Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.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.

I have no problem with the necro college having a finger of death spell, as well
as the air college having whirlwind vortex, where they do damage if you don't
resist being killed.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_19295_4132332.1137586053024
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I heard some idea a while back about making you use all of your targets. So
if theres only 4 enemies and you can target 6 with your hellfire then 2 of
the party are going to have to suck it down or else you can't cast. Now
wouldn't that create dynamic tension and a good reason to avoid using the
spell when there are only a few badguys?
Dylan


On 1/18/06, Helen Saggers <helen@owbn.net.nz> wrote:
>
> 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 o=
r
> 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 --
>

------=_Part_19295_4132332.1137586053024
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I heard some idea a while back about making you use all of your target=
s. So if theres only 4 enemies and you can target 6 with your hellfire then=
 2 of the party are going to have to suck it down or else you can't cast. N=
ow wouldn't that create dynamic tension and a good reason to avoid using th=
e spell when there are only a few badguys?
</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/18/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Helen Saggers</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">helen@owbn.net.n=
z</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">After a month of thought I rathe=
r like the string of hexes Idea best.<br>But I still see no way to change i=
t from being the wica spell of choice,
<br>without substantly changing another spell or creating a totally new one=
.<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: &quot;Helen Saggers&quot; &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">helen@owbn.net.nz</a>&gt;<br>Sent: F=
riday, December 16, 2005 2:47 PM
<br>Subject: [dq] Posible solution with: Hellfire.<br><br><br>&gt; Hell fir=
e<br>&gt; Problems high damage,&nbsp;&nbsp;(doubles and triples have alread=
y been addressed)<br>&gt; resist for half with a built in mod on<br>&gt; re=
sistance and it ends up being the spell to use for wica.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Sugested soultions, drop the MR mod to 1/ rank, don't let =
it stack with a<br>&gt; double or triple effect mod, again enhance enchant =
effects only range or<br>BC.<br>&gt; I rather like the idea of spliting the=
 damage, administering D+ 20 over 4
<br>&gt; targets or D+40 over 7, don't seem to hard to me<br>&gt; I also li=
ke the string of hexs idea like hands of earth, the spell<br>becoming<br>&g=
t; more of a single pulse area effect spell.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I have=
 no Idea if any of these changes would cause Wica to use it less,
<br>this<br>&gt; may just be something we have to live with, like death and=
 taxes. :-)<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Helen<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; -- to unsubscribe=
 notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.=
org.nz
</a> --<br>&gt;<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailt=
o:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote><=
/div><br>

------=_Part_19295_4132332.1137586053024--


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

------=_Part_19375_2528781.1137586639226
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I agree. For whatever its worth. I'd rather have them left the way they are
too.
Dylan

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 --
>

------=_Part_19375_2528781.1137586639226
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I agree. For whatever its worth. I'd rather have them left the way the=
y are too.</div>
<div>Dylan</div><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">You have been pushing a low dama=
ge agenda for a while now. I am not in agreement<br>with you, and I am not =
prepared to support such a plan in anyway. I make it
<br>clear that I would rather not have these spells changed at all, if the =
nett<br>result was to reduce the amount of damage that players might inflic=
t.<br><br>Jim<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:=
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_19375_2528781.1137586639226--


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

Quoting Julia McSpadden <mcspadden@xtra.co.nz>:

> What is wrong with changing them (hellfire, Whirlwind vortex etc) is ;
> 1-  I find rule changes detract from my enjoyment of the game.

Rules changes are as inevitable as death and taxes. There have always been rules
changes, and there always will be. The revisions to Fire, Wiccan, Necro and
Rune, the addition of Binders and Bards, the removal of Undetectability, the
rewriting of Witchsight...All of these things were done to make the game more
enjoyable and more fun. It didn't happen because some bugger went out of the
way to change a rule just to piss a player off.

> 2- Gods meetings get bogged down discussing rule changes, instead of adding
> roleplaying flavour

Gods meetings never talk about role playing flavour. They talk about rules and
they talk about campaign. The kind of discussion you are talking about takes
place in private, where people can't be recorded and the evidence played back
to them. And, they are as fantastical as dragons.

> 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.

Development for a character by a player is fluid, regardless of what a player
might believe. At any time, some aspect of your character may be changed,
requiring you to reconsider your ranking. That is just something you have to
live with. The only useful thing you can do is to assume a philosophical
attitude with regard to it.

Jim.


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

On 18/01/2006, at 19:40, Jacqui Smith wrote:

> 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...

No we have not moved to remove resist or die spells. The game is full 
of them, and they are just fine. What we moved to remove was resist or 
*irresurectably* die spells.

cheers,

clare


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

> 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.

That's a pretty negative approach. I think we both agree that the
colleges need some choice in regards to castable spells. That's at least
a point of agreement. 

> 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 am in complete agreement here. 

> 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.

With the norco option this is not the case. The Area effect spell in
Necro is (by the time you get it to the point of it being castable)
useless. If you get into a fight with lots of opponents a necro would
almost always use a single target resist and die spell over SoC. However
if SoC became a resist for half spell then it would get a lot more use
and becomes like Blackfire and Dragonflames a useful spell. 

I have all of the Necro combat spells ranked at about the same level at
the moment and have had necrosis removed so I have a good idea of the
balance and effect of the spells in the college when Necrosis is not
around. 
My experience with this is that SoC is pretty much only used for the
gooey effect, it is certainly not used if you want to hurt something. 
Spectoral Warrior is great, but it is a conc spell so it can be a while
between casts.
Hand of Death is pretty good if you want to slow something down but it
effectivly takes out the caster for 8-10 pulses.
Life draining is kinda cool but realistically is too hard to coordinate
the timing to actually use. (The only time I use it is either after
combat is over or via contingency).  

Ignoring the fact that I have out of college stuff, after necrosis the
most effective combat spell for regular casting is Wall of Bones. 

Making Necrosis single target and leaving the resist for half will not
change any of the other spells so a necro will as they do now Cast
Spectral Warrior and follow up with Necrosis till out of fatigue. 

> 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.

100% agreement. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C69.B59FE89C
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
> Julia McSpadden
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 23:57
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0
> 
> 
> 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

We stopped having Gods meetings that had meaningful _discussion_ some years
ago (when people stopped showing up to them in useful numbers). We now vote
on issues that have (in theory) been discussed previously (most of the
issues that need voting on are rule changes.) The scope for directly 'adding
roleplaying flavour' in the half hour before the Guild meeting is limited.

If you meant to refer a more general taking up of people's time and energy,
you have a point.


> 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.

Sometimes and for some players/characters this is fine, and it isn't that
difficult or implausible to do this if it is want you want. 
It isn't a reason for restricting others' real choices in combat to the
extent they currently are.


Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C69.B59FE89C
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] Moving along - Step 0.0</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; Julia McSpadden</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 23:57</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step =
0.0</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; What is wrong with changing them (hellfire, =
Whirlwind vortex etc) is ;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 1-&nbsp; I find rule changes detract from my =
enjoyment of the game.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 2- Gods meetings get bogged down discussing =
rule changes, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; instead of adding </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; roleplaying flavour</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We stopped having Gods meetings that had meaningful =
_discussion_ some years ago (when people stopped showing up to them in =
useful numbers). We now vote on issues that have (in theory) been =
discussed previously (most of the issues that need voting on are rule =
changes.) The scope for directly 'adding roleplaying flavour' in the =
half hour before the Guild meeting is limited.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If you meant to refer a more general taking up of =
people's time and energy, you have a point.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 3- sometimes it is nice to know what you do in =
combat (I dont </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; know about </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; everyone else but I work all week and sometimes =
it is nice to turn up </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; prepare empathy until needed -&nbsp; cast, =
drink a potion rinse </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and repeat) the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; rest of my ep can be spent on skills and =
talents and utility </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; spells ment for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; making the game fun.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; - if people want to be combat strategists then =
I invite them </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; to have a look </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; at the Namer college.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sometimes and for some players/characters this is =
fine, and it isn't that difficult or implausible to do this if it is =
want you want. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It isn't a reason for restricting others' real =
choices in combat to the extent they currently are.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C69.B59FE89C--


-- 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_01C61C6A.382FCF2A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1250"

Note that various DamMin curses do small amounts of damage (along with
reducing stat maximums), or have a significant effect in combat other than
direct damage.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 18:27
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Witchcraft
> 
> 
> 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 --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C6A.382FCF2A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1250"
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=3Dwindows-1250">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Broken Spells II : The refocussing - Witchcraft</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note that various DamMin curses do small amounts of =
damage (along with reducing stat maximums), or have a significant =
effect in combat other than direct damage.</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: 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; Jonathan Bean - TME</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 18:27</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 - Witchcraft</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; With Witchcraft are people in agreement that =
the lack of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; damage spells in a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; good thing, or do we want to see other damage =
spells added?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; At the moment they only have Hellfire, other =
than Wall of Thorns&nbsp; and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Creating Restorative that do damage.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Jono</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &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</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Behalf Of William Dymock</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2006 5:44 =
p.m.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Broken Spells II : The =
refocussing - Air</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Having seen &quot;the dark&quot; I'll make =
my recomendations, and for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; only 5sp too</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; :.-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Wiccan Helfire is spammed because it is =
literally the only </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; spell to do</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; damage with. Thus wiccans need some more =
spells to tempt </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; them into casting</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; something other than Hellfire. like =
these:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; EM 650</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; BC 5</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; R 10+10/R</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; R A+P</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; T Entity</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; D perm (minor curse)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; This spell curses 1 (+1/3R) beings with =
pigness (or some </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; other stupid farm</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; animal*). Pigness entails a variety of =
curse effects.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; A loss of PB and PC by 1/R (min 5)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; A loss of physical stats by 1/2R (min =
3)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Additionally at R15 the targets loose the =
ability to speak </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; (except in pig)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; and at R20 the targets are physically =
transformed into pigs.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Needless to say this is a minor =
curse.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; *I don't care that pigs are actually =
clever, it's a fantasy trope.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; EM 400</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; BC 15</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; R 20+20/R</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; R A+P</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; T Entity</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; D perm (major curse)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; This spell withers a limb. The limb =
becomes useless. An arm </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; cannot be used</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; to hold/support/use things and a withered =
leg causes the target</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; to lose 1/2</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; AG and have TMR reduced acorrdingly. On a =
double the witch </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; may elect to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; affect two limbs. On a triple they may =
affect the head. A </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; withered head is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; usually fatal.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; However it remains that Hellfire still has =
all the goods. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Range, damage,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; multiple targets, resist penalty and 1/2 =
effect. I suggest </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; dropping the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; range and multi-target options.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; The same issue exists for fire hellfire, =
necrosis and whirlwind</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; vortex. Even</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; at one target it's a desirable spell but =
with a low range </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; and lack of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; multiple targets the other spells in these =
colleges have demands</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; to be used.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; However I feel the necros need a good =
multi-target option </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; so I'll propose</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; adding this spell</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Teeth of the Dragon (or other big beastie =
with lots of teeth) (Necro</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; special, duh)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; EM 500</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; BC 20</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; R 10 +10/R</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; R P</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; T Fire action</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; D inst</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; The necromancer summons R+5 teeth to hurl =
at his enemies. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Each tooth does</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; D+1 A class type damage to the target =
(armour counts). A </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; target may resist</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; the teeth for no effect and in addition =
gains any missile</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; defensive bonuses</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; to the resistance. Alternativly 5 teeth =
can be exchanged </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; for a big tooth</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; which does D+10 damage or 10 teeth for a =
bad ass tooth o </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; doom doing D+20</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; (BATOD are resist for half). Instead of =
doubling or </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; tripling damage the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; number of teeth is doubled/tripled. =
Alternativly a double </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; will result in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; weapon lodges (lose 3AG, d-5 to extract) =
or affecting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; insubstantials and a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; triple option may be to make damage =
affecting EN or causing </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; a bleeder (FT</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; then EN).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; This is in effect a multi-target spell for =
cannon fodder and a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; single target</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; for big things spell.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; No virus found in this outgoing =
message.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Checked by AVG Free Edition.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: =
267.14.20/232 - Release Date:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; 17/01/2006</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C6A.382FCF2A--


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

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

(is slowly catching up)

IMHO - I like the mental picture of the PC being hit with the agony 
and still, using every ounce of willpower he/she has, gritting their 
teeth getting back up, and staggering forward to deal with the NPC 
necromancer that did it ... if that means making a save per pulse 
..  that just sounds heroic .. not sure if that's achievable with the 
current spell writeup at the moment ..

Keith


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

> > 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.

I agree with Mandos .. and it sounds like a good alternative to Lightning Bolt

Keith


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:
> Ignoring the fact that I have out of college stuff, after necrosis the
> most effective combat spell for regular casting is Wall of Bones. 

Sad.  Very sad.  When Wall of Bones is your most effective combat spell 
it is time to start looking for a nice cottage somewhere in the 
countryside :)

Keep in mind that there are different kinds of games out there.  For 
example, I found that the damage of Saydar's Bladestorm spell was about 
right compared to the rest of the party.  This was doing D+56 to 8 
targets, or D+45 to all undead and unholy in a 4 hex radius of the 
target.  Now Saydar couldn't really keep up with the damage that both 
Sabrina and Morgan were dealing to the enemy by hitting them with 
weapons (against the bad guys that mattered).  However, this amount of 
damage was useful for clearing the battlefield of minions, even if it 
was inaqequate for dealing with the tough bad guys.

Don't be afraid of big damage at the high-end.  It can be a problem in 
the mid-game, but that could easily be addressed in a number of ways 
(for example, just lift the FT cap so that mid-level characters can 
survive a big spell).

I applaud the idea of giving people feasible options, but there is no 
point is doing so at the cost of gutting the combat capability of the 
college.

I suggest something like:

Necrosis:
[D+1}(+2/Rank) damage. 1 target + 1 / 3 ranks.  If resisted, the target 
takes no physical damage, but must make a 1xWP check or be stunned due 
to shock as their body deals with minor hemorrhaging.  Only works on living.

Putrid Wound:
[D-4](+2/Rank) damage.  Single target.  Resist for half.  Only works on 
living.

Stream of Corruption:
[D-2](+1/Rank) damage.  Area effect.  Resist for half.  Works on all 
entities.

Life Draining:
Increase duration to 30 mins + 30/rank.  Works once for every 5 ranks 
(i.e. can drain 4 times at Rk 20).  Have to touch target, no resist. 
Only works on living.

Hand of Death:
Needs some work.  Something like - Target takes [D+1] damage each pulse 
and has to make 1 x WP check to take non-magical pass action.  Adept 
must remain in line of sight with target or the spell is broken.  Only 
works on living.

The problem with Necrosis could be largely solved by fixing the other 
spells so that they are castable.  A number of the spells in the college 
(such as life drain and hand of death) are good ideas but the mechanics 
mean that they are just not worth casting currently.

Ciao,
Andrew


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

> I applaud the idea of giving people feasible options, but there is no 
> point is doing so at the cost of gutting the combat capability of the 
> college.
> 
> I suggest something like:
> 
> Necrosis:
> [D+1}(+2/Rank) damage. 1 target + 1 / 3 ranks.  If resisted, 
> the target 
> takes no physical damage, but must make a 1xWP check or be 
> stunned due 
> to shock as their body deals with minor hemorrhaging.  Only 
> works on living.
> 
> Putrid Wound:
> [D-4](+2/Rank) damage.  Single target.  Resist for half.  
> Only works on 
> living.
> 
> Stream of Corruption:
> [D-2](+1/Rank) damage.  Area effect.  Resist for half.  Works on all 
> entities.
> 
> Life Draining:
> Increase duration to 30 mins + 30/rank.  Works once for every 5 ranks 
> (i.e. can drain 4 times at Rk 20).  Have to touch target, no resist. 
> Only works on living.
> 
> Hand of Death:
> Needs some work.  Something like - Target takes [D+1] damage 
> each pulse 
> and has to make 1 x WP check to take non-magical pass action.  Adept 
> must remain in line of sight with target or the spell is 
> broken.  Only works on living.

Yep I concour with the suggested changes in general, with the exception
that Putrid wound does not need to be resist for half. It is a general
spell and as such is fine as it is the spell for beginning mages. No
need to toughen it up as no other college gets a general knowledge bolt
and it is pretty tough at the low end. 

Life draining would be fine at something like 1+1 min I don't think you
should get to have it on permenantly. 

Hand of death can be left, it is a bit crap but occasionally (very
rarely) it has it's uses. 

Love the resist effect of Necrosis. 

Mandos
/s


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

> Necrosis:
> [D+1}(+2/Rank) damage. 1 target + 1 / 3 ranks.  If
> resisted, the target 
> takes no physical damage, but must make a 1xWP check
> or be stunned due 
> to shock as their body deals with minor
> hemorrhaging.  Only works on living.
> 
> Putrid Wound:
> [D-4](+2/Rank) damage.  Single target.  Resist for
> half.  Only works on 
> living.
> 
> Stream of Corruption:
> [D-2](+1/Rank) damage.  Area effect.  Resist for
> half.  Works on all 
> entities.
> 
> Life Draining:
> Increase duration to 30 mins + 30/rank.  Works once
> for every 5 ranks 
> (i.e. can drain 4 times at Rk 20).  Have to touch
> target, no resist. 
> Only works on living.
> 
> Hand of Death:
> Needs some work.  Something like - Target takes
> [D+1] damage each pulse 
> and has to make 1 x WP check to take non-magical
> pass action.  Adept 
> must remain in line of sight with target or the
> spell is broken.  Only 
> works on living.
> 
> The problem with Necrosis could be largely solved by
> fixing the other 
> spells so that they are castable.  A number of the
> spells in the college 
> (such as life drain and hand of death) are good
> ideas but the mechanics 
> mean that they are just not worth casting currently.

I agree with Andrew here, of the other attack spells
none of them have any real appeal. Life Draining has a
very short duration and as far as I can tell isn't
meant to be used in combat by the write up. Hand of
Death suffers from the problem that (as pointed out by
Mandos) the caster is taken out of the fight for 8+
pulses, having actually used a HoD to kill things I
can tell you it's really boring, every pulse all you
do is roll a D10 and thats it until your target dies.
SoC is cute but most of the time it's not worth
casting given Necrosis is a better spell over all for
damaging multiple targets as then you can pick and
choose your targets, also infection seems almost
redundant in medium + games. Putrid Wound is ok as it
is a GK spell not sure if it actually needs a change.

Combining Life Draining + Hand of Death would make
both spells infinately more useful.

Maybe...

The target suffers [D-2]+1/5 full ranks damage each
pulse that the adept takes a pass action and makes a
squeezing motion with their primary hand. On pulses
that the target takes damage they must make a WP check
to be able to take a non-magical pass action. On the
initial pulse the target suffers D-4+1/2 ranks damage
which the adept may add to their own Endurance or
Fatigue. At anytime the adept wishes to take a pass
action to use this effect the target must be within
line of sight and within range of the spell.



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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

> The target suffers [D-2]+1/5 full ranks damage each
> pulse that the adept takes a pass action and makes a
> squeezing motion with their primary hand. On pulses
> that the target takes damage they must make a WP check
> to be able to take a non-magical pass action. On the
> initial pulse the target suffers D-4+1/2 ranks damage
> which the adept may add to their own Endurance or
> Fatigue. At anytime the adept wishes to take a pass
> action to use this effect the target must be within
> line of sight and within range of the spell.

If we go down this line I don't think it should restore spell/tiredness
ft. 

Mandos
/s


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

On 1/19/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
> Yep I concour with the suggested changes in general, with the exception
> that Putrid wound does not need to be resist for half. It is a general
> spell and as such is fine as it is the spell for beginning mages. No
> need to toughen it up as no other college gets a general knowledge bolt
> and it is pretty tough at the low end.

Small correction. Only one college gets a General knowledge bolt
(Fire) but they deserve it.

TTFN, Struan.


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

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

> > 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.
>
> That's a pretty negative approach. I think we both agree that the
> colleges need some choice in regards to castable spells. That's at least
> a point of agreement.

It doesn't matter that it's negative, if it's accurate. I am not saying there is
wholesale disagreement, I'm sying that there's no common ground at the point we
disagree and I decline to negotiate the point.

> > 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.
>
> With the norco option this is not the case. The Area effect spell in
> Necro is (by the time you get it to the point of it being castable)
> useless. If you get into a fight with lots of opponents a necro would
> almost always use a single target resist and die spell over SoC. However
> if SoC became a resist for half spell then it would get a lot more use
> and becomes like Blackfire and Dragonflames a useful spell.
>
> I have all of the Necro combat spells ranked at about the same level at
> the moment and have had necrosis removed so I have a good idea of the
> balance and effect of the spells in the college when Necrosis is not
> around.
> My experience with this is that SoC is pretty much only used for the
> gooey effect, it is certainly not used if you want to hurt something.
> Spectoral Warrior is great, but it is a conc spell so it can be a while
> between casts.
> Hand of Death is pretty good if you want to slow something down but it
> effectivly takes out the caster for 8-10 pulses.
> Life draining is kinda cool but realistically is too hard to coordinate
> the timing to actually use. (The only time I use it is either after
> combat is over or via contingency).
>
> Ignoring the fact that I have out of college stuff, after necrosis the
> most effective combat spell for regular casting is Wall of Bones.
>
> Making Necrosis single target and leaving the resist for half will not
> change any of the other spells so a necro will as they do now Cast
> Spectral Warrior and follow up with Necrosis till out of fatigue.

I think that, if you are correct, then there is no reason to add anything to the
college to generate alternative spell choices, except to increase the base
chance of some of, say, stream of corruption and necrosis, then. There seem to
be plenty of things a necro might do, otherwise.

Jim
Jim.


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

> I think that, if you are correct, then there is no reason to 
> add anything to the college to generate alternative spell 
> choices, except to increase the base chance of some of, say, 
> stream of corruption and necrosis, then. There seem to be 
> plenty of things a necro might do, otherwise.

Now you've got me baffled. Given that the college has only one spell
really worth casting in combat (Necrosis), in order to create choice you
want to increase the base chance of a spell that no-one will ever cast
and the spell that causes the lack of choice in the college?

How on earth does that help? I guess it means that necromancers will
have a better chance to cast their only decent combat spell but it won't
give them combat choices at all. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

> > I think that, if you are correct, then there is no reason to
> > add anything to the college to generate alternative spell
> > choices, except to increase the base chance of some of, say,
> > stream of corruption and necrosis, then. There seem to be
> > plenty of things a necro might do, otherwise.
>
> Now you've got me baffled. Given that the college has only one spell
> really worth casting in combat (Necrosis), in order to create choice you
> want to increase the base chance of a spell that no-one will ever cast
> and the spell that causes the lack of choice in the college?
>
> How on earth does that help? I guess it means that necromancers will
> have a better chance to cast their only decent combat spell but it won't
> give them combat choices at all.

(This is assuming necrosis is single target, by the way.)

If necrosis is single target, and has a base chance of around 30%, then you
don't have to rank it so high to make it castable. If you give Stream of
Corruption the same kind of base chance, again, you don't have to rank it so
high to make it castable, which means the necro's xp investment is not so
extreme. I believe you will see other forms of development, as well.

Part of the problem is that committing to spells like necrosis,hellfire and
whirlwind vortex is that they remove development from other areas, which
reinforces the lack of choice for a player. Increasing base chances encourages
a wider range of development, reducing them discourages it.

Mind you, it won't automatically mean that they have more choices in combat, but
it will mean that they have substantial ranks in spells that might be
alternatives.

Jim.


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

> (This is assuming necrosis is single target, by the way.)
> 
> If necrosis is single target, and has a base chance of around 
> 30%, then you don't have to rank it so high to make it 
> castable. If you give Stream of Corruption the same kind of 
> base chance, again, you don't have to rank it so high to make 
> it castable, which means the necro's xp investment is not so 
> extreme. I believe you will see other forms of development, as well.
> 
> Part of the problem is that committing to spells like 
> necrosis,hellfire and whirlwind vortex is that they remove 
> development from other areas, which reinforces the lack of 
> choice for a player. Increasing base chances encourages a 
> wider range of development, reducing them discourages it.
> 
> Mind you, it won't automatically mean that they have more 
> choices in combat, but it will mean that they have 
> substantial ranks in spells that might be alternatives.

Ok I can see the logic there but it doesn't fix the problem that people
will not cast SoC because it is not a viable alternative. Ever.
Seriously. The only occasions I have ever used SoC is once because it
was a new spell and a second time because I didn't have necrosis, and I
would have used necrosis if I had it even if it was single target. 

You appear to be basing your models here on SoC being an alternative. It
isn't. 

Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
Necro at the high level (or DQ Supers level) he is saying the same thing
I am, depower Necrosis and power up the other spells in the college.
Andrew it has to be said plays at the extreme end of the game if the
solutions work at that level and the more normal game levels the rest of
us play then I think it is workable. 

Mandos
/s


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

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


> You appear to be basing your models here on SoC being an alternative. It
> isn't.
>
> Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
> Necro at the high level (or DQ Supers level) he is saying the same thing
> I am, depower Necrosis and power up the other spells in the college.
> Andrew it has to be said plays at the extreme end of the game if the
> solutions work at that level and the more normal game levels the rest of
> us play then I think it is workable.

No, I think that there are other spells you would cast if necrosis were single
target. Stream of corruption was the one I happened to raise because it deals
with multiple targets. Originally, I was under the impression that the stuff
flowed languidly away from the caster and caused some weird kind of disease
damage. I wasn't aware it was a kind of organic shrapnel spell.

(I, personally, think that life draining is a little too conditional as it
stands, and I would rather see it combined into a spell like Hand of Death,
where each squeeze drained life from the target and repaired the caster's EN
and then FT, as per MTB's suggestion.)

Jim


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

At 11:02 19/01/06, you wrote:
>Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
>Necro at the high level (or DQ Supers level) he is saying the same thing
>I am, depower Necrosis and power up the other spells in the college.
>Andrew it has to be said plays at the extreme end of the game if the
>solutions work at that level and the more normal game levels the rest of
>us play then I think it is workable.

Actually I think most of us would happy with just depower Necrosis (and 
Agony of course) - Necromancy is already one of the most powerful colleges 
on the block... (points at Bardic with only one minor damage-causing spell).

Jacqui


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

Mandos said:

> Ok I can see the logic there but it doesn't fix the problem that people
> will not cast SoC because it is not a viable alternative. Ever.
> Seriously. The only occasions I have ever used SoC is once because it
> was a new spell and a second time because I didn't have necrosis, and I
> would have used necrosis if I had it even if it was single target.

> You appear to be basing your models here on SoC being an alternative. It
> isn't.

We are aiming at Necrosis not working on none-living creatures, so their
will be times when it is simply not an option.

Jono


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

I do not want to see the top end amount of damage from a normal cast be
reduced.

I do want to have other options where these spells can not be cast.
I do want to see all the 'big spells' have a save for 'an effect' part to
them.
I do want other spells added with large effects.
I do not care to keep the current large range, # targets, chance of double
and triple damage, effects these spells have.

Jono

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Jacqui Smith
> Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:29 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Big Spells III : return of the argument.
>
>
> At 11:02 19/01/06, you wrote:
> >Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
> >Necro at the high level (or DQ Supers level) he is saying the same thing
> >I am, depower Necrosis and power up the other spells in the college.
> >Andrew it has to be said plays at the extreme end of the game if the
> >solutions work at that level and the more normal game levels the rest of
> >us play then I think it is workable.
>
> Actually I think most of us would happy with just depower Necrosis (and
> Agony of course) - Necromancy is already one of the most powerful
> colleges
> on the block... (points at Bardic with only one minor
> damage-causing spell).
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- 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>:


> Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
> Necro at the high level (or DQ Supers level) he is saying the same thing
> I am, depower Necrosis and power up the other spells in the college.
> Andrew it has to be said plays at the extreme end of the game if the
> solutions work at that level and the more normal game levels the rest of
> us play then I think it is workable.

I asked him what his solution was, and this is what he thinks. But, bear in mind
that Saydar is not going to be wearing the downside of this. That spell is
substantially altered and not subject to a new general ruling. And, he will
never have to DM his alteration because he won't run a game.

I don't see this as being de-powered in any way, George.

His version of necrosis will be lethal, because it will affect multiple targets,
and if they fail to resist, they will take piles of damage. If they do resist,
however, they have a bloody good chance of being stunned. Gee...What are my
choices here...Resist, and take a wadge of damage...choose to forego my
resistance and roll WP or less or end up standing around for a while.

Somehow, I think I would consider a half damage effect LESS powerful than this.

I suspect that a necro would find the functional utility of this spell so high
that you wouldn't bother casting anything else.

I imagine the very next spell you would cast would be, gosh, let me
think...Um...o, necrosis...Except  you might exclude the stunned targets from
your next cast, I suppose. And, the dead ones, but they're not legal targets
anyway...

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I don't like the effect. I am just saying
that I don't think it does anything to create a wider range of choices.

Jim.


-- 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_01C61C80.01DE4B98
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
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:30
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Big Spells III : return of the argument.
> 
> 
> Mandos said:
> 
> > Ok I can see the logic there but it doesn't fix the problem 
> that people
> > will not cast SoC because it is not a viable alternative. Ever.
> > Seriously. The only occasions I have ever used SoC is once 
> because it
> > was a new spell and a second time because I didn't have 
> necrosis, and I
> > would have used necrosis if I had it even if it was single target.
> 
> > You appear to be basing your models here on SoC being an 
> alternative. It
> > isn't.
> 
> We are aiming at Necrosis not working on none-living 
> creatures, so their
> will be times when it is simply not an option.
> 

Yes, but generally it doesn't address the Necros' "cast Necrosis (or SoC if
non-living) until out of FT" boredom issue.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C80.01DE4B98
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] Big Spells III : return of the argument.</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; Jonathan Bean - TME</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:30</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Big Spells III : return of =
the argument.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Mandos said:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Ok I can see the logic there but it =
doesn't fix the problem </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; that people</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; will not cast SoC because it is not a =
viable alternative. Ever.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; Seriously. The only occasions I have ever =
used SoC is once </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; because it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; was a new spell and a second time because =
I didn't have </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; necrosis, and I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; would have used necrosis if I had it even =
if it was single target.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; You appear to be basing your models here =
on SoC being an </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; alternative. It</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; isn't.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; We are aiming at Necrosis not working on =
none-living </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; creatures, so their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; will be times when it is simply not an =
option.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Yes, but generally it doesn't address the Necros' =
&quot;cast Necrosis (or SoC if non-living) until out of FT&quot; =
boredom issue.</FONT>
</P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C80.01DE4B98--


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

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

> At 11:02 19/01/06, you wrote:
> >Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
> >Necro at the high level (or DQ Supers level) he is saying the same thing
> >I am, depower Necrosis and power up the other spells in the college.
> >Andrew it has to be said plays at the extreme end of the game if the
> >solutions work at that level and the more normal game levels the rest of
> >us play then I think it is workable.
>
> Actually I think most of us would happy with just depower Necrosis (and
> Agony of course) - Necromancy is already one of the most powerful colleges
> on the block... (points at Bardic with only one minor damage-causing spell).

Namers are not damage casters. E&E are not damage casters. Binders are not
damage casters. Some even say earth mages are not damage casters.

Neither are Bards, and you know this full well, Jacqui. It was part of the
design constraints of the college way back when. It is not a part of the
fantasy flavour of a Bard to be throwing damage around like a blast mage. I
accepted shout of thunder, mostly because there is no sound-based attack form
in the game, and it seemed the best place to put it.

If you want some high damage spells for Brigitte as a point of difference, go
out on adventure and find them.

Jim


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

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


>
> Yes, but generally it doesn't address the Necros' "cast Necrosis (or SoC if
> non-living) until out of FT" boredom issue.
>

One step at a time, Errol.

To be honest, the range of options has never needed to be high to be engaging.
More than three or four and players slow down weighing lots of alternatives.
Too much choice is harder to administer and to extract a clear decision from a
player.


Jim.


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

> His version of necrosis will be lethal, because it will 
> affect multiple targets, and if they fail to resist, they 
> will take piles of damage. If they do resist, however, they 
> have a bloody good chance of being stunned. Gee...What are my 
> choices here...Resist, and take a wadge of damage...choose to 
> forego my resistance and roll WP or less or end up standing 
> around for a while.
> 
> Somehow, I think I would consider a half damage effect LESS 
> powerful than this.

Lessee, Spells go at the end of the pulse so while people may get
stunned they will get a chance to recover from stun immediately so the
spell will get 4 in 5 of the targets stunned and then ~50 will recover.
In any group of people 1 or maybe two are going to be hit with the
downside assuming the enemy stun. 

A good but not overwhelming secondary effect and definatly better
than...Die or Resist and Still Die.

Mandos
/s


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

> I do not want to see the top end amount of damage from a 
> normal cast be reduced.
> 
> I do want to have other options where these spells can not be 
> cast. I do want to see all the 'big spells' have a save for 
> 'an effect' part to them. I do want other spells added with 
> large effects. I do not care to keep the current large range, 
> # targets, chance of double and triple damage, effects these 
> spells have.

Hear hear!

Mandos
/s


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

With making the high end spells have less targets, it may lead to more GMs
putting/running more casters in their games which will be a greater
overhead. I for one, can see myself having to do this.

It may also effect Namers at run time - with even more need for Bane Vrs
Counter spells, as the increase in casters.

I am unclear at this stage if this will slow the game down or not, as I may
simply replace some types of NPCs with casters, in an attempt to keep game
speed up.

What do others think?

Jonathan


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

To put that in context:

I am often running: 
 15 to 25 bad guys at Med level in a single combat
 25 to 60ish bad guys at High level in a single combat

I often have numbers, over less high quality NPCs.

Jonathan


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

I'm thinking that if the PCs have less multi-target blast spells, you
can afford to have less, higher-quality NPCs, and this may actually
reduce the workload in some cases. However, to get the same fire-power
for your buck, you will need more NPCs if they are using the
multi-target high damage spells.

I'm assuming that except at the top end of games, you wouldn't have more
than a few of these mages required in a combat? If you have 25-60 guys,
all with multi-target high-damage spells, as NPCs, then I'm not fit to
comment on running the combat.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 12:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big Spells III : other issues



To put that in context:

I am often running: 
 15 to 25 bad guys at Med level in a single combat
 25 to 60ish bad guys at High level in a single combat

I often have numbers, over less high quality NPCs.

Jonathan


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

> I'm thinking that if the PCs have less multi-target blast spells, you
> can afford to have less, higher-quality NPCs, and this may actually
> reduce the workload in some cases. However, to get the same fire-power
> for your buck, you will need more NPCs if they are using the
> multi-target high damage spells.
>
> I'm assuming that except at the top end of games, you wouldn't have more
> than a few of these mages required in a combat? If you have 25-60 guys,
> all with multi-target high-damage spells, as NPCs, then I'm not fit to
> comment on running the combat.

No I do not have even at high level 25-60 guys all with multi-target spells.
Very few 4 or 5.

Jonathan

>


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

> Necrosis:
> [D+1}(+2/Rank) damage. 1 target + 1 / 3 ranks.  If resisted, 
> the target takes no physical damage, but must make a 1xWP check or be 
> stunned due to shock as their body deals with minor hemorrhaging.
Only 
> works on living.

I would be quite keen to see this playtested for a session (or at least
1 combat) to see how GM's and players feel about it. 

Mainly to see if the Stunning is too tough or too wimpy. 

Mandos
/s


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

------=_Part_4836_11782751.1137628976730
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Just a couple of comments on William's "Dark" spells

William wrote:
>
> > Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)


Multi-target curse, more grunty (if you'll pardon the term) than DMin, but
less than DMag. Effects at low level are similar to DMin (loss of stats),
and only at high ranks does it become as incapacitating as DMag.  As writte=
n
(and particularly with the suggested EM of 650), the multi-target aspect is
the only useful part of the spell -- DMag can achieve at least as much
effect, with similar BC, range, EM, etc.

For myself, as someone who play a curse using Wiccan, I can see this as a
viable spell, but only if the cost/benefit moved more benefit-wards.
Suggested changes to the apell stats would be lower EM (in the 400 range),
higher BC (15-20?), and the standard 15+15 range.  With those stats I'd
think about learning and using it.

> Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)


Single target, resist for nothing, can kill (on a triple), else resist for
partial incapacitation. Good range. Flavoursome effect. Can't be removed as
easily as DMin, but otherwise doesn't stack that well against it and DMag.
Could be useful, but when I'm throwing single target resist or else I'd
probably favour DMag and would rather get more ranks in that than split the
EP to send 400 in this spell's direction, but not a bad option for someone
less interested in DMag.

Both will suffer from the same problem seen with all "resist or else" spell=
s
-- primary bad guys tend to resist. :-)

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_4836_11782751.1137628976730
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Just a couple of comments on William's &quot;Dark&quot; spells<br><br><div>=
<span class=3D"gmail_quote">William wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt=
 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
&gt; Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)</blockquote><div><br>Multi-target curse=
, more grunty (if you'll pardon the term) than DMin, but less than DMag. Ef=
fects at low level are similar to DMin (loss of stats), and only at high ra=
nks does it become as incapacitating as DMag.&nbsp; As written (and particu=
larly with the suggested EM of 650), the multi-target aspect is the only us=
eful part of the spell -- DMag can achieve at least as much effect, with si=
milar BC, range, EM, etc.
<br><br>For myself, as someone who play a curse using Wiccan, I can see thi=
s as a viable spell, but only if the cost/benefit moved more benefit-wards.=
 Suggested changes to the apell stats would be lower EM (in the 400 range),=
 higher BC (15-20?), and the standard 15+15 range.&nbsp; With those stats I=
'd think about learning and using it.
<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;">&gt=
; Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)</blockquote><div><br>Single target, r=
esist for nothing, can kill (on a triple), else resist for partial incapaci=
tation. Good range. Flavoursome effect. Can't be removed as easily as DMin,=
 but otherwise doesn't stack that well against it and DMag. Could be useful=
, but when I'm throwing single target resist or else I'd probably favour DM=
ag and would rather get more ranks in that than split the EP to send 400 in=
 this spell's direction, but not a bad option for someone less interested i=
n DMag.
<br><br>Both will suffer from the same problem seen with all &quot;resist o=
r else&quot; spells -- primary bad guys tend to resist. :-)<br><br>Cheers,<=
br>Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_4836_11782751.1137628976730--


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

Hi all,

I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge spells that
are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.
I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players
selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a
death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the
guild is less.

This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to create new
spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.

or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in the Guild NPC
will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by
Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I would need a
'drop of pure mana' etc

It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.
What are others views?

Jono


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

At 11:47 19/01/06, you wrote:
>  >Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
>  ...snip...
> > Agony of course) - Necromancy is already one of the most powerful colleges
> > on the block... (points at Bardic with only one minor damage-causing 
> spell).
>
>Namers are not damage casters. E&E are not damage casters. Binders are not
>damage casters. Some even say earth mages are not damage casters.
>
>Neither are Bards, and you know this full well, Jacqui. It was part of the
>design constraints of the college way back when. It is not a part of the
>fantasy flavour of a Bard to be throwing damage around like a blast mage. I
>accepted shout of thunder, mostly because there is no sound-based attack form
>in the game, and it seemed the best place to put it.
>
>If you want some high damage spells for Brigitte as a point of difference, go
>out on adventure and find them.

I am well aware of that, although I do not concede that minimal damage was 
part of any design constraint I agreed to.

Utility colleges are not meant to have much in the way of direct damage - 
but that is not a rationale for increasing the damage-dealing abilities of 
battle colleges. The disparity is large enough as it is, thank you very much.

And now shall we return to the discussion, without further personal 
references, if you please.

Jacqui


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

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 000A1246CC2570FB_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

When the Player Guide was reviewed this was discussed and the exact 
opposite decision was reached.

One of the big problems at the time was that rewards between games varied 
alot - both in value and style.
Many players complained they couldn't learn stuff because the GM's who 
gave out knowlege didn't run games suitable for their characters. 
Developing your college had become a bad case of who your friends were. 

It was decided that something as basic and necessary to the game should be 
equally available to all players.  Therefore all the special knowlege 
spells  and prices were reviewed and only the high end nasties were made 
'Quest' only.

I have notice in mid range games there is a much wider range of spells 
being used and ranked than was true 5 years ago.  This is good.

Giving out knowlege has to match the plot a GM is running.  With only two 
or so games of each level running on any season and the odds of you being 
able to find what your charactor wants is very low - I can remember 
players looking for years for 200 em utility spells.

Therefore I argue against this.  It will just limit and frustrate players.

Regards,
Rosemary





Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> 
Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz
19/01/2006 01:56 p.m.



To
dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc

Subject
[dq] Spells sold by the Guild






Hi all,

I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge spells that
are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.
I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players
selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a
death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the
guild is less.

This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to create 
new
spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.

or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in the Guild 
NPC
will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by
Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I would need 
a
'drop of pure mana' etc

It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.
What are others views?

Jono


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


--=_alternative 000A1246CC2570FB_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">When the Player Guide was reviewed this
was discussed and the exact opposite decision was reached.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">One of the big problems at the time
was that rewards between games varied alot - both in value and style.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Many players complained they couldn't
learn stuff because the GM's who gave out knowlege didn't run games suitable
for their characters. &nbsp;Developing your college had become a bad case
of who your friends were. &nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It was decided that something as basic
and necessary to the game should be equally available to all players. &nbsp;Therefore
all the special knowlege spells &nbsp;and prices were reviewed and only
the high end nasties were made 'Quest' only.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I have notice in mid range games there
is a much wider range of spells being used and ranked than was true 5 years
ago. &nbsp;This is good.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Giving out knowlege has to match the
plot a GM is running. &nbsp;With only two or so games of each level running
on any season and the odds of you being able to find what your charactor
wants is very low - I can remember players looking for years for 200 em
utility spells.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Therefore I argue against this. &nbsp;It
will just limit and frustrate players.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
Rosemary<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Jonathan Bean - TME &lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt;</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">19/01/2006 01:56 p.m.</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[dq] Spells sold by the Guild</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Hi all,<br>
<br>
I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge spells that<br>
are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.<br>
I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players<br>
selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a<br>
death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the<br>
guild is less.<br>
<br>
This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.<br>
I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to create
new<br>
spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.<br>
<br>
or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in the Guild
NPC<br>
will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by<br>
Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I would need
a<br>
'drop of pure mana' etc<br>
<br>
It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.<br>
What are others views?<br>
<br>
Jono<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
--=_alternative 000A1246CC2570FB_=--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C61D09.33E0CEC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well said
Jono
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
RMansfield@ingnz.com
  Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 2:54 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Spells sold by the Guild



  When the Player Guide was reviewed this was discussed and the exact
opposite decision was reached.

  One of the big problems at the time was that rewards between games varied
alot - both in value and style.
  Many players complained they couldn't learn stuff because the GM's who
gave out knowlege didn't run games suitable for their characters.
Developing your college had become a bad case of who your friends were.

  It was decided that something as basic and necessary to the game should be
equally available to all players.  Therefore all the special knowlege spells
and prices were reviewed and only the high end nasties were made 'Quest'
only.

  I have notice in mid range games there is a much wider range of spells
being used and ranked than was true 5 years ago.  This is good.

  Giving out knowlege has to match the plot a GM is running.  With only two
or so games of each level running on any season and the odds of you being
able to find what your charactor wants is very low - I can remember players
looking for years for 200 em utility spells.

  Therefore I argue against this.  It will just limit and frustrate players.

  Regards,
  Rosemary




        Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
        Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz
        19/01/2006 01:56 p.m.


       To dq@dq.sf.org.nz
              cc
              Subject [dq] Spells sold by the Guild







  Hi all,

  I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge spells that
  are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.
  I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players
  selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a
  death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the
  guild is less.

  This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
  I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to create
new
  spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.

  or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in the Guild
NPC
  will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by
  Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I would need
a
  'drop of pure mana' etc

  It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.
  What are others views?

  Jono


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


------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C61D09.33E0CEC0
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=3D926070102-19012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Well=20
said</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D926070102-19012006><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=20
  </B>RMansfield@ingnz.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 19 January 2006 =
2:54=20
  p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Spells =
sold by=20
  the Guild<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=3Dsans-serif =
size=3D2>When the Player=20
  Guide was reviewed this was discussed and the exact opposite decision =
was=20
  reached.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D2>One of the =
big problems=20
  at the time was that rewards between games varied alot - both in value =
and=20
  style.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D2>Many players =
complained they=20
  couldn't learn stuff because the GM's who gave out knowlege didn't run =
games=20
  suitable for their characters. &nbsp;Developing your college had =
become a bad=20
  case of who your friends were. &nbsp;</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT =
face=3Dsans-serif=20
  size=3D2>It was decided that something as basic and necessary to the =
game should=20
  be equally available to all players. &nbsp;Therefore all the special =
knowlege=20
  spells &nbsp;and prices were reviewed and only the high end nasties =
were made=20
  'Quest' only.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D2>I have =
notice in mid=20
  range games there is a much wider range of spells being used and =
ranked than=20
  was true 5 years ago. &nbsp;This is good.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT =
face=3Dsans-serif=20
  size=3D2>Giving out knowlege has to match the plot a GM is running. =
&nbsp;With=20
  only two or so games of each level running on any season and the odds =
of you=20
  being able to find what your charactor wants is very low - I can =
remember=20
  players looking for years for 200 em utility spells.</FONT> =
<BR><BR><FONT=20
  face=3Dsans-serif size=3D2>Therefore I argue against this. &nbsp;It =
will just=20
  limit and frustrate players.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=3Dsans-serif=20
  size=3D2>Regards,<BR>Rosemary<BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR>
  <TABLE width=3D"100%">
    <TBODY>
    <TR vAlign=3Dtop>
      <TD width=3D"40%"><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D1><B>Jonathan =
Bean - TME=20
        &lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt;</B> </FONT><BR><FONT =
face=3Dsans-serif=20
        size=3D1>Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>=20
        <P><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D1>19/01/2006 01:56 p.m.</FONT> =

        <TABLE border=3D1>
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=3Dtop>
            <TD bgColor=3Dwhite>
              <DIV align=3Dcenter></DIV></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></P>
      <TD width=3D"59%">
        <TABLE width=3D"100%">
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=3Dtop>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=3Dright><FONT face=3Dsans-serif =
size=3D1>To</FONT></DIV>
            <TD><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D1>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>=20
          <TR vAlign=3Dtop>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=3Dright><FONT face=3Dsans-serif =
size=3D1>cc</FONT></DIV>
            <TD>
          <TR vAlign=3Dtop>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=3Dright><FONT face=3Dsans-serif =
size=3D1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
            <TD><FONT face=3Dsans-serif size=3D1>[dq] Spells sold by the =

              Guild</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
        <TABLE>
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=3Dtop>
            <TD>
            =
<TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT=20
  size=3D2><TT>Hi all,<BR><BR>I would like to see in general the amount =
of Special=20
  Knowledge spells that<BR>are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild =
half.<BR>I=20
  think that their is almost nothing we can do about =
players<BR>selling/teaching=20
  spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a<BR>death/people =
leave the=20
  guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the<BR>guild is=20
  less.<BR><BR>This would mean that Characters would seek spells while =
on=20
  adventure.<BR>I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to =
have to=20
  create new<BR>spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells =
available=20
  reduced.<BR><BR>or we could put available by quest next to more of =
them, as in=20
  the Guild NPC<BR>will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. =
As in you=20
  wish to by<BR>Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but =
first I=20
  would need a<BR>'drop of pure mana' etc<BR><BR>It has the potential =
for more=20
  flavour than the current system.<BR>What are others=20
  views?<BR><BR>Jono<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify=20
  mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz =
--<BR></TT></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C61D09.33E0CEC0--


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

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

> > His version of necrosis will be lethal, because it will
> > affect multiple targets, and if they fail to resist, they
> > will take piles of damage. If they do resist, however, they
> > have a bloody good chance of being stunned. Gee...What are my
> > choices here...Resist, and take a wadge of damage...choose to
> > forego my resistance and roll WP or less or end up standing
> > around for a while.
> >
> > Somehow, I think I would consider a half damage effect LESS
> > powerful than this.
>
> Lessee, Spells go at the end of the pulse so while people may get
> stunned they will get a chance to recover from stun immediately so the
> spell will get 4 in 5 of the targets stunned and then ~50 will recover.
> In any group of people 1 or maybe two are going to be hit with the
> downside assuming the enemy stun.
>
> A good but not overwhelming secondary effect and definatly better
> than...Die or Resist and Still Die.

That happens at 5% of casts. It is not a common result of the spell. While
resisting and still dying is not good, in particular to a spell that could be
applied to the entire party, it is deceptive to think that this spell is less
powerful.

Even were it a single target spell, it would be nasty, whatever the mitigating
factors, and yes, George, I did consider that they could recover from stun.
However, if you are hit with it before your action, you would have to use up
your stun recovery roll.

Jim.


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

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

> > Necrosis:
> > [D+1}(+2/Rank) damage. 1 target + 1 / 3 ranks.  If resisted,
> > the target takes no physical damage, but must make a 1xWP check or be
> > stunned due to shock as their body deals with minor hemorrhaging.
> Only
> > works on living.
>
> I would be quite keen to see this playtested for a session (or at least
> 1 combat) to see how GM's and players feel about it.
>
> Mainly to see if the Stunning is too tough or too wimpy.

Run a game and test it, then, George.

Jim.


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

On 19/01/2006, at 15:01, Jonathan Bean - TME wrote:

>> Therefore all the special knowlege spells  and prices were reviewed 
>> and only the high end nasties were made 'Quest' only.
>>
>> I have notice in mid range games there is a much wider range of 
>> spells being used and ranked than was true 5 years ago.  This is 
>> good.

I agree with Rosemary on this one.

Has the price list been updated so that the possibility of Shadow and 
Star mages gaining Sphere of Dark/Light has been fixed? The ritual is 
Quest, but it said "never" for these two branches at one time, which is 
incorrect.

cheers,

clare


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

> Run a game and test it, then, George.

More than happy too except for the small problem that to my knowledge
no-one actually has Necrosis at the moment except possibly Naden, Dramus
doesn't have it, Saydar has a different spell and the others are all low
characters :0-) 

However I am taking a low necromancer on my next game and am happy to
give him Necrosis for a while. It would be good to get someone not
directly involved in the discussion to test it as well to get an
unbiased neutral opinion if possible. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C9F.7DD03454
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Well said Rosemary.
I would also like to point out that the number of games available to sign up
to at the Guild Meeting is generally one or maybe two (sometimes zero) of
each level. This encourages pre-arrangement.
 
Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
RMansfield@ingnz.com
Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:54
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spells sold by the Guild



When the Player Guide was reviewed this was discussed and the exact opposite
decision was reached. 

One of the big problems at the time was that rewards between games varied
alot - both in value and style. 
Many players complained they couldn't learn stuff because the GM's who gave
out knowlege didn't run games suitable for their characters.  Developing
your college had become a bad case of who your friends were.   

It was decided that something as basic and necessary to the game should be
equally available to all players.  Therefore all the special knowlege spells
and prices were reviewed and only the high end nasties were made 'Quest'
only. 

I have notice in mid range games there is a much wider range of spells being
used and ranked than was true 5 years ago.  This is good. 

Giving out knowlege has to match the plot a GM is running.  With only two or
so games of each level running on any season and the odds of you being able
to find what your charactor wants is very low - I can remember players
looking for years for 200 em utility spells. 

Therefore I argue against this.  It will just limit and frustrate players. 

Regards,
Rosemary





Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> 
Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 


19/01/2006 01:56 p.m. 





To
dq@dq.sf.org.nz 

cc

Subject
[dq] Spells sold by the Guild

	




Hi all,

I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge spells that
are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.
I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players
selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a
death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the
guild is less.

This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to create new
spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.

or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in the Guild NPC
will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by
Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I would need a
'drop of pure mana' etc

It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.
What are others views?

Jono


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




------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C9F.7DD03454
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

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


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=70281502-19012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Well 
said Rosemary.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=70281502-19012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I would 
also like to point out that the number of games available to sign up to at the 
Guild Meeting is generally one or maybe two (sometimes zero) of each level. This 
encourages pre-arrangement.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=70281502-19012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=70281502-19012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=70281502-19012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of</B> 
  RMansfield@ingnz.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 19 January 2006 
  14:54<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Spells sold by 
  the Guild<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>When the Player 
  Guide was reviewed this was discussed and the exact opposite decision was 
  reached.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>One of the big problems 
  at the time was that rewards between games varied alot - both in value and 
  style.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Many players complained they 
  couldn't learn stuff because the GM's who gave out knowlege didn't run games 
  suitable for their characters. &nbsp;Developing your college had become a bad 
  case of who your friends were. &nbsp;</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
  size=2>It was decided that something as basic and necessary to the game should 
  be equally available to all players. &nbsp;Therefore all the special knowlege 
  spells &nbsp;and prices were reviewed and only the high end nasties were made 
  'Quest' only.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I have notice in mid 
  range games there is a much wider range of spells being used and ranked than 
  was true 5 years ago. &nbsp;This is good.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
  size=2>Giving out knowlege has to match the plot a GM is running. &nbsp;With 
  only two or so games of each level running on any season and the odds of you 
  being able to find what your charactor wants is very low - I can remember 
  players looking for years for 200 em utility spells.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT 
  face=sans-serif size=2>Therefore I argue against this. &nbsp;It will just 
  limit and frustrate players.</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
  size=2>Regards,<BR>Rosemary<BR></FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR>
  <TABLE width="100%">
    <TBODY>
    <TR vAlign=top>
      <TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>Jonathan Bean - TME 
        &lt;Jonathan@tme.co.nz&gt;</B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
        size=1>Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> 
        <P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>19/01/2006 01:56 p.m.</FONT> 
        <TABLE border=1>
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=top>
            <TD bgColor=white>
              <DIV align=center></DIV></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></P>
      <TD width="59%">
        <TABLE width="100%">
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=top>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV>
            <TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> 
          <TR vAlign=top>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV>
            <TD>
          <TR vAlign=top>
            <TD>
              <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
            <TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>[dq] Spells sold by the 
              Guild</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
        <TABLE>
          <TBODY>
          <TR vAlign=top>
            <TD>
            <TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT 
  size=2><TT>Hi all,<BR><BR>I would like to see in general the amount of Special 
  Knowledge spells that<BR>are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.<BR>I 
  think that their is almost nothing we can do about players<BR>selling/teaching 
  spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a<BR>death/people leave the 
  guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the<BR>guild is 
  less.<BR><BR>This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on 
  adventure.<BR>I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to 
  create new<BR>spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available 
  reduced.<BR><BR>or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in 
  the Guild NPC<BR>will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you 
  wish to by<BR>Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I 
  would need a<BR>'drop of pure mana' etc<BR><BR>It has the potential for more 
  flavour than the current system.<BR>What are others 
  views?<BR><BR>Jono<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify 
  mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<BR></TT></FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61C9F.7DD03454--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C61D0D.E395BF20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Error said:

>Well said Rosemary.
>I would also like to point out that the number of games available to sign
up to at the Guild Meeting is generally one or maybe two (sometimes zero) of
each level.
>This encourages pre-arrangement.



I think that DQ is an episodic game broken up by sessions and because of
this weakness (which is in other ways strengths), people move into cleeks of
playing with the same people, and then end up with pre-arrangement of games.
Three games of the older games where fill before the Guild meeting, and
three listed for people to be able to sign up for?

So I think it is because of the pre-arrangement of games, fewer games are
open for people to be signed up to.

Jonathan Bean




------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C61D0D.E395BF20
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></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D310062902-19012006><FONT color=3D#0000ff>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN=20
class=3D310062902-19012006>Error said:</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN=20
class=3D310062902-19012006></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D70281502-19012006><SPAN=20
class=3D310062902-19012006>&gt;</SPAN>Well said Rosemary.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D70281502-19012006><SPAN =
class=3D310062902-19012006>&gt;</SPAN>I=20
would also like to point out that the number of games available to sign =
up to at=20
the Guild Meeting is generally one or maybe two (sometimes zero) of each =
level.=20
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D70281502-19012006><SPAN=20
class=3D310062902-19012006>&gt;</SPAN>This encourages=20
pre-arrangement.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV></SPAN></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><SPAN=20
class=3D310062902-19012006><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT =
face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I think that =
DQ is an=20
episodic game broken up by sessions and because of this weakness (which =
is in=20
other ways strengths), people move into cleeks of playing with the same =
people,=20
and then end up with pre-arrangement of games. Three games of the older =
games=20
where fill before the Guild meeting, and three listed for people to be =
able to=20
sign up for?</SPAN><SPAN style=3D"mso-ansi-language: =
EN-AU"><?xml:namespace prefix=20
=3D o ns =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20
color=3D#000000><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">So I think it =
is=20
because of the pre-arrangement of games, fewer games are open for people =
to be=20
signed up to.</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN =
lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20
color=3D#000000><FONT face=3DArial><FONT=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jonathan<SPAN =

class=3D310062902-19012006> Bean</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D310062902-19012006></SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D310062902-19012006><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D310062902-19012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C61D0D.E395BF20--


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

To the specific point, i agree with Rosemary. 

to a different point raised in discussion:

given the current nature of DQ games, perhaps players should start to advertise their needs prior to a guild meeting (those that arent part of a cliche and do not have a prearranged game at least). DQ-Pub would work for me.

I am not against pre-arrangement, as i see this as natural and good. 

I do also see however a need for, and benefit of, that ability for PCs to 'quest' for certain knowledge, spells, abilities etc. If this encourages a GM to develop a tailored adventure, that others can go along on, then this is very good.

Ian



> 
> From: Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
> Date: 2006/01/19 Thu PM 03:34:51 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spells sold by the Guild
> 
> 
> Error said:
> 
> >Well said Rosemary.
> >I would also like to point out that the number of games available to sign
> up to at the Guild Meeting is generally one or maybe two (sometimes zero) of
> each level.
> >This encourages pre-arrangement.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that DQ is an episodic game broken up by sessions and because of
> this weakness (which is in other ways strengths), people move into cleeks of
> playing with the same people, and then end up with pre-arrangement of games.
> Three games of the older games where fill before the Guild meeting, and
> three listed for people to be able to sign up for?
> 
> So I think it is because of the pre-arrangement of games, fewer games are
> open for people to be signed up to.
> 
> Jonathan Bean
> 
> 
> 
> 
>


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

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

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge spells that
> are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.
> I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players
> selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a
> death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the
> guild is less.
>
> This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
> I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have to create new
> spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.

You probably should reconsider DMing, if you don't want to give out new spells
or abilities. It is a part of the role of a DM. You should be aware of this,
Jono. Your character is festooned in rules variations, and you, yourself, award
abilities that are exceptional to the system.

Players seek spells on adventure anyway. Just wave the hint of a spell to be had
that they don't already own, and they'll be in like a robber's dog.
>
> or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in the Guild NPC
> will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by
> Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I would need a
> 'drop of pure mana' etc
>
> It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.
> What are others views?

I think it's a waste of time.

The time for this decision was way back when special knowledge spells were not
immediately available. At such a time, you might have reasonably said that
special knowledge were not teachable except by special people who one might
meet on adventure.

It is too late, now. It has become part of the background expectation of
players, like an organised guild structure and guild reps, and security. It is
implicit to the nature of a modern organisational structure. We accepted it,
and now we are stuck with it.

Not only would it be difficult to go back to the previous state of affairs, it
would be unfair to the current crop of players who might feel, with some
justification, that they were being deprived a position on the playing field
that is entirely level. And, I would be agreeing with them.

Let players start with a body of free abilities, develop some along the way, and
pursue things that make them different. At the moment, that is the state of
affairs, and I don't see any disadvantage in that particular area.

Mind you, I don't see any problem with making the cost to learn a special
knowledge spell something like the ear of a phoenix or whatever. But it's
dependent on every other DM liking that particular flavour, and I fear that
this kind of cultural imperialism is frowned upon.

Jim


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

give the NPC a prism that splits the spell into several peices that target different entities. same effect for cheap price, plus bit of loot for party to squabble over, and another GM to chastise you for?

wow, and not a single neuron was fired in the compilation and execution of that paragraph. Need some magic mumbo that damage doesnt split so each target gets the full amount. sigh, must get some sleep this month... 

:-D

Ian

> 
> From: Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>
> Date: 2006/01/19 Thu PM 12:03:13 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Big Spells III : other issues
> 
> 
> With making the high end spells have less targets, it may lead to more GMs
> putting/running more casters in their games which will be a greater
> overhead. I for one, can see myself having to do this.
> 
> It may also effect Namers at run time - with even more need for Bane Vrs
> Counter spells, as the increase in casters.
> 
> I am unclear at this stage if this will slow the game down or not, as I may
> simply replace some types of NPCs with casters, in an attempt to keep game
> speed up.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> give the NPC a prism that splits the spell into several 
> peices that target different entities. same effect for cheap 
> price, plus bit of loot for party to squabble over, and 
> another GM to chastise you for?
> 
> wow, and not a single neuron was fired in the compilation and 
> execution of that paragraph.

...and it shows.....Ian what are you on about? 

Mandos
/s


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

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

> At 11:47 19/01/06, you wrote:
> >  >Look at the solution Andrew has put forward. Someone else who plays a
> >  ...snip...
> > > Agony of course) - Necromancy is already one of the most powerful
> colleges
> > > on the block... (points at Bardic with only one minor damage-causing
> > spell).
> >
> >Namers are not damage casters. E&E are not damage casters. Binders are not
> >damage casters. Some even say earth mages are not damage casters.
> >
> >Neither are Bards, and you know this full well, Jacqui. It was part of the
> >design constraints of the college way back when. It is not a part of the
> >fantasy flavour of a Bard to be throwing damage around like a blast mage. I
> >accepted shout of thunder, mostly because there is no sound-based attack
> form
> >in the game, and it seemed the best place to put it.
> >
> >If you want some high damage spells for Brigitte as a point of difference,
> go
> >out on adventure and find them.
>
> I am well aware of that, although I do not concede that minimal damage was
> part of any design constraint I agreed to.

It wasn't your place to agree. You role was to play test the college.
>
> Utility colleges are not meant to have much in the way of direct damage -
> but that is not a rationale for increasing the damage-dealing abilities of
> battle colleges. The disparity is large enough as it is, thank you very much.

E&E have bolt of energy which does the same kind of damage, WITHOUT the
possibility of stunning or deafening.

Whether or not a blast college increased it's damage efficiency will not in any
way have a bearing on utility colleges directly. It would be an entirely
different discussion.

> And now shall we return to the discussion, without further personal
> references, if you please.

Sure. When you stop pursuing the goals of your character as a DM. That is
entirely inappropriate.

Jim.


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

> I think that DQ is an episodic game broken up by sessions and because
> of this weakness (which is in other ways strengths), people move into 
> cleeks of playing with the same people, and then end up with
> pre-arrangement of games. Three games of the older games where fill
> before the Guild meeting, and three listed for people to be able to
> sign up for?
> 
> So I think it is because of the pre-arrangement of games, fewer games
are
> open for people to be signed up to.

Amusingly (or perhaps ironically) lots of prearranged games are the ones
that are designed around a player questing for something. A player
preorganises a Gm to run a game, and then wants other characters who are
sympathetic to the cause to come along :-) 

Mandos
<Just thought I would tie a couple of threads together>
/s


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

Ok Jim you can come in to land now...

Jono

> -----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: Thursday, 19 January 2006 3:51 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spells sold by the Guild
>
>
> Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to see in general the amount of Special Knowledge
> spells that
> > are sold for cash by NPCs from the Guild half.
> > I think that their is almost nothing we can do about players
> > selling/teaching spells to each other, but we could if we wish have a
> > death/people leave the guild so that the number of SK spells sold at the
> > guild is less.
> >
> > This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
> > I would much like to encourage this, but I don't want to have
> to create new
> > spells to give out, so I would like to see the spells available reduced.
>
> You probably should reconsider DMing, if you don't want to give
> out new spells
> or abilities. It is a part of the role of a DM. You should be
> aware of this,
> Jono. Your character is festooned in rules variations, and you,
> yourself, award
> abilities that are exceptional to the system.
>
> Players seek spells on adventure anyway. Just wave the hint of a
> spell to be had
> that they don't already own, and they'll be in like a robber's dog.
> >
> > or we could put available by quest next to more of them, as in
> the Guild NPC
> > will teach it if the player assists NPC in ABC way. As in you wish to by
> > Bane from the guild teacher, and the NPC says sure but first I
> would need a
> > 'drop of pure mana' etc
> >
> > It has the potential for more flavour than the current system.
> > What are others views?
>
> I think it's a waste of time.
>
> The time for this decision was way back when special knowledge
> spells were not
> immediately available. At such a time, you might have reasonably said that
> special knowledge were not teachable except by special people who
> one might
> meet on adventure.
>
> It is too late, now. It has become part of the background expectation of
> players, like an organised guild structure and guild reps, and
> security. It is
> implicit to the nature of a modern organisational structure. We
> accepted it,
> and now we are stuck with it.
>
> Not only would it be difficult to go back to the previous state
> of affairs, it
> would be unfair to the current crop of players who might feel, with some
> justification, that they were being deprived a position on the
> playing field
> that is entirely level. And, I would be agreeing with them.
>
> Let players start with a body of free abilities, develop some
> along the way, and
> pursue things that make them different. At the moment, that is
> the state of
> affairs, and I don't see any disadvantage in that particular area.
>
> Mind you, I don't see any problem with making the cost to learn a special
> knowledge spell something like the ear of a phoenix or whatever. But it's
> dependent on every other DM liking that particular flavour, and I
> fear that
> this kind of cultural imperialism is frowned upon.
>
> Jim
>
>
> -- 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 that DQ is an episodic game broken up by sessions and because
> > of this weakness (which is in other ways strengths), people move into
> > cleeks of playing with the same people, and then end up with
> > pre-arrangement of games. Three games of the older games where fill
> > before the Guild meeting, and three listed for people to be able to
> > sign up for?
> >
> > So I think it is because of the pre-arrangement of games, fewer games
> are
> > open for people to be signed up to.
>
> Amusingly (or perhaps ironically) lots of prearranged games are the ones
> that are designed around a player questing for something. A player
> preorganises a Gm to run a game, and then wants other characters who are
> sympathetic to the cause to come along :-)

Yes, I agree with George. A player who wants something done will come up to a DM
and ask them to run something for them. If they agree, the DM puts the game
together and usually the initiating player lines up some people to help them
out.

But, what players should really be doing is establishing things that they're
looking for as a general part of their character. A wish list is something that
every character should have, and this should be something that the DM could
look at. That way, these quest elements could be introduced into the game
they're running, as the DM sees fit.

If for no other reason, they should be a distinct part of a character so that
the DM can make some decisions about how well a character is played. Assuming
DMs make decisions about role playing.

Jim.


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

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

> Ok Jim you can come in to land now...

I'm onto my second toke of the glass...

Jim.


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

>
> Amusingly (or perhaps ironically) lots of prearranged games are the ones
> that are designed around a player questing for something. A player
> preorganises a Gm to run a game, and then wants other characters who are
> sympathetic to the cause to come along :-)

Yes, I agree with George. A player who wants something done will come up to
a DM
and ask them to run something for them. If they agree, the DM puts the game
together and usually the initiating player lines up some people to help them
out.

But, what players should really be doing is establishing things that they're
looking for as a general part of their character. A wish list is something
that
every character should have, and this should be something that the DM could
look at. That way, these quest elements could be introduced into the game
they're running, as the DM sees fit.



Yes I think this would be a useful thing to formalise in some way.  As a new
player it took me about 3 years of playing to workout that character
developments could be quested for and another 2 or 3 years more to find out
how to do it.  The idea that special spells should be a part of a characters
development is a part of this.

I know that these things seem simple - however much of the knowledge about
how to go about things is held in a sort of collective cultural memory that
takes time to de-code, understand and then apply.     

I can easily imagine that many new players leave before grasping the
character scope that actually exists - or break into a clique that they feel
at home in.

Hamish


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

>But, what players should really be doing is establishing things that they're
>looking for as a general part of their character. A wish list is something
>that
>every character should have, and this should be something that the DM could
>look at. That way, these quest elements could be introduced into the game
>they're running, as the DM sees fit.

Well that could be one advantage of the Wiki ... when people put up 
their character pages, they could include their hopes and desires. 
GMs of those PCs can then look them up and see if there's anything 
they want to include in their game.

Keith


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

RPer 4eva wrote:

> I heard some idea a while back about making you use all of your 
> targets. So if theres only 4 enemies and you can target 6 with your 
> hellfire then 2 of the party are going to have to suck it down or else 
> you can't cast. Now wouldn't that create dynamic tension and a good 
> reason to avoid using the spell when there are only a few badguys?
> Dylan
>
>  
>
>
Not really - people will just cast at a lower rank to to ensure they 
only target bad guys

Scott Whitaker


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

At 15:59 19/01/06, you wrote:
> > I am well aware of that, although I do not concede that minimal damage was
> > part of any design constraint I agreed to.
>
>It wasn't your place to agree. You role was to play test the college.

Not so.

I initiated the Bardic College and did the original drafts. You only became 
involved at a much later stage of development.

>Sure. When you stop pursuing the goals of your character as a DM. That is
>entirely inappropriate.

Excuse me. I did NOT initiate the mention of any of my characters into this 
discussion. You insisted on mentioning my character my name, as well as 
those of other people's characters in other branches of the thread. Frankly 
in this discussion I have NO characters with ANY of the spells under 
discussion. I approach this discussion from as neutral, from the GM and 
game development point of view as anyone could do.

Now, that said, can we please return to the discussion without further 
unnecessary acrimony.

Jacqui


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

------=_Part_517_22998782.1137646450195
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

But wouldn't having to use it at lower level make you consider using anothe=
r
spell?
Dylan


On 1/19/06, Kharsis <kharsis@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> RPer 4eva wrote:
>
> > I heard some idea a while back about making you use all of your
> > targets. So if theres only 4 enemies and you can target 6 with your
> > hellfire then 2 of the party are going to have to suck it down or else
> > you can't cast. Now wouldn't that create dynamic tension and a good
> > reason to avoid using the spell when there are only a few badguys?
> > Dylan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Not really - people will just cast at a lower rank to to ensure they
> only target bad guys
>
> Scott Whitaker
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_517_22998782.1137646450195
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>But wouldn't having to use it at lower level make you consider using a=
nother spell?</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/19/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Kharsis</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kharsis@ihug.co.nz">kharsis@ihug.co.nz</a=
>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">RPer 4eva wrote:<br><br>&gt; I h=
eard some idea a while back about making you use all of your<br>&gt; target=
s. So if theres only 4 enemies and you can target 6 with your
<br>&gt; hellfire then 2 of the party are going to have to suck it down or =
else<br>&gt; you can't cast. Now wouldn't that create dynamic tension and a=
 good<br>&gt; reason to avoid using the spell when there are only a few bad=
guys?
<br>&gt; Dylan<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>Not really - people will =
just cast at a lower rank to to ensure they<br>only target bad guys<br><br>=
Scott Whitaker<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto=
:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_517_22998782.1137646450195--


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

Hey Jono,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you about this.
Anyways the subjects I thought I might broach with you
were Reaction to PC actions, NPC moods and PC
perceptions of NPC's

Zane

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

--=======AVGMAIL-43CF25250961=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C61D27.22091B30"

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C61D27.22091B30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

RE: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0I think that the whole rule system is =
broken and unbalenced

however you get to pick which class you will play.  Rule changes are =
annoying just like death and taxes however unlike death and taxes they =
are not inevitable, they are forced upon those of us who don't like them =
by those of you who do. =20
I dont think peoples choices are restrained in combat, so wiccans get =
Hellfire woopee they also get Earth tremor, Damnum Magnatum, Damnum =
minatum, fear, Wall of thorns, harming entinity, creating plague and =
probably some other stuff I can't think of right now.  Fire mages make =
great fighter mages with self immolate, weapon spells, and fire armour =
so again I dont think Dragon flames turns them into a limited character.

Remember this in the world of fantasy role playing the only limitations =
are your imagination and your game moderator.

Errol wrote
It isn't a reason for restricting others' real choices in combat to the =
extent they currently are.=20


  Cheers=20
  Errol=20



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: =
18/01/2006

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C61D27.22091B30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think that the whole rule system is =
broken and=20
unbalenced</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>however you get to pick which class you =
will=20
play.&nbsp; Rule changes are annoying just like death and taxes however =
unlike=20
death and taxes they are not inevitable, they are forced upon those of =
us who=20
don't like them by those of you who do.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I dont think peoples choices are =
restrained in=20
combat, so wiccans get Hellfire woopee they also get Earth tremor, =
Damnum=20
Magnatum, Damnum minatum, fear, Wall of thorns, harming entinity, =
creating=20
plague and probably some other stuff I can't think of right =
now.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fire=20
mages make great fighter mages with self immolate, weapon spells, and =
fire=20
armour so again I dont think Dragon flames turns them into a limited=20
character.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Remember this in the world of fantasy =
role playing=20
the only limitations are your imagination and your game =
moderator.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Errol wrote</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>It isn't a reason for restricting others' real =
choices in=20
combat to the extent they currently are.</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P>
  <P>
  <HR>

  <P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free =

  Edition.<BR>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release =
Date:=20
  18/01/2006<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C61D27.22091B30--
--=======AVGMAIL-43CF25250961=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Description: "AVG certification"

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.20/234 - Release Date: 18/01/2006=


--=======AVGMAIL-43CF25250961=======--


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