. In D&D the tough spells are high level ones which means you only get to cast 1 or 2 per day (and D&D has its characters and NPC's advancing in hit points every level). A feature of the runequest 3rd edn Sorcery spells was the fact that the amount of damage a spell gave out was equivalent to the amount of magic points (fatigue in DQ terms) you put in. Hence you might if you were an experienced mage be able to cast a HF like spell for a lot of damage, but you couldn't cast more than 1-2. In DQ, once you've spent the considerable time/exp/money in ranking these spells, you can happily sit there cast them again and again for a mere 2 fatigue each (i.e. at least 10 casts). 

This is leads me to another possible restriction you could build into these spells. Have them only able to be cast once a day. Triples will still kill, but you would need multiple mages for multiple casts. Leaves the spells basically as written and is fairly simple to understand.

Just an idea.


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

------=_Part_989_20926896.1134619714331
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/15/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>:
> > And if any part of the spell is stopped then the entire spell's energie=
s
> are
> > dissipated, yes?
> >
>
> That's the way I read it, Errol.
>
> Jim


Yep, a very reasonable reading. Not the original intention, and makes the
wall rather tougher. Rats.

The idea was that only spells that were targeted directly through the area
of the barrier (or passed directly through the barrier) would effected.

"Any magic cast in such a way that a direct line drawn from the caster to
their target passes through the wall (from either side) has [equation]
chance of having its energies dissipated."

The intent was that a Firebolt or Bolt of Energy shot at someone behind it
would be effected. So would any direct target spell (e.g. Hand of Death,
Damnum Minatum). An area effect spell (such as Agony) is not targeted
through the wall, it's not really targeted at all, it gets centred on the
Adept.

Another place that spell description could be misleading is if the Adept
used (say) Hellfire and one of their targets was behind the Spell Barrier
and the rest weren't. I'd expect the sheltered one to have a chance of
protection, but if that protection worked it wouldn't dissipate the energy
of the spell in toto (which would imply protecting the ones outside the
barrier).

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_989_20926896.1134619714331
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 12/15/05, <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;">Quoting Er=
rol Cavit &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a=
>&gt;:
<br>&gt; And if any part of the spell is stopped then the entire spell's en=
ergies are<br>&gt; dissipated, yes?<br>&gt;<br><br>That's the way I read it=
, Errol.<br><br>Jim</blockquote><div><br>Yep, a very reasonable reading. No=
t the original intention, and makes the wall rather tougher. Rats.=20
<br><br>The idea was that only spells that were targeted directly through t=
he area of the barrier (or passed directly through the barrier) would effec=
ted.<br><br>&quot;Any magic cast in such a way that a direct line drawn fro=
m the caster to their target passes through the wall (from either side) has=
 [equation] chance of having its energies dissipated.&quot;
<br><br>The intent was that a Firebolt or Bolt of Energy shot at someone be=
hind it would be effected. So would any direct target spell (e.g. Hand of D=
eath, Damnum Minatum). An area effect spell (such as Agony) is not targeted=
 through the wall, it's not really targeted at all, it gets centred on the =
Adept.
<br><br>Another place that spell description could be misleading is if the =
Adept used (say) Hellfire and one of their targets was behind the Spell Bar=
rier and the rest weren't. I'd expect the sheltered one to have a chance of=
 protection, but if that protection worked it wouldn't dissipate the energy=
 of the spell in toto (which would imply protecting the ones outside the ba=
rrier).
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_989_20926896.1134619714331--


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

I don't know if there is anything productive in this line of enquiry, in the
sense that we're liable to come away with a clearer idea of what a demon is.

Not all DMs agree with what a demon is, in the first place. I, and a few others,
consider them to be elementally evil, beyond all redemption, and yet not unable
to negotiate from time to time. And, this is the case, however they might
appear.

Their motivations are alien, and although sometimes they appear to be
human-like, they are the kind of entity whose interests may go somewhat further
than the average moral entity. Humans might collect stamps. A demon, on the
other hand, might collect black holes. Or the navel lint from chaste monks
tormented by hot irons while being bathed in vinegar and salt.

Demons don't marry in any of normal sense of the word, they don't raise
offspring, thank God, and they don't form a society with their peers that the
rest of us have any real grasp of.

In my interpretation, they are evil. They are not omniscient. Although they are
way up their in the smarts and hideous power department, their resources are
spread in lots of different ways. They can be outwitted, and in any particular
given engagement,they may be defeated. It would not be easy, though.

It would be a world shaking event for a mortal to permanently defeat a demon.
Such a mortal would probably find themselves beatified. Especially if they died
in the process. The church might be resistant to beatifying someone who could
fail to live up to the standard saint employment contract.

That is the way that I think of them. I think that other people run them
differently. George, for example.

I should point out that the term that we use in DQ is not one I normally use for
these creatures. In Immortals, the 72 named demons are called devils, or named
devils. They live in Hell.

A demon, in Immortals, has equally weird motivations, but is not elementally
evil. They are reasonably considered to be pernicious to human life, and so in
that way, one might consider them evil, but, again, as a game term, (Immortals)
demons are not evil. They live in the Abyss

Again, in Immortals, angels are considered diametrically opposed to devils, as
one would expect, but they are not good. They are considered elementally
lawful, and can be happily bound to a task by one who knows the appropriate
rituals and has the right kind of carpet. They live in Paradise.

Then, there are the things from the Outer Dark, about which is better not to say
anything lest we accidentally utter a name, and attract unwanted attentions.

Finally, there are things out of nightmare, which have no name, and are
representative of everything that is beyond classification. Simply gazing on
some of these creatures can send the viewer into gibbering lunacy. Unfortunate
if that person is connected to you via telepathy or mind speech. These things
live amongst us, sometimes seen out of the corner of the eye, but at an angle
of reality where they can watch, but only rarely interact.

Sometimes, I get the feeling I might have been thinking about this sort of thing
for way too long.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_3747_17526519.1134636200393
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I agree with this idea. Each time you down power the most powerful attack
spells by logic a new spell becomes the most powerful attack spell. So the
mere fact a spell is more powerful than the others doesn't make it broken.
One spell will always be the most powerful.

Dylan

On 12/15/05, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  Quoting Jim
>
> There's no particular reason for this spell to be easy to cast and to hav=
e
> 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 i=
t
> creates interesting situations. Players hardly ever choose abilities like
> this, because to them, an interesting situation is where they are all ali=
ve,
> reasonably safe and sitting on a huge pile of treasure. They would hold o=
ut
> for a half damage spell, I expect.
>
> Jim
>
> And this is exactly why it should be addessed.  If the issue is that ther=
e
> is no reason to use any other! spells, then perhaps the answer lies in
> making some of the other attack spells in the colleges better, so they do
> compare and have reasons to be used.  Rather than argueing over how we
> should reduce the spells, maybe over how we should improve un-used spells=
 to
> make them worth using instead.  Malignent flames being one of those(Hands=
 up
> any Fire Mage who has ranked it past 7 and actually uses it in a fight
> please?).  Your Quoted maybe Earth Tremor probably another.
>
>
> From Bernard Hoggins
> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.co=
m
>

------=_Part_3747_17526519.1134636200393
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I agree with this idea. Each time you down power the most powerful att=
ack spells by logic a new spell becomes the most powerful attack spell. So =
the mere fact a spell is more powerful than the others doesn't make it brok=
en. One spell will always be the most powerful.=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/15/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Bernard Hoggins</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@y=
ahoo.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<blockquote style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #101=
0ff 2px solid">
<div>Quoting Jim<br><br>There's no particular reason for this spell to be e=
asy to cast and to have a low&nbsp;Exp.Mult. So what if the spell is expens=
ive and does crap? Players probably won't pursue it, unless they have no ch=
oice. That's okay. An NPC might have no other alternative, and so have rank=
ed this spell, in which case it's an interesting alternative, as you have f=
ound in your game.
<br><br>In fact, it's the kind of thing that DM's often use on players, bec=
ause it<br>creates interesting situations. Players hardly ever choose abili=
ties 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 wo=
uld hold out for a half damage spell, I expect.
<br><br>Jim</div></blockquote>
<div>And this is exactly why it should be addessed.&nbsp; If the issue is t=
hat there is no reason to use any other! spells, then perhaps the answer li=
es in making some of the other attack spells in the colleges better, so the=
y do compare and have reasons to be used.&nbsp; Rather than argueing over h=
ow we should reduce the spells, maybe over how we should improve un-used sp=
ells to make them worth using instead.&nbsp; Malignent flames being one of =
those(Hands up any Fire Mage who has ranked it past 7 and actually uses it =
in a fight please?).&nbsp; Your Quoted maybe Earth Tremor probably another.
</div>
<div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_1082c2cb934822c9_1"><br><br>From Bernard Hog=
gins<br><a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D=
"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>=20
<p>Send instant messages to your online friends <a onclick=3D"return top.js=
.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"http://au.messenger.yahoo.com/" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://au.messenger.yahoo.com</a> </p></span></div></blockq=
uote>
</div><br>

------=_Part_3747_17526519.1134636200393--


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

------=_Part_4268_28922930.1134640337727
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Once a day? Sounds a little harsh. Maybe up the cost so they can't cast the=
m
as much or find some other way to give them options. One cast a day is
really killing the spell.
Dylan


On 12/15/05, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Jim said:
>
> "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."
>
> The pressure to cast these spells again and again is a function of their
> "toughness". These spells, once highly ranked, are so superior to their
> other attacking spell options that there is no longer any real choice to =
be
> made.
>
> Other systems have other constraints on what they consider their toughest
> spells. In D&D the tough spells are high level ones which means you only =
get
> to cast 1 or 2 per day (and D&D has its characters and NPC's advancing in
> hit points every level). A feature of the runequest 3rd edn Sorcery spell=
s
> was the fact that the amount of damage a spell gave out was equivalent to
> the amount of magic points (fatigue in DQ terms) you put in. Hence you mi=
ght
> if you were an experienced mage be able to cast a HF like spell for a lot=
 of
> damage, but you couldn't cast more than 1-2. In DQ, once you've spent the
> considerable time/exp/money in ranking these spells, you can happily sit
> there cast them again and again for a mere 2 fatigue each (i.e. at least
> 10 casts).
>
> This is leads me to another possible restriction you could build into
> these spells. Have them only able to be cast once a day. Triples will sti=
ll
> kill, but you would need multiple mages for multiple casts. Leaves the
> spells basically as written and is fairly simple to understand.
>
> Just an idea.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_4268_28922930.1134640337727
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Once a day? Sounds a little harsh. Maybe up the cost so they can't cas=
t them as much or find some other way to give them options. One cast a day =
is really killing the spell.</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/15/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
><a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a></b>=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a>=
&gt; wrote:
</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Jim said:<br><br>&quot;The overw=
helming pressure on these characters is to simply cast their spell<br>again=
 and again and again. And, that's dull. It's not that it's tough, although
<br>it definitely is tough. It's that the range of alternatives is so much =
less<br>attractive an option.&quot;<br><br>The pressure to cast these spell=
s again and again is a function of their &quot;toughness&quot;. These spell=
s, once highly ranked, are so superior to their other attacking spell optio=
ns that there is no longer any real choice to be made.
<br><br>Other systems have other constraints on what they consider their to=
ughest spells. In D&amp;D the tough spells are high level ones which means =
you only get to cast 1 or 2 per day (and D&amp;D has its characters and NPC=
's advancing in hit points every level). A feature of the runequest 3rd edn=
 Sorcery spells was the fact that the amount of damage a spell gave out was=
 equivalent to the amount of magic points (fatigue in DQ terms) you put in.=
 Hence you might if you were an experienced mage be able to cast a HF like =
spell for a lot of damage, but you couldn't cast more than 1-2. In DQ, once=
 you've spent the considerable time/exp/money in ranking these spells, you =
can happily sit there cast them again and again for a mere 2 fatigue each (
i.e. at least 10 casts).<br><br>This is leads me to another possible restri=
ction you could build into these spells. Have them only able to be cast onc=
e a day. Triples will still kill, but you would need multiple mages for mul=
tiple casts. Leaves the spells basically as written and is fairly simple to=
 understand.
<br><br>Just an idea.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D=
"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockq=
uote></div><br>

------=_Part_4268_28922930.1134640337727--


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

------=_Part_4308_20930869.1134640615588
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Who are you to decide my points are irrelevant? Prehaps you can't be
bothered to argue intellgently against my points but thats just making you
more irelevant. Please either respond with something worth reading or just
keep your opinions to yourself. At least you could have the decency to
explain why you think my points don't count.

Dylan


On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> 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 --
>

------=_Part_4308_20930869.1134640615588
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Who are you to decide my points are irrelevant? Prehaps you can't be b=
othered to argue intellgently against my points but thats just making you m=
ore irelevant. Please either respond with something worth reading or just k=
eep your opinions to yourself. At least you could have the decency to expla=
in why you think my points don't count.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>=
</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.a=
c.nz
</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Or maybe not. The point you make=
 is, once again, irrelevant. I wonder if you are<br>doing it intentionally.
<br><br>Quoting RPer 4eva &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msno=
verflow@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br><br>&gt; If GMs are making scenarios where yo=
u have to doubt the players sanity when<br>&gt; they do anything other than=
 protect the blast mage maybe you have to
<br>&gt; question the DMs skills.<br><br><br>Jim<br><br><br>-- to unsubscri=
be notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.s=
f.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_4308_20930869.1134640615588--


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

------=_Part_4332_30271040.1134640735070
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I don't think the spell restricts choices. They don't have to cast it
despite pressure to do so. Its one more option. How many people in this
discusion really feel that they would /HAVE/ to cast one of these spells if
they had it?

Dylan


On 12/14/05, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> 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 star=
t
> another thread.
>
> Jim.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_4332_30271040.1134640735070
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I don't think the spell restricts choices. They don't have to cast it =
despite pressure to do so. Its one more option. How many people in this dis=
cusion really feel that they would /HAVE/ to cast one of these spells if th=
ey had it?
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/14/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>=
</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.a=
c.nz
</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Quoting William Dymock &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;:<br><br><br>&gt=
; The complaint initially was about people with zorch spells only having on=
e
<br>&gt; real option in combat.<br><br>Yes, William. Please stick to that i=
ssue. If you want to talk about how the<br>spell is or is not balanced, or =
advanced tactical play, feel free to start<br>another thread.<br><br>Jim.
<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq=
.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_4332_30271040.1134640735070--


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