Quoting Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.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"?

Including Natural Armour, Keith.

Jim


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

Quoting dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz:


>
> 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)?

Let armour count vs magical damage as well, except against Disruption, Putrid
Wound and Necrosis.

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"?
>
>Including Natural Armour, Keith.

OK - thanks.  Just wanted to be sure.

Cause the original bestiary had natural armour absorbing x damage 
points and I have heard of some people reading that to mean absorbing 
x Endurance Damage as well.

However, I just looked in the new GMs guide and it explicitly states 
that it doesn't.

That'll do me.

Keith


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

Can someone point me at the list of master works for rank 8+ please.

Thanks

Jonathan Bean


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

------=_Part_4611_30902899.1134857412230
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

http://dq.sf.org.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf

Just found it after ages on Google.

Dylan


On 12/18/05, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Can someone point me at the list of master works for rank 8+ please.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan Bean
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_4611_30902899.1134857412230
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div><a href=3D"http://dq.sf.org.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf">http://dq.sf.org=
.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf</a></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Just found it after ages on Google.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/18/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan=
@tme.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">Can someone point me at the list=
 of master works for rank 8+ please.<br><br>Thanks<br><br>Jonathan Bean<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_4611_30902899.1134857412230--


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

------=_Part_4803_7273805.1134858489765
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Not ready to pact yet although I do believe that Uriel has large ranks in
healing and courtier (my two main skills) as well as astrology (which I am
unranked in).

As far as I know theres no specific plague although there are a lot of
injured people around. I should probably be looking more into preventing
infection before a plague starts. This though wouldn't be enough but suits
my character. She hates to see anyone suffer.

Ambas staying for 6 months in a war zone and helping with the healing looks
promising but at the same time doesn't really feel epic enough. Maybe it
could be layered ontop of something else.

Mary M teaching people lost arts sounds intriguing but I think the healers
around here are vastly more capable than they should be for there rank.
Ressurecting at rank4 etc. Maybe they need the magic because they can't do
it without it?

Overall I like the idea of working with big things alot. The extra power
needed to heal such large things and the strengthening of the power through
such intensive use. The idea of curing infections that would be strong
enough to kill any human etc but because of the storm giants being so big
and tough they're still holding on. Also since I can spend wp as fatigue I
can do far more healing at once than most healers. Thats probably quite
significant. Not only can I do much more healing at once than most people
but I can heal for much longer in a row than most. for example 29 hours to
heal bones. I can do that in a single stretch.

Also a massive use of preserve dead . . . possibly on our party hirer among
others could work. Even if I had to keep some of them preserved until I'd
learned ressurect. I wonder if theres a record for how long someone has bee=
n
preserved. A variant of prolong life could also be cool. There must be some
mighty war leader out there who's needed for longer than he's likely to
stick around. Maybe a military scientist who plans great campaigns for
example.

I'm quite keen to do something different and worth talking about. Also
something I can be proud of as Lizette. She's very pure of heart and very
keen to prevent pain and suffering. She doesn't however consider most undea=
d
or constructs to be truly alive and so they don't factor into her feelings.
I guess you could get her to overcome some of these feelings by creating a
type of undead that at least one of her abilities work on. Although it'd
probably take a while to convince her that an undead could suffer letalone
the fact its worthy of being helped.

Dylan


On 12/18/05, RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://dq.sf.org.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf
>
> Just found it after ages on Google.
>
> Dylan
>
>
>  On 12/18/05, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Can someone point me at the list of master works for rank 8+ please.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jonathan Bean
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>

------=_Part_4803_7273805.1134858489765
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Not ready to pact yet although I do believe that Uriel has large ranks=
 in healing and courtier (my two main skills) as well as astrology (which I=
 am unranked in).</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>As far as I know theres no specific plague although there are a lot of=
 injured people around. I should probably be looking more into preventing i=
nfection before a plague starts. This though wouldn't be enough but suits m=
y character. She hates to see anyone suffer.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Ambas staying for 6 months in a war zone and helping with the healing =
looks promising but at the same time doesn't really feel epic enough. Maybe=
 it could be layered ontop of something else.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Mary M teaching people lost arts sounds intriguing but I think the hea=
lers around here are vastly more capable than they should be for there rank=
. Ressurecting at rank4 etc. Maybe they need the magic because they can't d=
o it without it?
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Overall I like the idea of working with big things alot. The extra pow=
er needed to heal such large things and the strengthening of the power thro=
ugh such intensive use. The idea of curing infections that would be strong =
enough to kill any human etc but because of the storm giants being so big a=
nd tough they're still holding on. Also since I can spend wp as fatigue I c=
an do far more healing at once than most healers. Thats probably quite sign=
ificant. Not only can I do much more healing at once than most people but I=
 can heal for much longer in a row than most. for example 29 hours to heal =
bones. I can do that in a single stretch.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Also a massive use of preserve dead . . . possibly on our party hirer =
among others could work. Even if I had to keep some of them preserved until=
 I'd learned ressurect. I wonder if theres a record for how long someone ha=
s been preserved. A variant of prolong life could also be cool. There must =
be some mighty war leader out there who's needed for longer than he's likel=
y to stick around. Maybe a military scientist who plans great campaigns for=
 example.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I'm quite keen to do something different and worth talking about. Also=
 something I can be proud of as Lizette. She's very pure of heart and very =
keen to prevent pain and suffering. She doesn't however consider most undea=
d or constructs to be truly alive and so they don't factor into her feeling=
s. I guess you could get her to overcome some of these feelings by creating=
 a type of undead that at least one of her abilities work on. Although it'd=
 probably take a while to convince her that an undead could suffer letalone=
 the fact its worthy of being helped.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/18/05, <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><a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"ht=
tp://dq.sf.org.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf" target=3D"_blank">http://dq.sf.org=
.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf</a></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Just found it after ages on Google.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_1083ac5de257b8ed_1">
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/18/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window=
,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz" target=3D"_blank">Jonathan=
@tme.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">Can someone point me at the list=
 of master works for rank 8+ please.<br><br>Thanks<br><br>Jonathan Bean<br>
<br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExt=
Link(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></d=
iv>
</blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_4803_7273805.1134858489765--


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

------=_Part_4815_5206885.1134858662009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Doh. Hit reply on the wrong message. Sorry about that.

Dylan

On 12/18/05, RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not ready to pact yet although I do believe that Uriel has large ranks in
> healing and courtier (my two main skills) as well as astrology (which I a=
m
> unranked in).
>
> As far as I know theres no specific plague although there are a lot of
> injured people around. I should probably be looking more into preventing
> infection before a plague starts. This though wouldn't be enough but suit=
s
> my character. She hates to see anyone suffer.
>
> Ambas staying for 6 months in a war zone and helping with the healing
> looks promising but at the same time doesn't really feel epic enough. May=
be
> it could be layered ontop of something else.
>
> Mary M teaching people lost arts sounds intriguing but I think the healer=
s
> around here are vastly more capable than they should be for there rank.
> Ressurecting at rank4 etc. Maybe they need the magic because they can't d=
o
> it without it?
>
> Overall I like the idea of working with big things alot. The extra power
> needed to heal such large things and the strengthening of the power throu=
gh
> such intensive use. The idea of curing infections that would be strong
> enough to kill any human etc but because of the storm giants being so big
> and tough they're still holding on. Also since I can spend wp as fatigue =
I
> can do far more healing at once than most healers. Thats probably quite
> significant. Not only can I do much more healing at once than most people
> but I can heal for much longer in a row than most. for example 29 hours t=
o
> heal bones. I can do that in a single stretch.
>
> Also a massive use of preserve dead . . . possibly on our party hirer
> among others could work. Even if I had to keep some of them preserved unt=
il
> I'd learned ressurect. I wonder if theres a record for how long someone h=
as
> been preserved. A variant of prolong life could also be cool. There must =
be
> some mighty war leader out there who's needed for longer than he's likely=
 to
> stick around. Maybe a military scientist who plans great campaigns for
> example.
>
> I'm quite keen to do something different and worth talking about. Also
> something I can be proud of as Lizette. She's very pure of heart and very
> keen to prevent pain and suffering. She doesn't however consider most und=
ead
> or constructs to be truly alive and so they don't factor into her feeling=
s.
> I guess you could get her to overcome some of these feelings by creating =
a
> type of undead that at least one of her abilities work on. Although it'd
> probably take a while to convince her that an undead could suffer letalon=
e
> the fact its worthy of being helped.
>
> Dylan
>

------=_Part_4815_5206885.1134858662009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Doh. Hit reply on the wrong message. Sorry about that.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/18/05, <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>Not ready to pact yet although I do believe that Uriel has large ranks=
 in healing and courtier (my two main skills) as well as astrology (which I=
 am unranked in).</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>As far as I know theres no specific plague although there are a lot of=
 injured people around. I should probably be looking more into preventing i=
nfection before a plague starts. This though wouldn't be enough but suits m=
y character. She hates to see anyone suffer.=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Ambas staying for 6 months in a war zone and helping with the healing =
looks promising but at the same time doesn't really feel epic enough. Maybe=
 it could be layered ontop of something else.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Mary M teaching people lost arts sounds intriguing but I think the hea=
lers around here are vastly more capable than they should be for there rank=
. Ressurecting at rank4 etc. Maybe they need the magic because they can't d=
o it without it?=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Overall I like the idea of working with big things alot. The extra pow=
er needed to heal such large things and the strengthening of the power thro=
ugh such intensive use. The idea of curing infections that would be strong =
enough to kill any human etc but because of the storm giants being so big a=
nd tough they're still holding on. Also since I can spend wp as fatigue I c=
an do far more healing at once than most healers. Thats probably quite sign=
ificant. Not only can I do much more healing at once than most people but I=
 can heal for much longer in a row than most. for example 29 hours to heal =
bones. I can do that in a single stretch.=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Also a massive use of preserve dead . . . possibly on our party hirer =
among others could work. Even if I had to keep some of them preserved until=
 I'd learned ressurect. I wonder if theres a record for how long someone ha=
s been preserved. A variant of prolong life could also be cool. There must =
be some mighty war leader out there who's needed for longer than he's likel=
y to stick around. Maybe a military scientist who plans great campaigns for=
 example.=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I'm quite keen to do something different and worth talking about. Also=
 something I can be proud of as Lizette. She's very pure of heart and very =
keen to prevent pain and suffering. She doesn't however consider most undea=
d or constructs to be truly alive and so they don't factor into her feeling=
s. I guess you could get her to overcome some of these feelings by creating=
 a type of undead that at least one of her abilities work on. Although it'd=
 probably take a while to convince her that an undead could suffer letalone=
 the fact its worthy of being helped.=20
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan</div></blockquote></div>

------=_Part_4815_5206885.1134858662009--


-- 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_01C60362.F77A6FB4
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

I'm not sure 'ratify with one vote' is a good term, as it will have to
happen on the list.

What I plan to do once the actual rule changes are properly written up is go
though the other changes that fix inconsistencies, adjust wording to clarify
intent etc.

Anything that might be perceived as a rule change I'll highlight, giving
justifications for the change (e.g. rituals backfire on +30, some places say
+40, Rulebook history makes it clear that +30 is correct). This will give
people an easy opportunity to challenge or correct anything that might cause
arguments later.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2005 23:30
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Character Generation
> 
> 
> 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 --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C60362.F77A6FB4
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>Rulebook fixes (was Character Generation)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm not sure 'ratify with one vote' is a good term, =
as it will have to happen on the list.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What I plan to do once the actual rule changes are =
properly written up is go though the other changes that fix =
inconsistencies, adjust wording to clarify intent etc.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Anything that might be perceived as a rule change =
I'll highlight, giving justifications for the change (e.g. rituals =
backfire on +30, some places say +40, Rulebook history makes it clear =
that +30 is correct). This will give people an easy opportunity to =
challenge or correct anything that might cause arguments =
later.</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz">mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</A>]</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2005 23:30</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Character Generation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Well done Keith,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; that is exactly why we need minutes that =
include both the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; change and the decision.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Errol - i do not think this is a rule change, =
more of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; aligning the rule book with the official =
(voted) intentions.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Are you going to create an omnibus =
change-document (of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; changes to teh rule book that are not changes =
to the rules </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; (clearer language, examples, corrections etc)) =
that we can </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ratify with one vote?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; cheers Ian</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; From: Keith Smith =
&lt;phaeton@ihug.co.nz&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Date: 2005/12/17 Sat PM 02:26:27 =
GMT+13:00</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Character =
Generation</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;I just noticed that if you roll =
between 41 and 44 on your </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; background </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;you have none!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; I went right back through the permutations =
of rulebooks and minutes </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; to find out when this happened.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; This actually first appeared in the 1.2 =
rulebook printed in June </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; 1998, just after the new character =
generation document was accepted </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; and added. However upon checking that =
document, stored in the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; minutes, the range for Goodman is 30-44. =
In the 1998 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; rulebook, it was </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; printed as 30-40.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; I presume we want to fix it for this =
rulebook?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Keith</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C60362.F77A6FB4--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C603EB.473680F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rulebook fixes (was Character Generation)Hi All,

Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new Air
College came in) is to be included with this rule book?

Since it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and the old table
has been in use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue?
Or do we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known
issues with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the
new weather table into play (as it should have been since 1999ish).

Jonathan Bean

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C603EB.473680F0
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><TITLE>Rulebook fixes (was Character Generation)</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Hi=20
All,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Errol=20
do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new&nbsp;Air =
College=20
came in) is to be included with this rule book?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Since=20
it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and the old table has =
been in=20
use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the =
issue?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Or do=20
we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known =
issues=20
with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the =
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>new=20
weather table into play (as it should have been since=20
1999ish).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jonathan Bean</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C603EB.473680F0--


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

------=_Part_5719_23337541.1134875310255
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I don't know if it was deliberatly removed but the old version of the rules
used to contain a fairly comprehensive list of names that all namers new. I=
t
was about half a page of names with 4 or 5 columns and was useful in
deciding which names to rank. That list diversified the names that I learne=
d
since it listed a great many I'd never have thought of. Due to it I have a
rank in oak tree. While that one might never come in handy it was still a
great thing to have in the book. Could we add that back in?

Dylan


On 12/18/05, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new Air
> College came in) is to be included with this rule book?
>
> Since it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and the old tabl=
e
> has been in use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue?
> Or do we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of
> known issues with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the
> new weather table into play (as it should have been since 1999ish).
>
> Jonathan Bean
>
>

------=_Part_5719_23337541.1134875310255
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I don't know if it was deliberatly removed but the old version of the =
rules used to contain a fairly comprehensive list of names that all namers =
new. It was about half a page of names with 4 or 5 columns and was useful i=
n deciding which names to rank. That list diversified the names that I lear=
ned since it listed a great many I'd never have thought of. Due to it I hav=
e a rank in oak tree. While that one might never come in handy it was still=
 a great thing to have in the book. Could we add that back in?
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/18/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan=
@tme.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">
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">Hi All,</font>=
</span></div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"></font></span>=
&nbsp;</div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">Errol do you k=
now if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new&nbsp;Air College cam=
e in) is to be included with this rule book?</font></span></div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"></font></span>=
&nbsp;</div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">Since it has b=
een missed out from the rules for so long, and the old table has been in us=
e as standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue?</font></span></div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">Or do we want =
to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known issues with =
the old weather table - that we are happy to put the </font></span></div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">new weather ta=
ble into play (as it should have been since 1999ish).</font></span></div><s=
pan class=3D"sg">
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"></font></span>=
&nbsp;</div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">Jonathan Bean<=
/font></span></div>
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"></font></span>=
&nbsp;</div></span></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_5719_23337541.1134875310255--


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

*A notice is placed on the pub noticeboard - It reads*

"Mechanician, specialising in Optiks, required for the Manufacture of 
a Suitable Instrument for Observing the Starry Heavens.  Applicants, 
please contact Brother Phaeton at the New Seagate Clinic of Diencecht."


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-pub-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_01C6038C.C00B438A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

The Rulebook isn't the best place for this information.
It is on the Wiki, and (I assume) the new Player's Guide. The info could be
tidied up a bit, it isn't perfect.
http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Names
<http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Names> 
 
Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of RPer
4eva
Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2005 16:09
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather table


I don't know if it was deliberatly removed but the old version of the rules
used to contain a fairly comprehensive list of names that all namers new. It
was about half a page of names with 4 or 5 columns and was useful in
deciding which names to rank. That list diversified the names that I learned
since it listed a great many I'd never have thought of. Due to it I have a
rank in oak tree. While that one might never come in handy it was still a
great thing to have in the book. Could we add that back in? 
 
Dylan

 
On 12/18/05, Jonathan Bean - TME < Jonathan@tme.co.nz
<mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz> > wrote: 

Hi All,
 
Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new Air
College came in) is to be included with this rule book?
 
Since it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and the old table
has been in use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue?
Or do we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known
issues with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the 
new weather table into play (as it should have been since 1999ish).

 
Jonathan Bean
 



------_=_NextPart_001_01C6038C.C00B438A
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 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=277283104-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The 
Rulebook isn't the best place for this information.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=277283104-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It is 
on the Wiki, and (I assume) the new Player's Guide. The info could be tidied up 
a bit, it isn't perfect.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=277283104-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><A 
href="http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Names">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Names</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=277283104-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=277283104-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=277283104-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></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> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of</B> RPer 4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B> 
  Sunday, 18 December 2005 16:09<BR><B>To:</B> 
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather 
  table<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>I don't know if it was deliberatly removed but the old version of the 
  rules used to contain a fairly comprehensive list of names that all namers 
  new. It was about half a page of names with 4 or 5 columns and was useful in 
  deciding which names to rank. That list diversified the names that I learned 
  since it listed a great many I'd never have thought of. Due to it I have a 
  rank in oak tree. While that one might never come in handy it was still a 
  great thing to have in the book. Could we add that back in? </DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan<BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 12/18/05, <B class=gmail_sendername>Jonathan 
  Bean - TME</B> &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</A>&gt; wrote:</SPAN> 
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote 
  style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Hi All,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Errol do you know if the 
    'missed weather table' (missed when the new&nbsp;Air College came in) is to 
    be included with this rule book?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Since it has been missed 
    out from the rules for so long, and the old table has been in use as 
    standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Or do we want to say that 
    since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known issues with the old 
    weather table - that we are happy to put the </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>new weather table into play 
    (as it should have been since 1999ish).</FONT></SPAN></DIV><SPAN class=sg>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Jonathan 
    Bean</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
    size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6038C.C00B438A--


-- 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_01C603BC.51673F76
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi everyone.
 
Could we please hold off on non-rulebook issues for a day or two until a
couple of things impacting the rulebook (brought up in the last week) are
addressed?
 
There is a limit to the number of emails most people are prepared to read
per day. I need the list's input on a couple of things if we are to avoid
problems later on. So please hold off on the topics that have generated 300+
posts in the last week until Wednesday.
 
Thanks
 
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C603BC.51673F76
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

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


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=307230410-18122005>Hi 
everyone.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=307230410-18122005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=307230410-18122005>Could 
we please hold off on non-rulebook issues for a day or two until a couple of 
things impacting the rulebook (brought up in the last week) are 
addressed?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=307230410-18122005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=307230410-18122005>There 
is a limit to the number of emails most people are prepared to read per day. I 
need the list's input on a couple of things if we are to avoid problems later 
on. So please hold off on the topics that have generated 300+ posts in the last 
week until Wednesday.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=307230410-18122005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=307230410-18122005>Thanks</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=307230410-18122005></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=307230410-18122005>Errol</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C603BC.51673F76--


-- 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_01C603BD.3E78B27C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Weaponsmith:

Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and
gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where =
weapons
are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.
This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is
applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times =
the
cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 =
DM
starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied by 13 =
for
the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost =
of
159,120sp.

We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the
example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the =
weapon.

I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!

Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from =
the
list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised =
formula in,
along with a good example.


So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% =
of
the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is
silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by =
multiplying
the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180)*, and applying the =
standard
80% factor.
*(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank
applied calculation)

A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp

80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056

A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80

80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80

The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.


What says the list?
I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval.


Cheers
Errol

PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers
PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf =
Of
> Struan Judd
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong
>=20
>=20
> Plus additional armourer changes are required.
>=20
> First the Armourer changes:
> There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the
> cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).
>=20
> I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the
> silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated
> cost, ie. the formula is:
>   80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if
> any) silver pennies.
>=20
> Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the
> text in line with the equation not the other way round.
>=20
> My main reason is the innate value of the weapon:
> Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:
> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and =
Truesilvered
> - 1,904 sp
> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:
> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and =
Truesilvered
> - 16,184 sp
>=20
> whereas with the proposed new calculation:
> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:
> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and
> Truesilvered - 18,720 sp
> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:
> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and =
Truesilvered
> - 159,120 sp
>=20
> Just far too much.
>=20
> I repeat:
>=20
> The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the
> equation not the other way round.
>=20
> TTFN, Struan
>=20
>=20
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01C603BD.3E78B27C
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>RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Weaponsmith:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make =
silvered (and gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high =
values where weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, =
x120, or x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - =
itself up to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 =
Hand and a half with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). =
It is then multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and =
multiplied again by 180, to give a cost of 159,120sp.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last =
week because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill =
applied to the weapon.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in =
words, get the OK from the list to include it in the March 2006 =
Rulebook, and put a revised formula in, along with a good =
example.</FONT></P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon =
is unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM =
increase). If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a =
cost calculated by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or =
180)*, and applying the standard 80% factor.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>*(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the =
weaponsmith rank applied calculation)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then =
comes out at 13,056sp</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D =
13,056</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is =
80</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The exact wording and formula presentation can be =
improved.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What says the list?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'll only go ahead with overwhelming =
approval.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most =
people</FONT>
</P>

<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; Struan Judd</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are =
wrong</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Plus additional armourer changes are =
required.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; First the Armourer changes:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; There is no mention of of how Silvering and =
Truesilvering adjusts the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are =
making (or repairing).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I have a memory of this being discussed and =
resolved to be that the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; silvering and truesilvering costs are added to =
the final calculated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; cost, ie. the formula is:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank =
+ 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; any) silver pennies.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change =
should be to bring the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; text in line with the equation not the other =
way round.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; My main reason is the innate value of the =
weapon:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger =
would cost:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - =
1,304 sp and Truesilvered</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; - 1,904 sp</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would =
cost:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - =
11,084 and Truesilvered</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; - 16,184 sp</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; whereas with the proposed new =
calculation:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - =
12,480 sp and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Truesilvered - 18,720 sp</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would =
cost:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - =
106,080 and Truesilvered</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; - 159,120 sp</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Just far too much.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I repeat:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the =
text in line with the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; equation not the other way round.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; TTFN, Struan</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C603BD.3E78B27C--


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

------=_Part_6824_23976141.1134902376812
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Sounds good to me. Still prevents you starting with anything too flash but
with a bit of luck you can have a reasonable weapon for your second
adventure if thats important to your character.

Dylan


On 12/18/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Weaponsmith:
>
> Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and
> gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where weapon=
s
> are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.
>
> This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is
> applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times th=
e
> cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM
> starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied by 13 fo=
r
> the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost o=
f
> 159,120sp.
>
> We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the
> example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon=
.
>
> I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!
>
> Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from th=
e
> list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula =
in,
> along with a good example.
>
> So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% o=
f
> the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is
> silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by multiply=
ing
> the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180)*, and applying the standard
> 80% factor.
>
> *(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank
> applied calculation)
>
> A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp
>
> 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056
>
> A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80
>
> 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80
>
> The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.
>
> What says the list?
> I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval.
>
> Cheers
> Errol
>
> PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers
> PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz<dq-owner@dq.s=
f.org.nz>]On
> Behalf Of
> > Struan Judd
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong
> >
> >
> > Plus additional armourer changes are required.
> >
> > First the Armourer changes:
> > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the
> > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).
> >
> > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the
> > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated
> > cost, ie. the formula is:
> >   80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if
> > any) silver pennies.
> >
> > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the
> > text in line with the equation not the other way round.
> >
> > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon:
> > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:
> > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered
> > - 1,904 sp
> > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:
> > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered
> > - 16,184 sp
> >
> > whereas with the proposed new calculation:
> > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:
> > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and
> > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp
> > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:
> > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered
> > - 159,120 sp
> >
> > Just far too much.
> >
> > I repeat:
> >
> > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the
> > equation not the other way round.
> >
> > TTFN, Struan
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz<dq-request@dq.s=
f.org.nz>--
> >
>

------=_Part_6824_23976141.1134902376812
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Sounds good to me. Still prevents you starting with anything too flash=
 but with a bit of luck you can have a reasonable weapon for your second ad=
venture if thats important to your character.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/18/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"=
>Errol Cavit</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.c=
o.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">
<p><font size=3D"2">Weaponsmith:</font> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silver=
ed (and gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where =
weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.</font></p>
<p><font size=3D"2">This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x=
120, or x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up=
 to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a ha=
lf with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multi=
plied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to=
 give a cost of 159,120sp.
</font></p>
<p><font size=3D"2">We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last w=
eek because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied=
 to the weapon.</font></p>
<p><font size=3D"2">I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!</font> </p=
>
<p><font size=3D"2">Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, =
get the OK from the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put =
a revised formula in, along with a good example.</font></p><br>
<p><font size=3D"2">So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon i=
s unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). =
If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculate=
d by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180)*, and applyi=
ng the standard 80% factor.
</font></p>
<p><font size=3D"2">*(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the w=
eaponsmith rank applied calculation)</font> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes =
out at 13,056sp</font> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056</font>=
 </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80</fon=
t> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80</font> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">The exact wording and formula presentation can be impro=
ved.</font> </p><br>
<p><font size=3D"2">What says the list?</font> <br><font size=3D"2">I'll on=
ly go ahead with overwhelming approval.</font> </p><br>
<p><font size=3D"2">Cheers</font> <br><font size=3D"2">Errol</font> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers</font> <b=
r><font size=3D"2">PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most peop=
le</font> </p>
<p><font size=3D"2">&gt; -----Original Message-----</font> <br><font size=
=3D"2">&gt; From: <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this=
)" href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.o=
rg.nz</a>
 [<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailt=
o:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>=
]On Behalf Of</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Struan Judd</font> <br><font=
 size=3D"2">
&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt;=
 To: <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"ma=
ilto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a></font> <br><fon=
t size=3D"2">
&gt; Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong</font> <br><font size=
=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&g=
t; Plus additional armourer changes are required.</font> <br><font size=3D"=
2">&gt;=20
</font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; First the Armourer changes:</font> <br><fo=
nt size=3D"2">&gt; There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilverin=
g adjusts the</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; cost to the Armourer of the =
Armour they are making (or repairing).
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; I have a=
 memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the</font> <br><fon=
t size=3D"2">&gt; silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final =
calculated
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; cost, ie. the formula is:</font> <br><fon=
t size=3D"2">&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (T=
rue)Silvering cost (if</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; any) silver pennies=
.</font> <br><font size=3D"2">
&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith =
change should be to bring the</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; text in line=
 with the equation not the other way round.</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt=
;=20
</font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; My main reason is the innate value of the =
weapon:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 D=
mg Dagger would cost:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Normal - 104 sp, Sil=
vered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; - 1,904 sp</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&g=
t; and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:</font> <br><font si=
ze=3D"2">&gt; Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Tru=
esilvered
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; - 16,184 sp</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&=
gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; whereas with the proposed new calculat=
ion:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:</fo=
nt>=20
<br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,=
480 sp and</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Truesilvered - 18,720 sp</font>=
 <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would c=
ost:
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gild=
ed - 106,080 and Truesilvered</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; - 159,120 sp=
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; Just far=
 too much.
</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; I repeat=
:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; The Wea=
ponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the</font> <br><fo=
nt size=3D"2">
&gt; equation not the other way round.</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </f=
ont><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; TTFN, Struan</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt;=
 </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">&gt; -- to un=
subscribe notify=20
<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:=
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
a> --</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt; </font></p></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_6824_23976141.1134902376812--


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