Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> LOL, oh I see now your opinion has much more weight than mine, what was I
> thinking!

I don't know. What were you thinking?

>
> Actually, as it happens I have run some DQ sessions, and alot of other stuff
> in other systems. Martin also seemed to like the idea, and hes probably run
> more DQ games than you. Does that invalidate your opinion?

No, but I am certainly more inclined to listen to him. And, I have. In my
experience, I do not think that a solution such as you have proposed will
provide the required degree of utility because the situation where it becomes
conditional is infrequent.

Jim.


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

Quoting Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>
> >From: Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
>
> >At 17:55 17/01/06, you wrote:
> >>Personally I don't see the spell as being that bad.
> >>The spell is a special knowledge spell that isn't
> >>useful in every situation... so it means that its
> >>there as an option and nothng more. Last I heard there
> >>was a string complaining about how Necro's only cast
> >>Necrosis in combat... how can they be casting Necrosis
> >>and Agony at the same time?
> >
> >They don't - Agony has a duration of 10 seconds +10/Rank so Mr Cunning NPC
> >Necromancer drops an Agony first to soften up the party and follows that up
> >with Necrosis...
> >
> >Jacqui
>
> I do believe the piont was that one of the main contenions with Necrocisis
> bieng overpowered, from the original thread, was that it was th only spell
> that a necro would cast because it was too good. And as Zane is trying to
> point out this argument, at least in the case of Necrosis is
> wrong/false/can't hold water.


No, this is inaccurate. The argument about Necrosis and the other spells is not
that it is the only spell you ever cast, it is that the range of spells you
cast is severely limited. Wiccans might, on occasion, cast Earth Tremor, air
mages might, on occasion, cast Knockout Gas, etc.

The fact is, however, that the spells mentioned have such huge functional
utility that in general little else is cast. It may have actually been said
that 'the only spell you ever cast in combat is hellfire' or some such, but
what was meant, and it was pretty damned clear to anyone who had been following
the thread, was that few other spells were cast.

>
> I don't think he was actually asking about casting two spells at once,
> mearly highlighting the flawed argument and trying to direct the thread back
> on topic.

It is only a flawed argument if you stick pedantically to the the wording. If
you are reading for meaning, it's pretty clear what was intended.

In any case, this is not a discussion about whether or not
hellfire/necrosis/whirlwind vortex create a boring situation. It is not about
what effect such a spell might have in the player's hands, either.

It is about what effect the spell has in the hands of NPCs.

Any role playing game that involves a story is about seeing how a player
character reacts when faced with some kind of challenge. Agony, in particular,
generates more tedium than most, because if the resistance roll is failed, the
pc doesn't get anything other than pass actions. If they make their resistance
roll, they only have half of their normal number of actions. It does not apply
a penalty to actions, or circumscribe a narrow range of actions. It cuts out
huge chunks of them.

Agony is marginally better than death, mind you. But not much.

Jim


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

Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>:

> Jim,
> Please stop using arguments from authority. You know why they are
> flawed, and they detract from your ideas.

There's nothing wrong with arguing from authority. There is something flawed
with arguing from authority if you don't have the experience to back it up. It
is not a defining argument, granted, but experience is a valid a form of
evidence when weighing different opinions.
>
> Yup, I do it as well at times, and get slapped down when I do. And I
> deserve it.

As I said, you have to have the experience to back it up.

Jim.


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

At 15:40 17/01/06, you wrote:
>I think it is entirely appropriate for Agony to be a binarily resistable 
>spell,
>with no effect as a result of a successful saving throw, and where resist pain
>contributes meaningfully to the chance to resist is entirely reasonable.

So, something like this....

Agony (S-1)
Range: 15 feet + 5/Rank
Duration: Concentration; maximum of 10 seconds + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 350
Base Chance: 10%
Resist: Active, Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Area
Effects: This spell causes all living entities (except the Adept) in the 
affected area who fail to resist to suffer extreme agony.
Entities who fail to resist must reduce their initiative by twice the rank 
of the spell, and make a once times willpower check to take any other than 
a non-magical pass action for the duration of the spell, or until such time 
as they leave the area of effect.
Mind Mages gain a bonus to resistance versus this spell and to their 
willpower check equal to 5% + 2 × Rank with their Talent of Resisting Pain.

Such changes would weaken the spell considerably - and consequently an 
increase in base chance and reduction in EM might be appropriate. However, 
if the PC necromancer beefs his companions with counterspells, they should 
resist - which makes the spell much more user-friendly.

Jacqui


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

So despite all the Waffle lets focus on the Problem Big spells. 

Hellfire a couple of suggestions have been raised. 

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

2. Leave Hellfire as it is, but make it a single target only spell.
Introduce a save for none, area of effect damage spell.
(Jim)

3. Depower as per one of the above options and increase the number of
targets of Damnum minatum and Evil Eye. 
(Bernard)

That is all I can find from the list discussions over the past months.
Are there any other possible solutions people can see. Likes/Dislikes of
the above solutions. 

Mandos
/s


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

Of the solutions my preferance is for options 2 and 3. Bump up the two
little used attack spells and drop hellfire to single target or even the
megahex varient Mark has proposed. 
Having seen someone with multitarget damnum minatum I would suggest
restricting the targets to 1+ 1/5 ranks or something similar, but it
definatly helps give another casting option to the mage. 

Mandos
/s


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

For Necro's the proposed solutions have been. 

1. Make Necrosis resist for none and Stream of corruption Resist for
half. 

2. Make Necrosis Single target and combine life draining and hand of
death. 

That is all I can find from the list discussions over the past months.
Are there any other possible solutions people can see. Likes/Dislikes of
the above solutions. 

Mandos
/s


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

> 1. Make Necrosis resist for none and Stream of corruption 
> Resist for half. 

This seems the easiest and balances the college nicely by depowering
Necrosis and lifting Stream of Corruption it gives Necros four good
attack spells each with strengths and weaknesses. 

Mandos
/s


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

For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been to make the
spell single target. 

That is all I can find from the list discussions over the past months.
Are there any other possible solutions people can see. Likes/Dislikes of
the above solutions. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

>
> For Necro's the proposed solutions have been.
>
> 1. Make Necrosis resist for none and Stream of corruption Resist for
> half.
>
> 2. Make Necrosis Single target.

3. Combine life draining and hand of death into one spell


I don't think that 2 and 3 need be exclusive, either.

Jim.


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

Doesn't this give Necro a general Resist for half bolt? Isn't this a bit
OTT for a bolt?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 10:12 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Necro


> 1. Make Necrosis resist for none and Stream of corruption
> Resist for half. 

This seems the easiest and balances the college nicely by depowering
Necrosis and lifting Stream of Corruption it gives Necros four good
attack spells each with strengths and weaknesses. 

Mandos
/s


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

> Doesn't this give Necro a general Resist for half bolt? Isn't 
> this a bit OTT for a bolt?

Stream of Corruption is a Special knowledge spell similar to
Dragonflames but with less damage. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

> > 1. Make Necrosis resist for none and Stream of corruption
> > Resist for half.
>
> This seems the easiest and balances the college nicely by depowering
> Necrosis and lifting Stream of Corruption it gives Necros four good
> attack spells each with strengths and weaknesses.

Where possible, I would prefer that area of effect spells are entirely
resistable with respect to damage, possibly with some niusance level secondary
effect (cf Blackfire).

Also, I see the need for high damage spells at the medium to high end of the
game.

That said, this is just a preference.

Jim


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

> Where possible, I would prefer that area of effect spells are 
> entirely resistable with respect to damage, possibly with 
> some niusance level secondary effect (cf Blackfire).

I would strongly suggest that the secondary effects of Blackfire are far
from nuisance level, but ignoring that diversion, I think the area
effect spells are the more difficult to use and target therefore making
them perfect candidates for Resist for half. 

> Also, I see the need for high damage spells at the medium to 
> high end of the game.

Necrosis will still be doing lots of damage to lots of targets, it will
just be resistable. 

> That said, this is just a preference.

What would you prefer to see as an alternate option?

Mandos
/s


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

I presume we're talking about a new special. Making the existing GK
spell multitarget would be just scary.

In the case of Dmin, it might make sense for the number of targets to be
rank-independent, or increase slowly with rank (e.g. 3+1/6 ranks.) At
low to medium ranks, the effects aren't spectacular. (Sorry for no
examples - I don't have rules, and didn't find them on the guild library
site.) I'd make it so a single cast has to have the same effect on all
targets (can't mute one person and blind another.)

At high ranks, it would be a very capable combat spell, with a good
range of advantages and limitations. I'd rate it as similar in power to
a multi-target save-for-none damage spell for deciding BC and EM. It is
effectively save-or-be-out-of-combat, as a mute mage or a blind fighter
can't achieve much, but, unlike death, it is fairly easy to "get
better." Mass Sleep would be the closest match - more disabling, but
easier to remove than mass D.Min. Wiccan SK counter would become a
must-have spell for high level adventurers and bad guys. Are there any
guidelines about which minor curses affect undead, golems, demons?

I've used D. Min. as my principle combat spell (Anathea). It is OK up to
medium level, but pretty ineffective after that - they resist, or are
immune due to being undead etc. Usually creating restoratives was a more
useful thing to do during combat.



On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 09:53, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:
> Of the solutions my preferance is for options 2 and 3. Bump up the two
> little used attack spells and drop hellfire to single target or even the
> megahex varient Mark has proposed. 
> Having seen someone with multitarget damnum minatum I would suggest
> restricting the targets to 1+ 1/5 ranks or something similar, but it
> definatly helps give another casting option to the mage. 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

So is this what we're looking for with Necrosis? I couldn't think of a real 
reason (other than the historical) for Necrosis to be multiple target. It's 
such a internal form of damage that single target has the right feel. The 
result is comparable (though doing more damage and having a lower base 
chance) to Mind College Disruption.

Necrosis (S-9)
Range:15 feet + 15 / Rank
Duration: Immediate
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 5%
Resist: Active, Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Entity
Effects:This spell causes the target entity to suffer [D+1] (+2/Rank) 
damage in the form of internal hemorrhaging and rotting. If a target 
resists, they suffer only half damage (round up). Wounds inflicted by this 
spell will automatically be infected. Double damage adds an additional 
1/Rank damage and triple damage adds an additional 2/Rank damage.

Jacqui


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

Last weekend Ben and I had a discussion of the general topic on the
way to/from Goat Island. the general though was that more than two of
(Long range, High Damage, Multi-target, Resist for Half) was over
powered.

So we played around with some changed spells ideas.

Anyway with resp

On 1/18/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
> For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been to make the
> spell single target.

Yes and also give them a multi-target medium-ranged spell.

Proposed was:

Lightning Storm
Range: 10 feet + 10 / Rank
Duration: Immediate
Experience Multiple: 350
Base Chance: 30%
Resist: Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Entities
Effects: The caster launches a cascade of lightning upwards.
It then either crackles along the ceiling/roof or arcs through the
air and strikes up to 1 (+1 per 4 full Ranks) entities causing
[D - 1] (+ 1 per 2 full Ranks) electrical damage to each target.
If any target successfully resists no damage is caused.
All the targets must be within an area of radius 5 (+1 per Rank) feet.
If cast under the open sky both the range and the area radius
are doubled. If an affect self or affect nearby friendly backfire result
ocurrs as many friendly targets as possible will be selected, centered
on the backfire target entity.

> That is all I can find from the list discussions over the past months.
> Are there any other possible solutions people can see. Likes/Dislikes of
> the above solutions.

TTFN, Struan.


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

On 1/18/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
> > Where possible, I would prefer that area of effect spells are
> > entirely resistable with respect to damage, possibly with
> > some niusance level secondary effect (cf Blackfire).
>
> I would strongly suggest that the secondary effects of Blackfire are far
> from nuisance level, but ignoring that diversion, I think the area
> effect spells are the more difficult to use and target therefore making
> them perfect candidates for Resist for half.

I must disagree.

"Area of Effect" is almost as powerful as "Multiple discreet targets"
and as such should generally not be combined with "Resist for Half"

Then again I consider "Resist for Half" to be the most potent of the
spell attributes.

TTFN, Struan.


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

Subject: Re: [dq] Agony and windstorm.

As a player of 7 years and not a GM I have experienced windstorm 2 times in
Med/high High games being used against the party.  It was OK.  Sure some
characters kept getting knocked down, but in fact the combats are memorable
because they where different.  The challenges we were facing were different
to what I had come to normally expect combat to be.

Picture a castle with open chamber on top of mountain, with windstorm
blowing all around it. 

This is Good.  It might be boring or frustrating if it happened every time
but it doesn't.

Agony on the other hand I have not experienced except in peripheral ways.
Is this proof that it's broken and windstorm is not - probably not.  I just
can't comment on it.

I think the Gm's face a challenge to crate combats which have points of
difference and are therefore interesting - I don't think this is necessarily
easy but it is what makes a combat interesting. Using agony or windstorm
every time would lead to boredom or frustration.  Having a wide range of
different spells avoids boredom and frustration and for these reasons I
don't want to see these spells go.  

Also as a player I like it when I'm scared in a combat.  It's what makes the
game exciting for me.  Victory which is against all odds and requires
ingenuity, luck, bravery, perseverance, cleverness, gold brick items saved
for 5 years, and the occasional defeat is what makes the game worth playing
IMO.  Agony would probably make the combat scary particularly if it pined
the party down and the other enemy abilities where likely to get us.

(William; I never feel scared playing computer games and this is the main
point of difference to me - I like playing computer role playing games for
other reasons).

Hamish   


>From: Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>

>At 17:55 17/01/06, you wrote:
>>Personally I don't see the spell as being that bad.
>>The spell is a special knowledge spell that isn't
>>useful in every situation... so it means that its
>>there as an option and nothng more. Last I heard there
>>was a string complaining about how Necro's only cast
>>Necrosis in combat... how can they be casting Necrosis
>>and Agony at the same time?
>
>They don't - Agony has a duration of 10 seconds +10/Rank so Mr Cunning NPC 
>Necromancer drops an Agony first to soften up the party and follows that up

>with Necrosis...
>
>Jacqui

I do believe the piont was that one of the main contenions with Necrocisis 
bieng overpowered, from the original thread, was that it was th only spell 
that a necro would cast because it was too good. And as Zane is trying to 
point out this argument, at least in the case of Necrosis is 
wrong/false/can't hold water.

I don't think he was actually asking about casting two spells at once, 
mearly highlighting the flawed argument and trying to direct the thread back

on topic.

Side bar; why do we call them counterspells if they don't actually counter 
the spells?
              Ok maybe the area one does but the personal?

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ 
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On 
> Behalf Of Struan Judd
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:11
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air
> 
> 
> Last weekend Ben and I had a discussion of the general topic 
> on the way to/from Goat Island. the general though was that 
> more than two of (Long range, High Damage, Multi-target, 
> Resist for Half) was over powered.
> 
> So we played around with some changed spells ideas.
> 
> Anyway with resp
> 
> On 1/18/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
> > For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been 
> Lightning Storm
> Range: 10 feet + 10 / Rank
> Duration: Immediate
> Experience Multiple: 350
> Base Chance: 30%
> Resist: Passive
> Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
> Target: Entities
> Effects: The caster launches a cascade of lightning upwards.
> It then either crackles along the ceiling/roof or arcs 
> through the air and strikes up to 1 (+1 per 4 full Ranks) 
> entities causing [D - 1] (+ 1 per 2 full Ranks) electrical 
> damage to each target. If any target successfully resists no 
> damage is caused. All the targets must be within an area of 
> radius 5 (+1 per Rank) feet. If cast under the open sky both 
> the range and the area radius are doubled. If an affect self 
> or affect nearby friendly backfire result ocurrs as many 
> friendly targets as possible will be selected, centered on 
> the backfire target entity.

I wouldn't bother detailing the backfire stuff, most GM's are likely to
do that anyway. 

I like both the effect and the style though. Double range outside is a
nice touch for Air mages. 

Mandos
/s


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

On 1/18/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
> So despite all the Waffle lets focus on the Problem Big spells.
>
> Hellfire a couple of suggestions have been raised.
>
> 2. Leave Hellfire as it is, but make it a single target only spell.
> Introduce a save for none, area of effect damage spell.
> (Jim)

This is my preference also

TTFN, Struan.


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

> "Area of Effect" is almost as powerful as "Multiple discreet 
> targets" and as such should generally not be combined with 
> "Resist for Half"
> 
> Then again I consider "Resist for Half" to be the most potent 
> of the spell attributes.

Stream of corruption is pretty low on the damage scale D-2+20 at max
rank.  which is one of the reasons I think it is appropriate for Resist
for half. Given that people do not seem to have a huge problem with
Dragonflames for a number of well articulated reasons adding resist for
half to SoC gives a spell with a similar effect so we know how it is
likely to run in combat but it has less damage than Dflames. 21-28
Damage vs 61-70 for Dflames. 

Mandos
/s


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

------=_Part_137844_29408085.1137537569464
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/18/06, Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz> wrote:
>
> I presume we're talking about a new special. Making the existing GK
> spell multitarget would be just scary.


Having a new SK DMin-like spell but with multi-targeting potential would
probably reduce the usefulness/desirability of GK DMin to a point where it
would be ignored.  This doesn't seem a good plan -- to me DMin is pretty
much _the_ defining GK spell for the college, and I'd rather it kept its
place.

As such, I'd prefer Mark's suggestion of a shaped Hellfire -- assuming that
it is big wham on primary target and little wham on surrounding targets, or
Jim's suggestion of two spells (single target big wham and area little
wham).

A minor power up to DMin (without rendering it "just scary") to make it a
better/more frequent choice could be to introduce optional extra targets (
re.g. 1 per 5 or 6 ranks) but at the expense of dropping the level of
effect. E.g. hit 2 targets but drop the max effect 1 category. Means that a=
t
rank 20 you could lay small curses on several people, or a big whammy on
one. This could a) make the spell more effective at higher ranks but withou=
t
the resist or be out of the fight effects, and b) see more use of
clumsiness, maladroitness, boils and warts, etc.

Mass Sleep would be the closest match - more disabling, but
> easier to remove than mass D.Min.


DMin can be removed by anyone's wicca GK CS, so it is pretty much like
Sleep.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_137844_29408085.1137537569464
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/18/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Michael Woodhams</b> &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mdw@free.net.nz">mdw@free.net.nz</a>&gt; 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;">
I presume we're talking about a new special. Making the existing GK<br>spel=
l multitarget would be just scary.</blockquote><div><br>Having a new SK DMi=
n-like spell but with multi-targeting potential would probably reduce the u=
sefulness/desirability of GK DMin to a point where it would be ignored.&nbs=
p; This doesn't seem a good plan -- to me DMin is pretty much _the_ definin=
g GK spell for the college, and I'd rather it kept its place.
<br><br>As such, I'd prefer Mark's suggestion of a shaped Hellfire -- assum=
ing that it is big wham on primary target and little wham on surrounding ta=
rgets, or Jim's suggestion of two spells (single target big wham and area l=
ittle wham).
<br><br>A minor power up to DMin (without rendering it &quot;just scary&quo=
t;) to make it a better/more frequent choice could be to introduce optional=
 extra targets (re.g. 1 per 5 or 6 ranks) but at the expense of dropping th=
e level of effect.=20
E.g. hit 2 targets but drop the max effect 1 category. Means that at rank 2=
0 you could lay small curses on several people, or a big whammy on one. Thi=
s could a) make the spell more effective at higher ranks but without the re=
sist or be out of the fight effects, and b) see more use of clumsiness, mal=
adroitness, boils and warts, etc.
<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s=
olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Mas=
s Sleep would be the closest match - more disabling, but<br>easier to remov=
e than mass=20
D.Min. </blockquote><div><br>DMin can be removed by anyone's wicca GK CS, s=
o it is pretty much like Sleep.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br=
>

------=_Part_137844_29408085.1137537569464--


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

> I presume we're talking about a new special. Making the 
> existing GK spell multitarget would be just scary.

Nope I was thinking of using the existing spell. 

As long as the target numbers are no more than 3-4 I think it would be
fine. 

Mandos
/s


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

There seems to be a reasonable consensus both that the "resist for half" aspect of these spells is very powerful, and that it is also a leading candidate for nerfing. While I don't necessarily disagree, we will end up with a situation where the number of resist for half/resist and still get some effect spells, which were already fairly rare, will become still rarer (and consequently even more powerful and desired). Will there be any resist for half spells left outside of the fire college? Do we want fire to be the only viable high end blast college? 

I'd hate to see a situation where, at higher levels, high level npc and pc mages throw spells back and forth at each other waiting for one or the other to fail to resist, as both are resisting two thirds of the time or more. Why throw a large damage single target resist for zero spell at someone when you could hit them with mental attack or sleep or the like spell? It may be beyond the intended scope of this discussion, but I'd like to see as many "when they resist something still happens" effects brought in as possible to get around the binary nature of DQ resists. The trouble with hellfire etc was you could get the silly high end results where you could resist and die anyway (rank 20 tripled etc.). But that doesn't mean there isn't room to tweak the effect you get if resisted to something more palatable/balanced.


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

> There seems to be a reasonable consensus both that the 
> "resist for half" aspect of these spells is very powerful, 
> and that it is also a leading candidate for nerfing. While I 
> don't necessarily disagree, we will end up with a situation 
> where the number of resist for half/resist and still get some 
> effect spells, which were already fairly rare, will become 
> still rarer (and consequently even more powerful and 
> desired). Will there be any resist for half spells left 
> outside of the fire college? Do we want fire to be the only 
> viable high end blast college? 

I would like to see resist for half spells in the lower damage spells. I
believe that resist for half is a good effect and required in the game
at certain levels but it shouldn't be combined with the biggest damage
spells for all the reasons given so far. 

Mandos
/s


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

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:39, Martin Dickson wrote:
>         Mass Sleep would be the closest match - more disabling, but
>         easier to remove than mass D.Min. 
> 
> DMin can be removed by anyone's wicca GK CS, so it is pretty much like
> Sleep.

Sleep can also be "removed" by waking the sleepee, can't it? I'm pretty
sure I've seen this in play. It takes a few pulses of being
kicked/shaken, and then a few more for them to become active again. This
additional option is what I meant by "easier to remove."


-- 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_01C61BC0.7B5B8DCA
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Michael Woodhams
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 12:38
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Wicca
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:39, Martin Dickson wrote:
> >         Mass Sleep would be the closest match - more disabling, but
> >         easier to remove than mass D.Min. 
> > 
> > DMin can be removed by anyone's wicca GK CS, so it is 
> pretty much like
> > Sleep.
> 
> Sleep can also be "removed" by waking the sleepee, can't it? 
> I'm pretty
> sure I've seen this in play. It takes a few pulses of being
> kicked/shaken, and then a few more for them to become active 
> again. This
> additional option is what I meant by "easier to remove."
> 


Only at Rk9 or less.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC0.7B5B8DCA
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] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Wicca</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Michael Woodhams</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 12:38</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The =
refocussing - Wicca</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:39, Martin Dickson =
wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mass Sleep would =
be the closest match - more disabling, but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; easier to remove =
than mass D.Min. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; DMin can be removed by anyone's wicca GK =
CS, so it is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; pretty much like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sleep.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sleep can also be &quot;removed&quot; by waking =
the sleepee, can't it? </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I'm pretty</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; sure I've seen this in play. It takes a few =
pulses of being</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; kicked/shaken, and then a few more for them to =
become active </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; again. This</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; additional option is what I meant by =
&quot;easier to remove.&quot;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Only at Rk9 or less.</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC0.7B5B8DCA--


-- 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_01C61BC2.BA2B803A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Here are the available effects: [my comments]

Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
Duration: Special
Experience Multiple: 200
Base Chance: 40%
Resist: Active, Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Entity
...
Rank Curse
0-3 Boils 1 (+ l / Rank); Warts 1 (+1 / Rank).

4-6 Clumsiness (-l AG); Maladroitness (-l MD).

7-9 Weakness (-2 PS); Poor health (-3 EN).

10-11 Cowardice (-3 WP & +5 Fright/Awe rolls);
Lose Smell & Taste (B:73).

12-13 Deafness (B:67); Lose Tactile Sense [should explicitly reduce Strike
chance???](B:75);
Virulent Skin Disease (B:79-80).

14-15 Insomnia (B:77); Wasting Disease [-1 PS, -1 EN/day](B:81);
Periodic [for D10 minutes every D10xD10 minutes] Hallucinations (B:88).

16-17 Periodic [for D10 minutes every D10xD10 minutes] Muscle Spasms
(B:82-83); Asthma [TMR/2]
(B:93); Migranes [-2 MA, -2 WP, 4xWP chk] (B:86-87).

18-19 Creeping Senility (B:94-95); Struck Mute
(B:71); Arthritis [ -4 MD -4 AG] (B:89-90); Enfeeblement [-4 PS, -4 EN]
(B:91-92).

20 Blindness (B:63); Amnesia [Roll D10]:
		1-2 Partial - Magic (B:96)
		3-5 Partial - Skills (B:97)
		6-7 Partial - Recent (B:98)
		8-10 Total (B:99).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 12:16
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Wicca
> 
> 
> > I presume we're talking about a new special. Making the 
> > existing GK spell multitarget would be just scary.
> 
> Nope I was thinking of using the existing spell. 
> 
> As long as the target numbers are no more than 3-4 I think it would be
> fine. 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC2.BA2B803A
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] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Wicca</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Here are the available effects: [my comments]</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Duration: Special</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Experience Multiple: 200</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Base Chance: 40%</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Resist: Active, Passive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Target: Entity</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Rank Curse</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>0-3 Boils 1 (+ l / Rank); Warts 1 (+1 / Rank).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>4-6 Clumsiness (-l AG); Maladroitness (-l MD).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>7-9 Weakness (-2 PS); Poor health (-3 EN).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>10-11 Cowardice (-3 WP &amp; +5 Fright/Awe rolls);</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Lose Smell &amp; Taste (B:73).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>12-13 Deafness (B:67); Lose Tactile Sense [should explicitly reduce Strike chance???](B:75);</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Virulent Skin Disease (B:79-80).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>14-15 Insomnia (B:77); Wasting Disease [-1 PS, -1 EN/day](B:81);</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Periodic [for D10 minutes every D10xD10 minutes] Hallucinations (B:88).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>16-17 Periodic [for D10 minutes every D10xD10 minutes] Muscle Spasms (B:82-83); Asthma [TMR/2]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(B:93); Migranes [-2 MA, -2 WP, 4xWP chk] (B:86-87).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>18-19 Creeping Senility (B:94-95); Struck Mute</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(B:71); Arthritis [ -4 MD -4 AG] (B:89-90); Enfeeblement [-4 PS, -4 EN] (B:91-92).</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>20 Blindness (B:63); Amnesia [Roll D10]:</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=2>1-2 Partial - Magic (B:96)</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=2>3-5 Partial - Skills (B:97)</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=2>6-7 Partial - Recent (B:98)</FONT>
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <FONT SIZE=2>8-10 Total (B:99).</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A HREF="mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 12:16</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Wicca</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; I presume we're talking about a new special. Making the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; &gt; existing GK spell multitarget would be just scary.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Nope I was thinking of using the existing spell. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; As long as the target numbers are no more than 3-4 I think it would be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; fine. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; Mandos</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; /s</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A HREF="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC2.BA2B803A--


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

On 1/18/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
> I would like to see resist for half spells in the lower damage spells. I
> believe that resist for half is a good effect and required in the game
> at certain levels but it shouldn't be combined with the biggest damage
> spells for all the reasons given so far.

Here, here.

TTFN, Struan.


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

I would also like to see considered:

Have a minumum range of 60 feet. ie: a target 20 feet away could not be cast
on.

Have for multi-target spells a flat range of 30 feet from the first target.
ie: you have 3 targets in melee 20 feet away and 3 targets over there 90
feet away as a 'second' group would not both be able to be targeted at once.

Have a +5 to the dice roll per target after the first for multi-target
spells. ie this would reduce double/tripple effects greatly on multi-target
spells.

------------------------------
I am not in favour of reducing the standard damage but I am in favour of
making it not the 'only choice' so I am looking for ways of creating an
environment to reduce the effects of 'only choice' spells.

Jonathan


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC7.B9FAD47A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think this was sent to me instead of the list. But some cool idea's
from Noel.=20

	=20
	If these spells are going to get a rewrite it would be nice to
desanitise them somewhat, they are nasty and their descriptions I feel
should reflect this. I would like to also see agony do some small amount
of damage to stop indesciminate use in towns as people will be
permanently hurt or killed
	=20
	For example
	=20
	Necrosis - currently internal rotting and haemorraging where it
cannot be seen, nice and clean and pretty
	Maggots grow from the targets flesh which rots and decays before
their eyes. Those damaged by this spell are automatically infected and
those who loose endurance pockmarked and scarred (-D PB) requiring skin
grafts and repair tissues to heal.
	=20
	Hellfire - make it evil
	Calling forth fires from the deepest pits of hell the adept lays
waste to his enemies burning their very souls. The souls of those slain
by this spell are dragged into the pits of hell where they may be
resurrected, retrieved by their gods if agents or spend the rest of
eternity in torment.
	=20
	Agony - make it unusable in some situations by the party
	Casting forth the unliving energies of the dead the adept causes
living beings to suffer horribly as their bodies fill with this dread
energy. The very young and unborn are paticularly vulerable to the spell
and die if they fail to reisist.
	=20
	Cheers Noel
	=20
________________________________


	This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and subject to legal privilege.  If you have received this
email in error, please advise the sender immediately and destroy the
message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient you
are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying or any
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited.  You can read our Privacy Policy here:
www.asbbank.co.nz/privacystatement.stm=20

	This communication does not designate an information system for
the purposes of the New Zealand Electronic Transaction Act 2002.=20
________________________________


=09


------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC7.B9FAD47A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D093283900-18012006>I=20
think this was sent to me instead of the list. But some cool idea's from =
Noel.=20
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
  face=3DTahoma size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If =
these spells=20
  are going to get a rewrite it would be nice to desanitise them =
somewhat, they=20
  are nasty and their descriptions I feel should reflect this. <SPAN=20
  class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I would like to =
also see=20
  agony do some&nbsp;small amount of&nbsp;damage to stop indesciminate =
use in=20
  towns as people will be permanently hurt or=20
  killed</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D089563721-17012006></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D089563721-17012006></SPAN>For example</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
  size=3D2>Necrosis<SPAN class=3D688042900-18012006> - currently =
internal rotting=20
  and haemorraging where it cannot be seen, nice and clean and=20
  pretty</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Maggots grow from=20
  the targets flesh which rots and decays before their eyes. Those =
damaged by=20
  this spell are automatically infected and those who loose endurance =
pockmarked=20
  and scarred (-D PB) requiring skin grafts and repair tissues to=20
  heal.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
  size=3D2>Hellfire<SPAN class=3D688042900-18012006> - make it=20
  evil</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Calling forth=20
  fires from the deepest pits of hell&nbsp;the adept lays waste to his =
enemies=20
  burning their very souls. The souls of those slain by this spell are =
dragged=20
  into the pits of hell where they may be resurrected, retrieved by =
their gods=20
  if agents or spend the rest of eternity in =
torment.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
size=3D2>Agony<SPAN=20
  class=3D688042900-18012006> - make it unusable in some situations by =
the=20
  party</SPAN></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Casting forth the=20
  unliving energies of the dead the adept causes living beings to suffer =

  horribly as their bodies fill with this dread energy. The very young =
and=20
  unborn&nbsp;are paticularly vulerable to the spell and die if they =
fail to=20
  reisist.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D089563721-17012006><FONT face=3DArial=20
  size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D688042900-18012006>Cheers=20
  Noel</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D688042900-18012006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <HR>

  <P>This email message and attachments are confidential to our =
organisation and=20
  subject to legal privilege.&nbsp; If you have received this email in =
error,=20
  please advise the sender immediately and destroy the message and any=20
  attachments. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified =
that any=20
  use, distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted =
to be=20
  taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited.&nbsp; =
You can=20
  read our Privacy Policy here: <A=20
  =
href=3D"http://www.asbbank.co.nz/privacystatement.stm">www.asbbank.co.nz/=
privacystatement.stm</A>=20
  </P>
  <P>This communication does not designate an information system for the =

  purposes of the New Zealand Electronic Transaction Act 2002.=20
  <HR>

  <P></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
=00
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61BC7.B9FAD47A--


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

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 13:40, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:
> I think this was sent to me instead of the list. But some cool idea's
> from Noel. 

>         For example 
>          
>         Hellfire - make it evil
>         Calling forth fires from the deepest pits of hell the adept
>         lays waste to his enemies burning their very souls. The souls
>         of those slain by this spell are dragged into the pits of hell
>         where they may be resurrected, retrieved by their gods if
>         agents or spend the rest of eternity in torment.

"When Sin claps his broad wings over the battle and sails rejoicing in a
flood of death, when souls are torn to everlasting fire, and the fiends
of hell rejoice upon the slain!"

While I agree with the desanitization idea, I object to this effect on
theological grounds: it is up to the gods and powers to determine the
fate of a soul, not mortals. 

>         Agony - make it unusable in some situations by the party
>         Casting forth the unliving energies of the dead the adept
>         causes living beings to suffer horribly as their bodies fill
>         with this dread energy. The very young and unborn are
>         paticularly vulerable to the spell and die if they fail to
>         reisist.

Evil death-aspected necromancer in a town - ouch!
What is the WP of a fetus, or does it use its mother's?


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

>"When Sin claps his broad wings over the battle and sails rejoicing in a
>flood of death, when souls are torn to everlasting fire, and the fiends
>of hell rejoice upon the slain!"
>
>While I agree with the desanitization idea, I object to this effect on
>theological grounds: it is up to the gods and powers to determine the
>fate of a soul, not mortals. 

I agree on that point.  Pox and boils can at least be addressed by mortal means, and 
the flavour is appropriately Nercomantic, but necessarily Demonic.

>Evil death-aspected necromancer in a town - ouch!
>What is the WP of a fetus, or does it use its mother's?

Not to mention that, with the current area, regular (3-6 times year? What would 
Seagates average be?) casts in a populated area would have a genocide level impact on 
the population.  

Someone just turned up and wiped out 75% of the next generation of a town with one 
spell?  Time to move.

"White-hat" necros would to hard-pressed to somewhere safe to Rank it, let alone use 
it responsibly.  I'm not against that, but the broader implications are somewhat 
horrific.



ben


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

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

>
> What would you prefer to see as an alternate option?

Necrosis as it is, single target.

Jim


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

Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

>The trouble with hellfire etc was
> you could get the silly high end results where you could resist and die
> anyway (rank 20 tripled etc.). But that doesn't mean there isn't room to
> tweak the effect you get if resisted to something more palatable/balanced.
>
You can only double damage on a triple effect with Hellfire at the moment.

Jim.


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

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

> > There seems to be a reasonable consensus both that the
> > "resist for half" aspect of these spells is very powerful,
> > and that it is also a leading candidate for nerfing. While I
> > don't necessarily disagree, we will end up with a situation
> > where the number of resist for half/resist and still get some
> > effect spells, which were already fairly rare, will become
> > still rarer (and consequently even more powerful and
> > desired). Will there be any resist for half spells left
> > outside of the fire college? Do we want fire to be the only
> > viable high end blast college?
>
> I would like to see resist for half spells in the lower damage spells. I
> believe that resist for half is a good effect and required in the game
> at certain levels but it shouldn't be combined with the biggest damage
> spells for all the reasons given so far.

I think you are wrong. There is a place for high damage half resist spells in
the game. They are necessary at the top end of the game.

Jim


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

> > What would you prefer to see as an alternate option?
> 
> Necrosis as it is, single target.

The downside to that is there is still no reason to cast any of the
other spells. That still makes the spell far better than any other spell
in terms of utility. Why use Hand of death when you can kill someone
straight out even if they resist. It gives a reason to occasionally us
SoC but not really and the other spells may as well not exist. 

It certainly depowers the spell which I think is good but doesn't really
solve the choice problem. 

Mandos
/s


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

> I think you are wrong. There is a place for high damage half 
> resist spells in the game. They are necessary at the top end 
> of the game.

I think you are wrong. I think the two should be split up because any
high damage resist for half is always going to be the spell of choice
defeating the main problem with the spells at the moment. 

Mandos
/s


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

I think Jono's idea is so stupid I am unsure whether to ignore it, or mention
it...

The coin came up heads.

Jim.

Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:
>
> I would also like to see considered:
>
> Have a minumum range of 60 feet. ie: a target 20 feet away could not be cast
> on.
>
> Have for multi-target spells a flat range of 30 feet from the first target.
> ie: you have 3 targets in melee 20 feet away and 3 targets over there 90
> feet away as a 'second' group would not both be able to be targeted at once.
>
> Have a +5 to the dice roll per target after the first for multi-target
> spells. ie this would reduce double/tripple effects greatly on multi-target
> spells.
>
> ------------------------------
> I am not in favour of reducing the standard damage but I am in favour of
> making it not the 'only choice' so I am looking for ways of creating an
> environment to reduce the effects of 'only choice' spells.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> I think Jono's idea is so stupid I am unsure whether to 
> ignore it, or mention it...
> 
> The coin came up heads.

I think the rudeness shown in this email is both sad, disappointing and
unnessesary. I am unsure whether to ignore it or politly ask Jim to stop
being obnoxious and go back to polite reasoned debate.....

My coin came up heads as well. 

Mandos
/s


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

> I think you are wrong. There is a place for high damage half
> resist spells in the game. They are necessary at the top end 
> of the game.

As an addendum, I think they are nessesary at the high end of the game
because GM's have to plan for circumstances where they will have NPC's
that have to face them. Remove them and GM's will adjust the NPC's and
bring things back into line with any changes made. Inflation/Deflation
in action.

Mandos
/s


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

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

> > > What would you prefer to see as an alternate option?
> >
> > Necrosis as it is, single target.
>
> The downside to that is there is still no reason to cast any of the
> other spells. That still makes the spell far better than any other spell
> in terms of utility. Why use Hand of death when you can kill someone
> straight out even if they resist. It gives a reason to occasionally us
> SoC but not really and the other spells may as well not exist.
>
> It certainly depowers the spell which I think is good but doesn't really
> solve the choice problem.

Numbers are also important to deal with, particularly in a critical based
system. It may not matter if you can kill one of the enemy three times over if
his fifteen little mates are going to blow the pojees out of you.

Depowering is not my intention, and I wish you would stop accusing me of having
that as a motivation, George. I have clarified it enough times for it to be
perfectly clear where I am coming from.

Jim


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

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

> > I think you are wrong. There is a place for high damage half
> > resist spells in the game. They are necessary at the top end
> > of the game.
>
> I think you are wrong. I think the two should be split up because any
> high damage resist for half is always going to be the spell of choice
> defeating the main problem with the spells at the moment.

Do you, George? I'll try not to cry myself to sleep every night, then.

As I'm crushing my face to the pillow, I will try and console myself with the
hope that you might come to see the light.

Jim.


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

> Numbers are also important to deal with, particularly in a 
> critical based system. It may not matter if you can kill one 
> of the enemy three times over if his fifteen little mates are 
> going to blow the pojees out of you.

Time to run. Because nothing else in the armory is going to do jack :0)
Unless you have a firemage with you. 

> Depowering is not my intention, and I wish you would stop 
> accusing me of having that as a motivation, George. I have 
> clarified it enough times for it to be perfectly clear where 
> I am coming from.

Never said it was you intention. I stated it is what it would do. 

Your regularly clarified and perfectly clear motication is to create
options for the spellcasters. This is what the change would not do. 

Mandos
/s


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

> Do you, George? I'll try not to cry myself to sleep every night, then.
> 
> As I'm crushing my face to the pillow, I will try and console 
> myself with the hope that you might come to see the light.

If you have trouble I can get you a waterproof pillow? 

In fact I could take a collection at the next guild meeting. 

Or on the other hand we could stop these pointless interludes and work
on finding either some common ground on the issue or find out what the
majority is keen on seeing. 

Mandos
/s


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

Come on Jim what do you really think, don't hold back now.

Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 3:12 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : other options
>
>
>
>
> I think Jono's idea is so stupid I am unsure whether to ignore
> it, or mention
> it...
>
> The coin came up heads.
>
> Jim.
>
> Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:
> >
> > I would also like to see considered:
> >
> > Have a minumum range of 60 feet. ie: a target 20 feet away
> could not be cast
> > on.
> >
> > Have for multi-target spells a flat range of 30 feet from the
> first target.
> > ie: you have 3 targets in melee 20 feet away and 3 targets over there 90
> > feet away as a 'second' group would not both be able to be
> targeted at once.
> >
> > Have a +5 to the dice roll per target after the first for multi-target
> > spells. ie this would reduce double/tripple effects greatly on
> multi-target
> > spells.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > I am not in favour of reducing the standard damage but I am in favour of
> > making it not the 'only choice' so I am looking for ways of creating an
> > environment to reduce the effects of 'only choice' spells.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > -- 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 --

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

> > I think you are wrong. There is a place for high damage half
> > resist spells in the game. They are necessary at the top end
> > of the game.
>
> As an addendum, I think they are nessesary at the high end of the game
> because GM's have to plan for circumstances where they will have NPC's
> that have to face them. Remove them and GM's will adjust the NPC's and
> bring things back into line with any changes made. Inflation/Deflation
> in action.
>

That is pretty unlikely. If the high level monsters in the game weren't already
written up, you might have some hope of the game gradually acceding to the
particular level of damage equilibrium you feel comfortable with.

It won't happen because they are too established historically. Other players
gaze fondly back at the past and recount tales of how they smacked over this
dragon, and how they got this particularly nasty scar from that efreet and so
on.

Now, you can continue to attempt to rein in high damage. Or you can try to
establish a new damage equilibrium in some other way. At the end of the day,
the point at which equilibrium is reached is just a number. The important
issues with regard to that point of equilibrium are the rate at which it is
progressed to, and the point at which it starts.

And, since you are never going to convince players not to want to take on fell
and doughty creatures, there's no point in trying to hold back the tide in that
fashion. Sure, there will be some players for whom that kind of game isn't
interesting. There are a lot who are engaged by it, however.

It's like this, George. People watch the movies that they think they will enjoy.
They don't go to see a movie because the writer tells them it would be better
for them. For better or worse, we develop games bearing in mind what the player
is likely to want to be involved in. There is some scope for your own
creativity, of course.But, you have to identify what players want, rather than
what you think is good for them as a basic directive of the game.

You have been pushing a low damage agenda for a while now. I am not in agreement
with you, and I am not prepared to support such a plan in anyway. I make it
clear that I would rather not have these spells changed at all, if the nett
result was to reduce the amount of damage that players might inflict.

Jim


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

Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:

> Come on Jim what do you really think, don't hold back now.

When have you ever known me to, Jono? :-)

Jim


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

--=====================_18529848==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:16 18/01/06, you wrote:
>For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been to make the
>spell single target.

*feels bound to point out that she had suggested a chain lightning style 
effect with whirlwind in mind*

Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)
Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
Duration: Immediate
Experience Multiple: 650
Base Chance: 1%
Resist: Active, Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Entity
Effects: This spell creates a tornado around one human sized primary target 
plus one secondary target for every 3 or fraction ranks. If the primary 
target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the winds that they 
suffer [D +1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces and in addition 
suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If the primary target 
resists they take half damage. The secondary targets take half damage if 
they fail to resist and no damage if they resist successfully.

Alternatively:

Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)
Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
Duration: Immediate
Experience Multiple: 650
Base Chance: 1%
Resist: Active, Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Entity
Effects: This spell creates a tornado around one human sized primary target 
spreading to secondary targets in the surrounding six hexes. If the primary 
target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the winds that they 
suffer [D+1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces and in addition 
suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If the primary target 
resists they take half damage. The secondary targets take half damage if 
they fail to resist and no damage if they resist successfully.

Which does sound more like what a "whirlwind vortex" should do....

Jacqui
*grumbles about being repeatedly ignored* 
--=====================_18529848==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
At 10:16 18/01/06, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">For Air mages the only suggested
solution so far has been to make the<br>
spell single target. </blockquote><br>
*feels bound to point out that she had suggested a chain lightning style
effect with whirlwind in mind*<br><br>
<b>Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)<br>
</b><i>Rang</i>e: 15 feet + 15 / Rank<br>
<i>Duratio</i>n: Immediate<br>
<i>Experience Multipl</i>e: 650<br>
<i>Base Chanc</i>e: 1%<br>
<i>Resis</i>t: Active, Passive<br>
<i>Storag</i>e: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap<br>
<i>Targe</i>t: Entity<br>
<i>Effects: </i>This spell creates a tornado around one human sized
primary target plus one secondary target for every 3 or fraction ranks.
If the primary target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the
winds that they suffer [D +1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces
and in addition suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If
the primary target resists they take half damage. The secondary targets
take half damage if they fail to resist and no damage if they resist
successfully.<br><br>
Alternatively:<br><br>
<b>Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)<br>
</b><i>Rang</i>e: 15 feet + 15 / Rank<br>
<i>Duratio</i>n: Immediate<br>
<i>Experience Multipl</i>e: 650<br>
<i>Base Chanc</i>e: 1%<br>
<i>Resis</i>t: Active, Passive<br>
<i>Storag</i>e: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap<br>
<i>Targe</i>t: Entity<br>
<i>Effects: </i>This spell creates a tornado around one human sized
primary target spreading to secondary targets in the surrounding six
hexes. If the primary target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn
by the winds that they suffer [D+1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive
forces and in addition suffer a potential C class specific grievous
injury. If the primary target resists they take half damage. The
secondary targets take half damage if they fail to resist and no damage
if they resist successfully.<br><br>
Which does sound more like what a &quot;whirlwind vortex&quot; should
do....<br><br>
Jacqui <br>
*grumbles about being repeatedly ignored*</body>
</html>

--=====================_18529848==.ALT--


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

> You have been pushing a low damage agenda for a while now. I 
> am not in agreement with you, and I am not prepared to 
> support such a plan in anyway. I make it clear that I would 
> rather not have these spells changed at all, if the nett 
> result was to reduce the amount of damage that players might inflict.

Damage reductions is not my intention, and I wish you would stop
accusing me of having that as a motivation. I have 
clarified it enough times for it to be perfectly clear where I am coming
from.

I have no problem with high damage, I have no problem with resist for
half spells. I have an issue when the two funtions are together because
they make all other spells inferior and remove spellcasting choices for
players. 

I think resist for half spells should be in the medium damage range
20-40pts and not in the high damage range 45+.

Mandos
/s


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

Jim said:

"You have been pushing a low damage agenda for a while now. I am not in agreement
with you, and I am not prepared to support such a plan in anyway. I make it
clear that I would rather not have these spells changed at all, if the nett
result was to reduce the amount of damage that players might inflict."

I dont see how you can say that, at the same time as pushing for Hellfire to become single target resist for zero. Ok the theoretical maximum damage hasnt changed, but the total damage and the expected damage have gone way down with your suggested version. Reduction in damage may not have the been the motivation behind your suggested change, but in adopting your version of the spell it will certainly be the result.


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

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

> > Do you, George? I'll try not to cry myself to sleep every night, then.
> >
> > As I'm crushing my face to the pillow, I will try and console
> > myself with the hope that you might come to see the light.
>
> If you have trouble I can get you a waterproof pillow?
>
> In fact I could take a collection at the next guild meeting.

I await my tearproof pillow with bated breath...
>
> Or on the other hand we could stop these pointless interludes and work
> on finding either some common ground on the issue or find out what the
> majority is keen on seeing.

I don't think there is common ground. We have examined each other's ground, and
at root we disagree. Logic is not valuable to us at this point, because we are
talking about the basic nature of the games we prefer. And, this not subject to
logic or negotiation.

We are at an impasse.

Put another way, the games you prefer are ones where the difference between a
high level character and a low level character are not as distinct (or extreme)
as the games I like.

In the particular instance of necrosis, hellfire and whirlwind vortex, I am
interested in changing them so that a player has alternatives. For that reason,
I see no reason to change hellfire for fire mages, because they have some
pretty exciting alternatives, and would use them...Mind you, if you are chasing
xp, you might rank hellfire until you could make it castable, then learn either
of dragon flames or fireball. But, eventually, you would have at least two
spells with high functional utility, depending on the situation.

I believe that there are reasons to cast a high damage/half damage/single target
spell and other reasons for casting a save for none/area of effect spell. And,
I think that they would tend to come up quite frequently.

I agree that you might still want to cast necrosis a lot. That's fine. I do not
want the situation where the caster has a bewildering array of spells to cast.
I just want there to be some degree of meaningful choice, so the combat is not
an endless grind.

Jim.


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

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

> > You have been pushing a low damage agenda for a while now. I
> > am not in agreement with you, and I am not prepared to
> > support such a plan in anyway. I make it clear that I would
> > rather not have these spells changed at all, if the nett
> > result was to reduce the amount of damage that players might inflict.
>
> Damage reductions is not my intention, and I wish you would stop
> accusing me of having that as a motivation. I have
> clarified it enough times for it to be perfectly clear where I am coming
> from.
>
> I have no problem with high damage, I have no problem with resist for
> half spells. I have an issue when the two funtions are together because
> they make all other spells inferior and remove spellcasting choices for
> players.
>
> I think resist for half spells should be in the medium damage range
> 20-40pts and not in the high damage range 45+.

Okay, then I will reword it so that I am saying that you have been pushing an
agenda of low half-damage effects, and maintain the rest.

Jim


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C61C4C.E98E57F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would like to see the primary target die on failure to resist.

Jono
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Jacqui Smith
  Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 4:05 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air


  At 10:16 18/01/06, you wrote:

    For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been to make the
    spell single target.

  *feels bound to point out that she had suggested a chain lightning style
effect with whirlwind in mind*

  Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)
  Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
  Duration: Immediate
  Experience Multiple: 650
  Base Chance: 1%
  Resist: Active, Passive
  Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
  Target: Entity
  Effects: This spell creates a tornado around one human sized primary
target plus one secondary target for every 3 or fraction ranks. If the
primary target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the winds that
they suffer [D +1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces and in
addition suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If the primary
target resists they take half damage. The secondary targets take half damage
if they fail to resist and no damage if they resist successfully.

  Alternatively:

  Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)
  Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
  Duration: Immediate
  Experience Multiple: 650
  Base Chance: 1%
  Resist: Active, Passive
  Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
  Target: Entity
  Effects: This spell creates a tornado around one human sized primary
target spreading to secondary targets in the surrounding six hexes. If the
primary target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the winds that
they suffer [D+1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces and in
addition suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If the primary
target resists they take half damage. The secondary targets take half damage
if they fail to resist and no damage if they resist successfully.

  Which does sound more like what a "whirlwind vortex" should do....

  Jacqui
  *grumbles about being repeatedly ignored*

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C61C4C.E98E57F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
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=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D801373203-18012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
would like to see the primary target die on failure to=20
resist.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D801373203-18012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D801373203-18012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jono</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
  <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>Jacqui =
Smith<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Wednesday, 18 January 2006 4:05 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The =
refocussing=20
  - Air<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>At 10:16 18/01/06, you wrote:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dcite cite=3D"" type=3D"cite">For Air mages the =
only suggested=20
    solution so far has been to make the<BR>spell single target.=20
  </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>*feels bound to point out that she had suggested a =
chain=20
  lightning style effect with whirlwind in mind*<BR><BR><B>Whirlwind =
Vortex=20
  (S-14)<BR></B><I>Rang</I>e: 15 feet + 15 / Rank<BR><I>Duratio</I>n:=20
  Immediate<BR><I>Experience Multipl</I>e: 650<BR><I>Base Chanc</I>e:=20
  1%<BR><I>Resis</I>t: Active, Passive<BR><I>Storag</I>e: Investment, =
Ward,=20
  Magical Trap<BR><I>Targe</I>t: Entity<BR><I>Effects: </I>This spell =
creates a=20
  tornado around one human sized primary target plus one secondary =
target for=20
  every 3 or fraction ranks. If the primary target fails to resist they =
are so=20
  tossed and torn by the winds that they suffer [D +1] (+ 2 / Rank) =
damage due=20
  to excessive forces and in addition suffer a potential C class =
specific=20
  grievous injury. If the primary target resists they take half damage. =
The=20
  secondary targets take half damage if they fail to resist and no =
damage if=20
  they resist successfully.<BR><BR>Alternatively:<BR><BR><B>Whirlwind =
Vortex=20
  (S-14)<BR></B><I>Rang</I>e: 15 feet + 15 / Rank<BR><I>Duratio</I>n:=20
  Immediate<BR><I>Experience Multipl</I>e: 650<BR><I>Base Chanc</I>e:=20
  1%<BR><I>Resis</I>t: Active, Passive<BR><I>Storag</I>e: Investment, =
Ward,=20
  Magical Trap<BR><I>Targe</I>t: Entity<BR><I>Effects: </I>This spell =
creates a=20
  tornado around one human sized primary target spreading to secondary =
targets=20
  in the surrounding six hexes. If the primary target fails to resist =
they are=20
  so tossed and torn by the winds that they suffer [D+1] (+ 2 / Rank) =
damage due=20
  to excessive forces and in addition suffer a potential C class =
specific=20
  grievous injury. If the primary target resists they take half damage. =
The=20
  secondary targets take half damage if they fail to resist and no =
damage if=20
  they resist successfully.<BR><BR>Which does sound more like what a =
"whirlwind=20
  vortex" should do....<BR><BR>Jacqui <BR>*grumbles about being =
repeatedly=20
  ignored* </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C61C4C.E98E57F0--


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

If we are looking at options to make WWV not the only spell to cast in all
situations then;

I would like to see a 'dead area' of 40 feet, so you could not cast on
people who are at a range of 1 to 40 feet.
I would like to see it reduce the number of targets to 1 +1 target for every
7 ranks.
Remove the save for some damage and replace it with on a resist: make a PS
+AG to remain standing or fall prone.

Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 10:16 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air
>
>
> For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been to make the
> spell single target.
>
> That is all I can find from the list discussions over the past months.
> Are there any other possible solutions people can see. Likes/Dislikes of
> the above solutions.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


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

And in this case then the spell should be single target.

TTFN, Struan.

On 1/18/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I would like to see the primary target die on failure to resist.
>
> Jono
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Jacqui Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 4:05 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air
>
> At 10:16 18/01/06, you wrote:
>
> For Air mages the only suggested solution so far has been to make the
> spell single target.
> *feels bound to point out that she had suggested a chain lightning style
> effect with whirlwind in mind*
>
> Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)
> Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
> Duration: Immediate
> Experience Multiple: 650
> Base Chance: 1%
> Resist: Active, Passive
> Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
> Target: Entity
> Effects: This spell creates a tornado around one human sized primary target
> plus one secondary target for every 3 or fraction ranks. If the primary
> target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the winds that they
> suffer [D +1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces and in addition
> suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If the primary target
> resists they take half damage. The secondary targets take half damage if
> they fail to resist and no damage if they resist successfully.
>
> Alternatively:
>
> Whirlwind Vortex (S-14)
> Range: 15 feet + 15 / Rank
> Duration: Immediate
> Experience Multiple: 650
> Base Chance: 1%
> Resist: Active, Passive
> Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
> Target: Entity
> Effects: This spell creates a tornado around one human sized primary target
> spreading to secondary targets in the surrounding six hexes. If the primary
> target fails to resist they are so tossed and torn by the winds that they
> suffer [D+1] (+ 2 / Rank) damage due to excessive forces and in addition
> suffer a potential C class specific grievous injury. If the primary target
> resists they take half damage. The secondary targets take half damage if
> they fail to resist and no damage if they resist successfully.
>
> Which does sound more like what a "whirlwind vortex" should do....
>
> Jacqui
> *grumbles about being repeatedly ignored*


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

------=_Part_141488_21573591.1137557166562
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/18/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Have for multi-target spells a flat range of 30 feet from the first
> target.
> ie: you have 3 targets in melee 20 feet away and 3 targets over there 90
> feet away as a 'second' group would not both be able to be targeted at
> once.


Having a designated primary target and then limiting the range to other
targets from them could have a positive tactical "shaping" effect on a spel=
l
-- wouldn't want to see it for all multi-targets, but there could be some
that would benefit from it.

One effect would be to make "screening troops" possible -- the mage with th=
e
multi-target spell might find themselves only able to either engage the
enemy mages (who were hanging back) or the charging fighters, but not both
with one cast.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_141488_21573591.1137557166562
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/18/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><spa=
n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<br>Have for multi-target spells a flat range of 30 feet from the first tar=
get.<br>ie: you have 3 targets in melee 20 feet away and 3 targets over the=
re 90<br>feet away as a 'second' group would not both be able to be targete=
d at once.
</blockquote><div><br>Having a designated primary target and then limiting =
the range to other targets from them could have a positive tactical &quot;s=
haping&quot; effect on a spell -- wouldn't want to see it for all multi-tar=
gets, but there could be some that would benefit from it.
<br><br>One effect would be to make &quot;screening troops&quot; possible -=
- the mage with the multi-target spell might find themselves only able to e=
ither engage the enemy mages (who were hanging back) or the charging fighte=
rs, but not both with one cast.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div><br></div><br>

------=_Part_141488_21573591.1137557166562--


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

> > I think you are wrong. There is a place for high damage half
> > resist spells in the game. They are necessary at the top end
> > of the game.
>
>I think you are wrong. I think the two should be split up because any
>high damage resist for half is always going to be the spell of choice
>defeating the main problem with the spells at the moment.
>
>Mandos

How about low lvl resist for half high resist for quarter.

or only bring in resist for half at rk 20

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers


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

>If we are looking at options to make WWV not the only spell to cast in all
>situations then;
>
>I would like to see a 'dead area' of 40 feet, so you could not cast on
>people who are at a range of 1 to 40 feet.
>I would like to see it reduce the number of targets to 1 +1 target for 
>every
>7 ranks.
>Remove the save for some damage and replace it with on a resist: make a PS
>+AG to remain standing or fall prone.
>
>Jonathan
>
Rather than a dead area how about you hit the primary as normal inside 40ft 
but the secondarys are random.

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest video  @  http://xtra.co.nz/streaming


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

Having seen "the dark" I'll make my recomendations, and for only 5sp too
:.-)

Wiccan Helfire is spammed because it is literally the only spell to do
damage with. Thus wiccans need some more spells to tempt them into casting
something other than Hellfire. like these:

Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)

EM 650
BC 5
R 10+10/R
R A+P
T Entity
D perm (minor curse)

This spell curses 1 (+1/3R) beings with pigness (or some other stupid farm
animal*). Pigness entails a variety of curse effects.

A loss of PB and PC by 1/R (min 5)
A loss of physical stats by 1/2R (min 3)

Additionally at R15 the targets loose the ability to speak (except in pig)
and at R20 the targets are physically transformed into pigs.

Needless to say this is a minor curse.

*I don't care that pigs are actually clever, it's a fantasy trope.



Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)

EM 400
BC 15
R 20+20/R
R A+P
T Entity
D perm (major curse)

This spell withers a limb. The limb becomes useless. An arm cannot be used
to hold/support/use things and a withered leg causes the target to lose 1/2
AG and have TMR reduced acorrdingly. On a double the witch may elect to
affect two limbs. On a triple they may affect the head. A withered head is
usually fatal.

However it remains that Hellfire still has all the goods. Range, damage,
multiple targets, resist penalty and 1/2 effect. I suggest dropping the
range and multi-target options.

The same issue exists for fire hellfire, necrosis and whirlwind vortex. Even
at one target it's a desirable spell but with a low range and lack of
multiple targets the other spells in these colleges have demands to be used.

However I feel the necros need a good multi-target option so I'll propose
adding this spell

Teeth of the Dragon (or other big beastie with lots of teeth) (Necro
special, duh)

EM 500
BC 20
R 10 +10/R
R P
T Fire action
D inst

The necromancer summons R+5 teeth to hurl at his enemies. Each tooth does
D+1 A class type damage to the target (armour counts). A target may resist
the teeth for no effect and in addition gains any missile defensive bonuses
to the resistance. Alternativly 5 teeth can be exchanged for a big tooth
which does D+10 damage or 10 teeth for a bad ass tooth o doom doing D+20
(BATOD are resist for half). Instead of doubling or tripling damage the
number of teeth is doubled/tripled. Alternativly a double will result in
weapon lodges (lose 3AG, d-5 to extract) or affecting insubstantials and a
triple option may be to make damage affecting EN or causing a bleeder (FT
then EN).

This is in effect a multi-target spell for cannon fodder and a single target
for big things spell.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/232 - Release Date: 17/01/2006


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

As you see, a month ago I was saying what Mandos is (Still?) saying now.
Its the resist for half that makes the spell the only one to cast.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Helen Saggers" <helen@owbn.net.nz>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:15 PM
Subject: [dq] Posible solution with: Necrosis.


> (Only dealing with one spell at a time)
> Necrosis,
> The problems that it is the only spell that Nero's cast in combat, the
lack
> of options thing.
> Damage, at high ranks is high but if the spell is used on high level
targets
> that have good resistances its restist for half, and I have no problem
with
> the posablity of death if you fail to resist.
> The description of a high in my brand new GMs guild still says for High
> level adventures ( where Id expect the GM to be using this spell at high
> ranks) still says "including the likelihood of death"
>
> Doubles and triples, plus Enhance enchants, are what make it resist and
die.
> Solution these effects only add to range, or in the case of Enhance BC as
> well.
>
> Why this spell is the only one cast is easy to see it has range, is mult
> target and resist for half, where as the GK spell Putrid Wound is single
> target resist for none, and  the SK spell Stream of Coruption while mutli
> target is short range, not targetable so hurts PCs and again resist for
> none.
> Solution make these to spells resist for half and they might get used
more.
> (again if damage is a problemdo the same as for hell fire 1 or 2 per rank
or
> may be 1/2 and 1)
>
> As for this crap ( sorry Jacqui) about destroying undead or giveing PCs
> resistances to undead, its not what necros do.
> They make undead, they control the lesser undead, and they have ways to
get
> rid of the greaters that they can't control or are competion. Necros have
a
> restance to undead true but then they are the only ones who don't want to
> smash them into shards or send them on to the after life.
> Necros get to destoy some types of undead and there are lots of other ways
> of destroying the rest.
> And if you want imunity to undead or a nerco with the ability to help the
> party do so quest for it.
>
> Helen


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

I still think this.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Helen Saggers" <helen@owbn.net.nz>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 1:55 PM
Subject: [dq] Posible solution with: Wirlwind vortext.


> Whirlwind  vortex:
> Problem its a resist or die spell, is a multi target resist or die spell.
> I don't like a spell that kills if you fail to resist, regardless of if
you
> have 3 EN or 300 EN
> It is as Jim has said hanging the fate of a PC on a single Dice role,
> resistance, and destroying the drama for a fight. If I use it as a GM and
> you fail your dead, there is no way for me to fudge the damage so as to
> torture you some more, and its not because you didn't take that healing
> potion last pulse and had low EN. you are just dead.
> The same goes for the PCs using it against the big bad, if he and his boyz
> don't resist they are dead and the fight is a non event, and if I give em
> good resistances to stop this I limit the others spell options to those
that
> are not resist for none and so on.
>
> The solution here maybe to make it a damage spell resist for half, with
> enchance and doubles etc. not effecting damage. This could mean we drop
end
> up dropping the EpM a fraction , but it would still be a high damage multi
> target spell.
> Just as ball of lighting is a good single target spell, better with these
> sorts of changes as the higher BC gives more chance of a double.
>
> Helen


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

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

Don't see the point in reposting this, William.

Jim.

> Having seen "the dark" I'll make my recomendations, and for only 5sp too
> :.-)
>
> Wiccan Helfire is spammed because it is literally the only spell to do
> damage with. Thus wiccans need some more spells to tempt them into casting
> something other than Hellfire. like these:
>
> Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)
>
> EM 650
> BC 5
> R 10+10/R
> R A+P
> T Entity
> D perm (minor curse)
>
> This spell curses 1 (+1/3R) beings with pigness (or some other stupid farm
> animal*). Pigness entails a variety of curse effects.
>
> A loss of PB and PC by 1/R (min 5)
> A loss of physical stats by 1/2R (min 3)
>
> Additionally at R15 the targets loose the ability to speak (except in pig)
> and at R20 the targets are physically transformed into pigs.
>
> Needless to say this is a minor curse.
>
> *I don't care that pigs are actually clever, it's a fantasy trope.
>
>
>
> Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)
>
> EM 400
> BC 15
> R 20+20/R
> R A+P
> T Entity
> D perm (major curse)
>
> This spell withers a limb. The limb becomes useless. An arm cannot be used
> to hold/support/use things and a withered leg causes the target to lose 1/2
> AG and have TMR reduced acorrdingly. On a double the witch may elect to
> affect two limbs. On a triple they may affect the head. A withered head is
> usually fatal.
>
> However it remains that Hellfire still has all the goods. Range, damage,
> multiple targets, resist penalty and 1/2 effect. I suggest dropping the
> range and multi-target options.
>
> The same issue exists for fire hellfire, necrosis and whirlwind vortex. Even
> at one target it's a desirable spell but with a low range and lack of
> multiple targets the other spells in these colleges have demands to be used.
>
> However I feel the necros need a good multi-target option so I'll propose
> adding this spell
>
> Teeth of the Dragon (or other big beastie with lots of teeth) (Necro
> special, duh)
>
> EM 500
> BC 20
> R 10 +10/R
> R P
> T Fire action
> D inst
>
> The necromancer summons R+5 teeth to hurl at his enemies. Each tooth does
> D+1 A class type damage to the target (armour counts). A target may resist
> the teeth for no effect and in addition gains any missile defensive bonuses
> to the resistance. Alternativly 5 teeth can be exchanged for a big tooth
> which does D+10 damage or 10 teeth for a bad ass tooth o doom doing D+20
> (BATOD are resist for half). Instead of doubling or tripling damage the
> number of teeth is doubled/tripled. Alternativly a double will result in
> weapon lodges (lose 3AG, d-5 to extract) or affecting insubstantials and a
> triple option may be to make damage affecting EN or causing a bleeder (FT
> then EN).
>
> This is in effect a multi-target spell for cannon fodder and a single target
> for big things spell.
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/232 - Release Date: 17/01/2006
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

 After a month of thought I rather like the string of hexes Idea best.
But I still see no way to change it from being the wica spell of choice,
without substantly changing another spell or creating a totally new one.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Helen Saggers" <helen@owbn.net.nz>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: [dq] Posible solution with: Hellfire.


> Hell fire
> Problems high damage,  (doubles and triples have already been addressed)
> resist for half with a built in mod on
> resistance and it ends up being the spell to use for wica.
>
> Sugested soultions, drop the MR mod to 1/ rank, don't let it stack with a
> double or triple effect mod, again enhance enchant effects only range or
BC.
> I rather like the idea of spliting the damage, administering D+ 20 over 4
> targets or D+40 over 7, don't seem to hard to me
> I also like the string of hexs idea like hands of earth, the spell
becoming
> more of a single pulse area effect spell.
>
>
> I have no Idea if any of these changes would cause Wica to use it less,
this
> may just be something we have to live with, like death and taxes. :-)
>
> Helen
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

With Witchcraft are people in agreement that the lack of damage spells in a
good thing, or do we want to see other damage spells added?
At the moment they only have Hellfire, other than Wall of Thorns  and
Creating Restorative that do damage.

Jono

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On
> Behalf Of William Dymock
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 5:44 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air
>
>
> Having seen "the dark" I'll make my recomendations, and for only 5sp too
> :.-)
>
> Wiccan Helfire is spammed because it is literally the only spell to do
> damage with. Thus wiccans need some more spells to tempt them into casting
> something other than Hellfire. like these:
>
> Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)
>
> EM 650
> BC 5
> R 10+10/R
> R A+P
> T Entity
> D perm (minor curse)
>
> This spell curses 1 (+1/3R) beings with pigness (or some other stupid farm
> animal*). Pigness entails a variety of curse effects.
>
> A loss of PB and PC by 1/R (min 5)
> A loss of physical stats by 1/2R (min 3)
>
> Additionally at R15 the targets loose the ability to speak (except in pig)
> and at R20 the targets are physically transformed into pigs.
>
> Needless to say this is a minor curse.
>
> *I don't care that pigs are actually clever, it's a fantasy trope.
>
>
>
> Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)
>
> EM 400
> BC 15
> R 20+20/R
> R A+P
> T Entity
> D perm (major curse)
>
> This spell withers a limb. The limb becomes useless. An arm cannot be used
> to hold/support/use things and a withered leg causes the target
> to lose 1/2
> AG and have TMR reduced acorrdingly. On a double the witch may elect to
> affect two limbs. On a triple they may affect the head. A withered head is
> usually fatal.
>
> However it remains that Hellfire still has all the goods. Range, damage,
> multiple targets, resist penalty and 1/2 effect. I suggest dropping the
> range and multi-target options.
>
> The same issue exists for fire hellfire, necrosis and whirlwind
> vortex. Even
> at one target it's a desirable spell but with a low range and lack of
> multiple targets the other spells in these colleges have demands
> to be used.
>
> However I feel the necros need a good multi-target option so I'll propose
> adding this spell
>
> Teeth of the Dragon (or other big beastie with lots of teeth) (Necro
> special, duh)
>
> EM 500
> BC 20
> R 10 +10/R
> R P
> T Fire action
> D inst
>
> The necromancer summons R+5 teeth to hurl at his enemies. Each tooth does
> D+1 A class type damage to the target (armour counts). A target may resist
> the teeth for no effect and in addition gains any missile
> defensive bonuses
> to the resistance. Alternativly 5 teeth can be exchanged for a big tooth
> which does D+10 damage or 10 teeth for a bad ass tooth o doom doing D+20
> (BATOD are resist for half). Instead of doubling or tripling damage the
> number of teeth is doubled/tripled. Alternativly a double will result in
> weapon lodges (lose 3AG, d-5 to extract) or affecting insubstantials and a
> triple option may be to make damage affecting EN or causing a bleeder (FT
> then EN).
>
> This is in effect a multi-target spell for cannon fodder and a
> single target
> for big things spell.
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/232 - Release Date:
> 17/01/2006
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:
> With Witchcraft are people in agreement that the lack of damage spells in a
> good thing, or do we want to see other damage spells added?
> At the moment they only have Hellfire, other than Wall of Thorns  and
> Creating Restorative that do damage.


Make hellfire single target, and create an area of effect save none damage
spell.

Jim.


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

At 16:33 18/01/06, you wrote:
>I would like to see the primary target die on failure to resist.

I rather thought we had moved to remove all the resist or die spells, on 
the basis that a character dying on the basis of a single dice roll places 
a little too responsibility on the little decahedral bits of high density 
plastic...

So, I took that out and put in the chance of a "C" class spec... which adds 
variety I think.

Jacqui


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

Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:


> I rather thought we had moved to remove all the resist or die spells, on
> the basis that a character dying on the basis of a single dice roll places
> a little too responsibility on the little decahedral bits of high density
> plastic...
>
> So, I took that out and put in the chance of a "C" class spec... which adds
> variety I think.

The resist or die spells haven't been removed from the game. I don't want to see
this death affect removed, either. I just want the multiple targets part
removed. At high levels, death affects are useful, and if there is one death
spell in the game that does damage as a secondary effect, I don't see that as a
bad thing.

Jim.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_033F_01C61C7C.8D3793B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I too would like to see the multi target part of this spell removed if =
it keeps its resist or die.

While I personally don't like spells that can kill regardless of spell =
rank, targets EN, buffs etc. I can however see that the possibility of =
certain death on a failed MR. roll, can put a tension into a fight, =
which some might want to keep.

As GM I would not use the Multi target aspect of this spell on PCs.
Targeted on just one PC resisted or not, the desired fear factor should =
be achieved, who will be the next target? will I/they resist?
Used On NPCs it can make for very short fights unless there are many =
minions or the few have high MR.

As the original point to reviewing these spells was to encourage  the =
use of other options, and this is a (quest,) high Epm, very low CC, =
spell dropping the multi target may be enough to encourage the use of =
other spells.

Helen


----- Original Message -----=20
From: <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air


> Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:
>=20
>=20
> > I rather thought we had moved to remove all the resist or die =
spells, on
> > the basis that a character dying on the basis of a single dice roll =
places
> > a little too responsibility on the little decahedral bits of high =
density
> > plastic...
> >
> > So, I took that out and put in the chance of a "C" class spec... =
which adds
> > variety I think.
>=20
> The resist or die spells haven't been removed from the game. I don't =
want to see
> this death affect removed, either. I just want the multiple targets =
part
> removed. At high levels, death affects are useful, and if there is one =
death
> spell in the game that does damage as a secondary effect, I don't see =
that as a
> bad thing.
>=20
> Jim.

------=_NextPart_000_033F_01C61C7C.8D3793B0
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 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I too would like to see the multi =
target part of=20
this spell removed if it keeps its resist or die.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>While I personally don't like spells =
that can kill=20
regardless of spell rank, targets EN, buffs&nbsp;etc. I can however see =
that the=20
possibility of certain death on a failed MR. roll, can put&nbsp;a =
tension into a=20
fight, which some might want to keep.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As GM I would not use the Multi target =
aspect of=20
this spell on PCs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Targeted on just one PC resisted or =
not, the=20
desired fear factor should be achieved, who will be the next target? =
will I/they=20
resist?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Used On NPCs it can make for very short =
fights=20
unless there are many minions or the few&nbsp;have high MR.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As the original point to reviewing =
these spells was=20
to encourage&nbsp; the use of other options, and this is a (quest,) high =
Epm,=20
very low CC, spell dropping the multi target may be enough to encourage =
the use=20
of other spells.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Helen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From: &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To: &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>&gt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:50=20
PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : =
The=20
refocussing - Air</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><BR><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>&gt; Quoting Jacqui Smith &lt;</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>flamis@ihug.co.nz</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>&gt;:<BR>&gt;=20
<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; &gt; I rather thought we had moved to remove all the =
resist or=20
die spells, on<BR>&gt; &gt; the basis that a character dying on the =
basis of a=20
single dice roll places<BR>&gt; &gt; a little too responsibility on the =
little=20
decahedral bits of high density<BR>&gt; &gt; plastic...<BR>&gt; =
&gt;<BR>&gt;=20
&gt; So, I took that out and put in the chance of a "C" class spec... =
which=20
adds<BR>&gt; &gt; variety I think.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; The resist or die =
spells=20
haven't been removed from the game. I don't want to see<BR>&gt; this =
death=20
affect removed, either. I just want the multiple targets part<BR>&gt; =
removed.=20
At high levels, death affects are useful, and if there is one =
death<BR>&gt;=20
spell in the game that does damage as a secondary effect, I don't see =
that as=20
a<BR>&gt; bad thing.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Jim.<BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_033F_01C61C7C.8D3793B0--


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

At 20:50 18/01/06, you wrote:
>The resist or die spells haven't been removed from the game. I don't want 
>to see
>this death affect removed, either. I just want the multiple targets part
>removed. At high levels, death affects are useful, and if there is one death
>spell in the game that does damage as a secondary effect, I don't see that 
>as a
>bad thing.

If we are to have resist or die spells in the game (and I personally am 
undecided on this - I'd prefer some methodology where more than one dice 
roll was involved to produce that result) I do not think Whirlwind Vortex 
is the most appropriate place for it.

My reasoning is that the spell description indicates that this is very much 
a physical effect, the victim being battered and thrown about in a personal 
tornado. The result should be copious amounts of damage, which might kill, 
especially if a person was already injured, and the possibility of broken 
bones or other injuries covered by the "C" class section of the spec grev 
table. I think that is rather more interesting than resist or die because 
of the greater variation in result, and therefore in the challenge to the 
player.

The "Finger of Death" effect actually feels more like something a 
necromancer might do... which might suggest a direction in which to take 
Necrosis, that is to a single target resist or die spell.

Jacqui
(beginning to think she really has been playing too much D&D)


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

William is now officially banned from watching Willow ever again
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Dymock" <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Air


> Having seen "the dark" I'll make my recomendations, and for only 5sp too
> :.-)
>
> Wiccan Helfire is spammed because it is literally the only spell to do
> damage with. Thus wiccans need some more spells to tempt them into casting
> something other than Hellfire. like these:
>
> Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)
>
> EM 650
> BC 5
> R 10+10/R
> R A+P
> T Entity
> D perm (minor curse)
>
> This spell curses 1 (+1/3R) beings with pigness (or some other stupid farm
> animal*). Pigness entails a variety of curse effects.
>
> A loss of PB and PC by 1/R (min 5)
> A loss of physical stats by 1/2R (min 3)
>
> Additionally at R15 the targets loose the ability to speak (except in pig)
> and at R20 the targets are physically transformed into pigs.
>
> Needless to say this is a minor curse.
>
> *I don't care that pigs are actually clever, it's a fantasy trope.
>
>
>
> Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)
>
> EM 400
> BC 15
> R 20+20/R
> R A+P
> T Entity
> D perm (major curse)
>
> This spell withers a limb. The limb becomes useless. An arm cannot be used
> to hold/support/use things and a withered leg causes the target to lose 
> 1/2
> AG and have TMR reduced acorrdingly. On a double the witch may elect to
> affect two limbs. On a triple they may affect the head. A withered head is
> usually fatal.
>
> However it remains that Hellfire still has all the goods. Range, damage,
> multiple targets, resist penalty and 1/2 effect. I suggest dropping the
> range and multi-target options.
>
> The same issue exists for fire hellfire, necrosis and whirlwind vortex. 
> Even
> at one target it's a desirable spell but with a low range and lack of
> multiple targets the other spells in these colleges have demands to be 
> used.
>
> However I feel the necros need a good multi-target option so I'll propose
> adding this spell
>
> Teeth of the Dragon (or other big beastie with lots of teeth) (Necro
> special, duh)
>
> EM 500
> BC 20
> R 10 +10/R
> R P
> T Fire action
> D inst
>
> The necromancer summons R+5 teeth to hurl at his enemies. Each tooth does
> D+1 A class type damage to the target (armour counts). A target may resist
> the teeth for no effect and in addition gains any missile defensive 
> bonuses
> to the resistance. Alternativly 5 teeth can be exchanged for a big tooth
> which does D+10 damage or 10 teeth for a bad ass tooth o doom doing D+20
> (BATOD are resist for half). Instead of doubling or tripling damage the
> number of teeth is doubled/tripled. Alternativly a double will result in
> weapon lodges (lose 3AG, d-5 to extract) or affecting insubstantials and a
> triple option may be to make damage affecting EN or causing a bleeder (FT
> then EN).
>
> This is in effect a multi-target spell for cannon fodder and a single 
> target
> for big things spell.
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/232 - Release Date: 
> 17/01/2006
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 
> 18/01/2006
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006


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

What is wrong with changing them (hellfire, Whirlwind vortex etc) is ;
1-  I find rule changes detract from my enjoyment of the game.
2- Gods meetings get bogged down discussing rule changes, instead of adding 
roleplaying flavour
3- sometimes it is nice to know what you do in combat (I dont know about 
everyone else but I work all week and sometimes it is nice to turn up 
prepare empathy until needed -  cast, drink a potion rinse and repeat) the 
rest of my ep can be spent on skills and talents and utility spells ment for 
making the game fun.

- if people want to be combat strategists then I invite them to have a look 
at the Namer college.

Thanks Julia

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Bean - TME" <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:24 PM
Subject: [dq] Moving along - step 1


> Hiya all,
>
> Seems people think there is a problem so lets move to the next step.
>
> Please can people clearly say what is wrong with the following spells, 
> dont
> bother with fix's yet.
>
> Whirlwind Vortex
> Necrousis
> dragon Flames
> Hell fire
>
> Thanks Jono
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.1/206 - Release Date: 16/12/2005
>
> 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/233 - Release Date: 18/01/2006


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