>I agree with you that it's a function of the relative power of the 
>other spells
>in the college. The choice is to increase the other spells, which is a bit on
>the frightening side, or decrease the trouble spells.

Or, a third option, adding something that helps defend against the 
troublesome spells. Maybe something like the way Fire Armour helps 
against Hellfire.

And in a world where such tough spells existed, I would not be 
surprised to see such defenses being developed.

Keith


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

Having a necro with the terrible spell I have to say that it not always the
first choice in combat. It is dependant on the situation. Sometimes a wall
is more urgent. It doesn't matter how much damage you do if there are
another 20 archers ready to mow you down. oh and the last necro he met hit
the party with a rank 20 Necrosis but probably should have used Noxious
Vapours and legged it.

So no I do not see the need to change it.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Bean - TME" <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2


> Does everyone agree with Mondos Summing up. If you do not this is your
> chance to say.
> No action at this point is a Im happy to go with the flow vote.
>
> So if we are all happy with Mondos summing up then moving along otherwise
> please say if you are not happy with Mandos summing up.
>
> Im happy with it.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > Mandos Mitchinson
> > Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 2:40 p.m.
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
> >
> >
> > > Ok Mandos can you sum up then please.
> >
> > Cut from an earlier message.
> >
> > To put it simply there are two reasons to depower these spells.
> >
> > 1. GM's cannot use more than one mage with these spells. If they do then
> > unless the party is rediculously high level then they will all die. This
> > resricts the adventures that GM's can run without having to make changes
> > that just don't make sence.
> >
> > 2. Players have colleges with 20-30 spells in it. The spells under
> > discussion invalidate up to 50% of the colleges spells. With necro there
> > are a number of good attack spells. However Necrosis is in another
> > league. there is no need to rank or cast anything else ever. This
> > restricts players to either not learn the spell with some artificial
> > reason (3 necros I can think of have done this), remove or change the
> > spell (1 necro), or use the spell but find combats increasingly boring
> > (all the rest).
> >
> > Both of these issues are present, visible and are of concern to a number
> > of senior GM's and players and have been there for a long time.
> >
> > Mandos
> > /s
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

Ian Anderson sign your posts please with your name.
Thank you.

Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Ian Anderson
> Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2005 8:54 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
>
>
> Having a necro with the terrible spell I have to say that it not
> always the
> first choice in combat. It is dependant on the situation. Sometimes a wall
> is more urgent. It doesn't matter how much damage you do if there are
> another 20 archers ready to mow you down. oh and the last necro he met hit
> the party with a rank 20 Necrosis but probably should have used Noxious
> Vapours and legged it.
>
> So no I do not see the need to change it.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Bean - TME" <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
> To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
>
>
> > Does everyone agree with Mondos Summing up. If you do not this is your
> > chance to say.
> > No action at this point is a Im happy to go with the flow vote.
> >
> > So if we are all happy with Mondos summing up then moving along
> otherwise
> > please say if you are not happy with Mandos summing up.
> >
> > Im happy with it.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > > Mandos Mitchinson
> > > Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 2:40 p.m.
> > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > > Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ok Mandos can you sum up then please.
> > >
> > > Cut from an earlier message.
> > >
> > > To put it simply there are two reasons to depower these spells.
> > >
> > > 1. GM's cannot use more than one mage with these spells. If
> they do then
> > > unless the party is rediculously high level then they will
> all die. This
> > > resricts the adventures that GM's can run without having to
> make changes
> > > that just don't make sence.
> > >
> > > 2. Players have colleges with 20-30 spells in it. The spells under
> > > discussion invalidate up to 50% of the colleges spells. With
> necro there
> > > are a number of good attack spells. However Necrosis is in another
> > > league. there is no need to rank or cast anything else ever. This
> > > restricts players to either not learn the spell with some artificial
> > > reason (3 necros I can think of have done this), remove or change the
> > > spell (1 necro), or use the spell but find combats increasingly boring
> > > (all the rest).
> > >
> > > Both of these issues are present, visible and are of concern
> to a number
> > > of senior GM's and players and have been there for a long time.
> > >
> > > Mandos
> > > /s
> > >
> > >
> > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Opps. I blame the comming christmas shopping.

Ian Anderson

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Bean - TME" <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2


> Ian Anderson sign your posts please with your name.
> Thank you.
>
> Jonathan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > Ian Anderson
> > Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2005 8:54 a.m.
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
> >
> >
> > Having a necro with the terrible spell I have to say that it not
> > always the
> > first choice in combat. It is dependant on the situation. Sometimes a
wall
> > is more urgent. It doesn't matter how much damage you do if there are
> > another 20 archers ready to mow you down. oh and the last necro he met
hit
> > the party with a rank 20 Necrosis but probably should have used Noxious
> > Vapours and legged it.
> >
> > So no I do not see the need to change it.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jonathan Bean - TME" <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
> > To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
> > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
> >
> >
> > > Does everyone agree with Mondos Summing up. If you do not this is your
> > > chance to say.
> > > No action at this point is a Im happy to go with the flow vote.
> > >
> > > So if we are all happy with Mondos summing up then moving along
> > otherwise
> > > please say if you are not happy with Mandos summing up.
> > >
> > > Im happy with it.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf
Of
> > > > Mandos Mitchinson
> > > > Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 2:40 p.m.
> > > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > > > Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - step 2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ok Mandos can you sum up then please.
> > > >
> > > > Cut from an earlier message.
> > > >
> > > > To put it simply there are two reasons to depower these spells.
> > > >
> > > > 1. GM's cannot use more than one mage with these spells. If
> > they do then
> > > > unless the party is rediculously high level then they will
> > all die. This
> > > > resricts the adventures that GM's can run without having to
> > make changes
> > > > that just don't make sence.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Players have colleges with 20-30 spells in it. The spells under
> > > > discussion invalidate up to 50% of the colleges spells. With
> > necro there
> > > > are a number of good attack spells. However Necrosis is in another
> > > > league. there is no need to rank or cast anything else ever. This
> > > > restricts players to either not learn the spell with some artificial
> > > > reason (3 necros I can think of have done this), remove or change
the
> > > > spell (1 necro), or use the spell but find combats increasingly
boring
> > > > (all the rest).
> > > >
> > > > Both of these issues are present, visible and are of concern
> > to a number
> > > > of senior GM's and players and have been there for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Mandos
> > > > /s
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

>I just noticed that if you roll between 41 and 44 on your background 
>you have none!

I went right back through the permutations of rulebooks and minutes 
to find out when this happened.

This actually first appeared in the 1.2 rulebook printed in June 
1998, just after the new character generation document was accepted 
and added. However upon checking that document, stored in the 
minutes, the range for Goodman is 30-44. In the 1998 rulebook, it was 
printed as 30-40.

I presume we want to fix it for this rulebook?

Keith


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

Lets make em run away slaves... could be fun.

Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Keith Smith
> Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2005 1:26 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Character Generation
> 
> 
> 
> >I just noticed that if you roll between 41 and 44 on your background 
> >you have none!
> 
> I went right back through the permutations of rulebooks and minutes 
> to find out when this happened.
> 
> This actually first appeared in the 1.2 rulebook printed in June 
> 1998, just after the new character generation document was accepted 
> and added. However upon checking that document, stored in the 
> minutes, the range for Goodman is 30-44. In the 1998 rulebook, it was 
> printed as 30-40.
> 
> I presume we want to fix it for this rulebook?
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Or maybe they are amnesiac and can't remember who they are.
You know they just take everyone with that to the guild.
"oh yep he's one of ours, now bob we have some work for you in the kitchen
while you...."

Helen
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Bean - TME" <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Character Generation


> Lets make em run away slaves... could be fun.
>
> Jonathan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > Keith Smith
> > Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2005 1:26 p.m.
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Character Generation
> >
> >
> >
> > >I just noticed that if you roll between 41 and 44 on your background
> > >you have none!
> >
> > I went right back through the permutations of rulebooks and minutes
> > to find out when this happened.
> >
> > This actually first appeared in the 1.2 rulebook printed in June
> > 1998, just after the new character generation document was accepted
> > and added. However upon checking that document, stored in the
> > minutes, the range for Goodman is 30-44. In the 1998 rulebook, it was
> > printed as 30-40.
> >
> > I presume we want to fix it for this rulebook?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

------=_Part_442_2409211.1134790139807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Why not give the namers some ability to protect the party from such spells?
If counterspells aren't considered enough prehaps you could learn
protections against specific spells which have the same bonus to resist
(only vs that single spell) but can be stacked with counter spells and have
a much better duration. Even if they lasted an hour the namer could
specificaly protect the party against hellfire as you hunt down the
particular renegade. The main reason one would even consider such spells
would be to protect against save and die spells and have a duration long
enough to be viable to keep up.

Dylan


On 12/17/05, Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >I agree with you that it's a function of the relative power of the
> >other spells
> >in the college. The choice is to increase the other spells, which is a
> bit on
> >the frightening side, or decrease the trouble spells.
>
> Or, a third option, adding something that helps defend against the
> troublesome spells. Maybe something like the way Fire Armour helps
> against Hellfire.
>
> And in a world where such tough spells existed, I would not be
> surprised to see such defenses being developed.
>
> Keith
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_442_2409211.1134790139807
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Why not give the namers some ability to protect the party from such sp=
ells? If counterspells aren't considered enough prehaps you could learn pro=
tections against specific spells which have the same bonus to resist (only =
vs that single spell) but can be stacked with counter spells and have a muc=
h better duration. Even if they lasted an hour the namer could specificaly =
protect the party against hellfire as you hunt down the particular renegade=
. The main reason one would even consider such spells would be to protect a=
gainst save and die spells and have a duration long enough to be viable to =
keep up.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/17/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Keith Smith</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz">phaeton@ihug.co.=
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"><br>&gt;I agree with you that it=
's a function of the relative power of the<br>&gt;other spells<br>&gt;in th=
e college. The choice is to increase the other spells, which is a bit on
<br>&gt;the frightening side, or decrease the trouble spells.<br><br>Or, a =
third option, adding something that helps defend against the<br>troublesome=
 spells. Maybe something like the way Fire Armour helps<br>against Hellfire=
.
<br><br>And in a world where such tough spells existed, I would not be<br>s=
urprised to see such defenses being developed.<br><br>Keith<br><br><br>-- t=
o unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-r=
equest@dq.sf.org.nz
</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_442_2409211.1134790139807--


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

------=_Part_550_11406308.1134791018512
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Possibly modifying the counter spells to get a little more duration and a
change to the rules stating that if you're under the counterspell and pass =
a
save you don't die but merely sink to -1 end. This would massivly increase
the reasons to learn counterspells and the times they are used, even to the
"just in case" level.

Dylan

On 12/17/05, RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Why not give the namers some ability to protect the party from such
> spells? If counterspells aren't considered enough prehaps you could learn
> protections against specific spells which have the same bonus to resist
> (only vs that single spell) but can be stacked with counter spells and ha=
ve
> a much better duration. Even if they lasted an hour the namer could
> specificaly protect the party against hellfire as you hunt down the
> particular renegade. The main reason one would even consider such spells
> would be to protect against save and die spells and have a duration long
> enough to be viable to keep up.
>
> Dylan
>
>
> On 12/17/05, Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I agree with you that it's a function of the relative power of the
> > >other spells
> > >in the college. The choice is to increase the other spells, which is a
> > bit on
> > >the frightening side, or decrease the trouble spells.
> >
> > Or, a third option, adding something that helps defend against the
> > troublesome spells. Maybe something like the way Fire Armour helps
> > against Hellfire.
> >
> > And in a world where such tough spells existed, I would not be
> > surprised to see such defenses being developed.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>

------=_Part_550_11406308.1134791018512
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Possibly modifying the counter spells to get a little more duration an=
d a change to the rules stating that if you're under the counterspell and p=
ass a save you don't die but merely sink to -1 end. This would massivly inc=
rease the reasons to learn counterspells and the times they are used, even =
to the &quot;just in case&quot; level.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/17/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>RPer 4eva</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gma=
il.com</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">
<div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_10836c3c5b0a64df_0">
<div>Why not give the namers some ability to protect the party from such sp=
ells? If counterspells aren't considered enough prehaps you could learn pro=
tections against specific spells which have the same bonus to resist (only =
vs that single spell) but can be stacked with counter spells and have a muc=
h better duration. Even if they lasted an hour the namer could specificaly =
protect the party against hellfire as you hunt down the particular renegade=
. The main reason one would even consider such spells would be to protect a=
gainst save and die spells and have a duration long enough to be viable to =
keep up.=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/17/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Keith Smith</b> &lt;<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,t=
his)" href=3D"mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz" target=3D"_blank">phaeton@ihug.co.=
nz</a>
&gt; wrote:</span>=20
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>&gt;I agree with you that it=
's a function of the relative power of the<br>&gt;other spells<br>&gt;in th=
e college. The choice is to increase the other spells, which is a bit on=20
<br>&gt;the frightening side, or decrease the trouble spells.<br><br>Or, a =
third option, adding something that helps defend against the<br>troublesome=
 spells. Maybe something like the way Fire Armour helps<br>against Hellfire=
.=20
<br><br>And in a world where such tough spells existed, I would not be<br>s=
urprised to see such defenses being developed.<br><br>Keith<br><br><br>-- t=
o unsubscribe notify mailto:<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,=
event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz </a>--<br></blockquote></div><br></span></div></blo=
ckquote></div><br>

------=_Part_550_11406308.1134791018512--


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

Quoting Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>:

>
> >I agree with you that it's a function of the relative power of the
> >other spells
> >in the college. The choice is to increase the other spells, which is a bit
> on
> >the frightening side, or decrease the trouble spells.
>
> Or, a third option, adding something that helps defend against the
> troublesome spells. Maybe something like the way Fire Armour helps
> against Hellfire.
>
> And in a world where such tough spells existed, I would not be
> surprised to see such defenses being developed.

I don't want to be drawn too far afield, really. This is about finding ways to
make characters a bit more interesting...BUT:

You could do that, but realistically, the reason that we want to lower the
lethality of some spells is to make players less prone to death by a die roll.
Putting protection magic in place makes characters CONDITIONALLY survivable,
dependant on how easy it is to get hold of the protection.

The problem of balance isn't addressed until the new variable, [frequency of
protection effect] is determined. Too frequent, and you weaken the spells to
the point of uselessness. Not frequent enough, and it is no real solution.

So, what the protection magic is really doing is giving you a new dimension by
which you might control the spell(s). It doesn't actually provide you with the
control. It seems to me that it is simply deferring the means by which you
might balance things to another time. I think I would rather see something
productive done rather than endless procrastination.

Jim


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

Dear all,

i am not sure if this has come up before on these threads (i am in New Caledonia and unable to wade through 400 emails - and am having a break from the beach).

Can we consider:
double effect spells (applied to damage) adds 10 to the damage regardless of rank etc
triple effect adds 20 to the damage regardless of rank etc.

At the moment the normal spell damage is much greater than weapon damage, with doubles and triples being ott. perhaps we can limit all spell damage to a reasonable amount (62 for most and 90 for dragon flames)?

The difficulty i see is that most high level PCs have protections against these spells, that let little if any damage through from even tripled Rank 20.

Regards, Ian


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

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

> Why not give the namers some ability to protect the party from such spells?
> If counterspells aren't considered enough prehaps you could learn
> protections against specific spells which have the same bonus to resist
> (only vs that single spell) but can be stacked with counter spells and have
> a much better duration. Even if they lasted an hour the namer could
> specificaly protect the party against hellfire as you hunt down the
> particular renegade. The main reason one would even consider such spells
> would be to protect against save and die spells and have a duration long
> enough to be viable to keep up.

I don't think there's any particular need to make Namers any tougher. If
anything, I'd be keener on getting rid of some of the stuff that they have, not
add more to it.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that counterspells aren't enough. They're
ine. They do quite a lot of rather nice things.

Jim.


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

In 3.11, under Endurance Damage, the rulebook states:

"A Strike Check of 15% or less of the Modified Strike Chance results 
in damage directly affecting Endurance and which is never absorbed by armour"

Should that read  "armour .. including Natural Armour" or "armour ... 
excluding Natural Armour"?

Just so it's explicit.

Keith


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

I raed that as being very specific "never absorbed by armour" means just 
that  - NEVER.  This includes worn armour, natural armour, and magic 
armour from spells and items.  The only exception s/be when an item 
write up specifically states that it protects against endurance damage 
from endurance blows.

Scott Whitaker



Keith Smith wrote:

> In 3.11, under Endurance Damage, the rulebook states:
>
> "A Strike Check of 15% or less of the Modified Strike Chance results 
> in damage directly affecting Endurance and which is never absorbed by 
> armour"
>
> Should that read  "armour .. including Natural Armour" or "armour ... 
> excluding Natural Armour"?
>
> Just so it's explicit.
>
> Keith
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


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

Well done Keith,
that is exactly why we need minutes that include both the change and the decision.

Errol - i do not think this is a rule change, more of aligning the rule book with the official (voted) intentions.
Are you going to create an omnibus change-document (of changes to teh rule book that are not changes to the rules (clearer language, examples, corrections etc)) that we can ratify with one vote?

cheers Ian
> 
> From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>
> Date: 2005/12/17 Sat PM 02:26:27 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Character Generation
> 
> 
> >I just noticed that if you roll between 41 and 44 on your background 
> >you have none!
> 
> I went right back through the permutations of rulebooks and minutes 
> to find out when this happened.
> 
> This actually first appeared in the 1.2 rulebook printed in June 
> 1998, just after the new character generation document was accepted 
> and added. However upon checking that document, stored in the 
> minutes, the range for Goodman is 30-44. In the 1998 rulebook, it was 
> printed as 30-40.
> 
> I presume we want to fix it for this rulebook?
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

------=_Part_1942_6626192.1134817106473
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Prehaps its not possible to balance everything so that it works well agains=
t
bunnies, lows, mediums, highs and god botherers. This seeming to be the cas=
e
which groups are most populous? Prehaps we should fix it to work for them.

Dylan


On 12/17/05, dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> i am not sure if this has come up before on these threads (i am in New
> Caledonia and unable to wade through 400 emails - and am having a break f=
rom
> the beach).
>
> Can we consider:
> double effect spells (applied to damage) adds 10 to the damage regardless
> of rank etc
> triple effect adds 20 to the damage regardless of rank etc.
>
> At the moment the normal spell damage is much greater than weapon damage,
> with doubles and triples being ott. perhaps we can limit all spell damage=
 to
> a reasonable amount (62 for most and 90 for dragon flames)?
>
> The difficulty i see is that most high level PCs have protections against
> these spells, that let little if any damage through from even tripled Ran=
k
> 20.
>
> Regards, Ian
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_1942_6626192.1134817106473
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Prehaps its not possible to balance everything so that it works well a=
gainst bunnies, lows, mediums, highs and god botherers. This seeming to be =
the case which groups are most populous? Prehaps we should fix it to work f=
or them.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/17/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
><a href=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz">dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</a></b> &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz">dawnhaven@xtra.co.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">Dear all,<br><br>i am not sure i=
f this has come up before on these threads (i am in New Caledonia and unabl=
e to wade through 400 emails - and am having a break from the beach).
<br><br>Can we consider:<br>double effect spells (applied to damage) adds 1=
0 to the damage regardless of rank etc<br>triple effect adds 20 to the dama=
ge regardless of rank etc.<br><br>At the moment the normal spell damage is =
much greater than weapon damage, with doubles and triples being ott. perhap=
s we can limit all spell damage to a reasonable amount (62 for most and 90 =
for dragon flames)?
<br><br>The difficulty i see is that most high level PCs have protections a=
gainst these spells, that let little if any damage through from even triple=
d Rank 20.<br><br>Regards, Ian<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:
<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<b=
r></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_1942_6626192.1134817106473--


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