Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.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.

This was the version with a vibro blade and bat-sight. Yes, I recall that. It
was everything a bard is about. Really.
>
> >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.

I do not believe that you are neutral.

I believe that you are partisan on behalf of your characters. You have a bard.
No one believes the Bardic College needs a big damage spell besides you. You
keep posting about how Bards should have a big damage spell.

Do the math, Jacqui.

Jim


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

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

> 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.

This issue was raised by a PC. And, even if it weren't, it's not like DMs sit
around trying to find ways to just piss players off. By and large, they people
who are trying to make the game better.

Choice, by itself, is not good enough. The system is too complicated to see, and
it takes too long for many conditions to resolve as being problems/features.
The lack of options for some casters was not realised until recently.

> 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.

We have decided that it's not the case with fire mages.

The situation that has been raised is this: The functional utility of certain
spells (hellfire, necrosis and whirlwind vortex) is so great that a rational
person would rarely cast anything else. Nothing else in the Wiccan, Necro or
Air college has quite as much to offer in most tactical situations as these
spells.

It is like this: If you have two spells, one that does 20 points of damage, and
one that does 10, and the base chance, casting cost, range etc are all pretty
much the same, which one are you going to cast? Under what circumstances might
you cast the 10 point spell. A rational person is never going to cast the 10
point damage spell.

This is not an online game where you just trash the character and start again.
The investment in time and development is much too great.
>
> Remember this in the world of fantasy role playing the only limitations are
> your imagination and your game moderator.

If this were an individual problem, you might have a point, but this is a
systemic issue. If we do nothing, the problem will arise again and again. And,
it will not be fun, again and again. And, unless something is done about it,
it's likely to have a direct affect upon you.

Jim.


-- 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.

I disagree. While it is occasionally good to give a chararacter
something they really want I think you get better growth and character
development from the random gathering of items and abilities or from
getting things that are not quite what the character is looking for. 

Yes, characters should have a wish list and yes, occasionally aspects of
that list should turn up, but not all the time. If a character really
desires something that should come out in the roleplaying and from there
it should be misinterpreted by the GM into something that almost matches
what the character wants. 

Noone grows from getting everything they want, they just become spoiled
and demanding. 

Mandos
/s


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

I agree with the second and last sentences, and little else, of Mandos'
post.

Little encourages greater involvement than getting your needs met. It need
not be every time, nor always exactly what you want. The PC needs to have
earnt it, but surely there is little wrong with tailoring the reward to the
PC's desires. And I mean reward for good roleplaying, and well earnt.

Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: 20 January 2006 07:59
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spells sold by the Guild
> 
> > >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.
> 
> I disagree. While it is occasionally good to give a chararacter
> something they really want I think you get better growth and character
> development from the random gathering of items and abilities or from
> getting things that are not quite what the character is looking for.
> 
> Yes, characters should have a wish list and yes, occasionally aspects of
> that list should turn up, but not all the time. If a character really
> desires something that should come out in the roleplaying and from there
> it should be misinterpreted by the GM into something that almost matches
> what the character wants.
> 
> Noone grows from getting everything they want, they just become spoiled
> and demanding.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

A couple of points:

How many PCs have Whirlwind Vortex?
How many PCs have Necrosus?
How many PCs have Hellfire (Wicca)?

Other than Hellfire I think the current numbers are low, or only one person?
Is this a correct view?

Jono


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

> How many PCs have Necrosus?

Saydar has his own varient. 
Dramus has had it removed. 
Naden is an unknown. 

All other necromancers high enough to have Necrosis are no longer played
(or on a really long sabattical).

Mandos
/s


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

I think Saurus has it. Ian Andersons nercomancer.

Helen


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

My necro is about to get it, hence my involvement in
the debate/discussion. 

Before someone jumps on me my necro has been throwing
money away on Necrosis investeds for a while (and
other necro spells) and just came to the conclusion
that Necrosis was the best bang for her buck. 

Zane

--- Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:

> 
> > How many PCs have Necrosus?
> 
> Saydar has his own varient.
> Dramus has had it removed.
> Naden is an unknown.
> 
> All other necromancers high enough to have Necrosis
> are no longer played
> (or on a really long sabattical).
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 


"...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 --

------=_Part_21763_20165480.1137706223909
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/19/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.
>
...

> What are others views?


Hi Jono,

You have several times in conversation with me argued in favour of a "level
playing field" where PCs are not made reliant on access to sympathetic GMs
in order to gain a reasonable level of powers and abilities.

Making SK more quest based appears to directly fly in the face of the level
field argument.

Have you changed your opinion about fair opportunities and GM access?

Regards,
Martin

------=_Part_21763_20165480.1137706223909
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/19/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><spa=
n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
This would mean that Characters would seek spells while on adventure.<br></=
blockquote><div>... <br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"bo=
rder-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding=
-left: 1ex;">
What are others views?</blockquote><div><br>Hi Jono,<br><br>You have severa=
l times in conversation with me argued in favour of a &quot;level playing f=
ield&quot; where PCs are not made reliant on access to sympathetic GMs in o=
rder to gain a reasonable level of powers and abilities.
<br><br>Making SK more quest based appears to directly fly in the face of t=
he level field argument.<br><br>Have you changed your opinion about fair op=
portunities and GM access?<br><br>Regards,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_21763_20165480.1137706223909--


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

------=_Part_21831_21238250.1137706546279
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/20/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> A couple of points:
>
> How many PCs have Hellfire (Wicca)?


Mortimer: Rank 13 -- but prefers to use curses.  (DMin Rk 20 and
multi-target, DMag Rk 13).

------=_Part_21831_21238250.1137706546279
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/20/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><spa=
n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b=
order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
<br>A couple of points:<br><br>How many PCs have Hellfire (Wicca)?</blockqu=
ote><div><br>Mortimer: Rank 13 -- but prefers to use curses.&nbsp; (DMin Rk=
 20 and multi-target, DMag Rk 13).<br></div><br></div><br>

------=_Part_21831_21238250.1137706546279--


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

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

>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

I like it, it would force the mage to cast at a lower rk (therefore less 
damage) so as not to harm the party. Or choose another spell.

Alternatively if multi-targeting and save for half are the prob what about 
Primary target save for quarter secondarys save for none?

Oh and I think we should definately make all the bolt spells save for some, 
gives people a reason to rk them.

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Discover fun and games at  @  http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.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.
>
> I disagree. While it is occasionally good to give a chararacter
> something they really want I think you get better growth and character
> development from the random gathering of items and abilities or from
> getting things that are not quite what the character is looking for.
>
> Yes, characters should have a wish list and yes, occasionally aspects of
> that list should turn up, but not all the time. If a character really
> desires something that should come out in the roleplaying and from there
> it should be misinterpreted by the GM into something that almost matches
> what the character wants.
>
> Noone grows from getting everything they want, they just become spoiled
> and demanding.

By definition, character development is the difference between their goals, and
what they actually acheive as a result of their interaction with the game.

They don't have to get the stuff they're looking for, and I never said that.
They NEED to have a wish list, so that as a DM, you can place the things that
they might be interesed in, if you decide you want to place them at all.

If they DON'T have a wish list, you can't tell what they're looking for, and so
you can't make that decision one way or the other.

Jim.


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

> They don't have to get the stuff they're looking for, and I 
> never said that. They NEED to have a wish list, so that as a 
> DM, you can place the things that they might be interesed in, 
> if you decide you want to place them at all.

I never said you did say it :-) 

However there are a number of GM's who do interpret wish lists literally
and do give the player exactly what they request and I think it is worth
mentioning that this is not always conducive to good character
development. 

As far as I am aware you are not one of these GM's, although having
never been on one of your games (something I must rectify) I could be
wrong :)

Mandos
/s


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

>From: Zane Mendoza <zcmendoza@yahoo.com>
> > 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.

Don't you need to make a strike check to touch your target requiring the 
mage to have high rks in unarmed in order to use it, (espeacially in 
combat).

>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.

Maybe make it more concentration based allowing the caster to use thier 
other hand,(to fight or cast) but at penaltys (like half BC, no def etc).

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Become a fitness fanatic @  http://xtramsn.co.nz/health


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

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

>
> > They don't have to get the stuff they're looking for, and I
> > never said that. They NEED to have a wish list, so that as a
> > DM, you can place the things that they might be interesed in,
> > if you decide you want to place them at all.
>
> I never said you did say it :-)

O. I thought that wass why you mentioned it. Okay.
>
> As far as I am aware you are not one of these GM's, although having
> never been on one of your games (something I must rectify) I could be
> wrong :)

Yes. I'm not sure how I'm placed next semester. I do have a game that I have
been tossing a few ideas together for.

Jim.


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

Diverging a little... This brings to mind something I've been thinking about for a while.

Is our current situation where tougher spells have low BCs a problem?

Most people who get a low BC spell that they want to use will rank it until they have a reasonable
chance of casting it.  It makes good tactical sense and is a lot more satisfying than failing and
backfiring all the time.

But the problem is that at the point where it becomes castable it is a very potent spell.  We
rarely see Necrosis or Hellfire cast at rank 5 where it has a quite reasonable effect, we mainly
see them at Rank 10+ where the unresisted damage is enough to strip all of the targets FT.

If all spells had a bc of 40% +1/Rk then people would be ranking for effects not BC and possibly
we would see a wider range of spells (and ranks) being used at all levels of the game.

There are some exceptions that this completely breaks like Whitefire where the only benefit of
rank is the BC, but I think that would be a good excuse to give those spells a different reason to
be ranked.

Cheers, Stephen.

> 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.
>
> Jim.


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

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

>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).

Speak for your self.
Agony is fine, as some one who has been on both sides of agony effects in 
combat I say leave it alone it ain't broke.

And as for bards they may have only one damage spell but the rest of the 
stuff they can do is damned nasty.

TTFN
Michael

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


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

It's a mage killer.  They fail to resist and lose their FT (or die) and thus can't cast.  They
resist and get stunned automatically losing the spell they are casting.

Assuming equal numbers of actions, only the side that goes first gets to cast their spells.

To fighters it's no big deal, they have already had their melee actions when the spell goes off
and they will recover from stun at the end of the pulse most of the time.

Cheers, Stephen.

Mandos Mitchinson said:
>> 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 --


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

Stephen said:

"Is our current situation where tougher spells have low BCs a problem?"


Well yes, the supposedly nasty spells were meant to be constrained by their high em, the high cost to learn in $$,  and their low base chances. But at the end of the day this game (our campaign) has been around for so long that its just simply a matter of time/exp before players get these spells to rank 20. I have always thought DQ magic is fundamentally flawed in the way it doesn't constrain high level spell usage. In fact the system positively encourages you to rank your "best" spell to the rather than any of the "lesser" options, and cast it repeatedly to the exclusion of other options. Rank it to 20 and cast it every pulse. The casting time (2 pulses) is the same for every spell, and the fatigue cost (2 fatigue) is a also the same for every spell, regardless of their relative strengths. Damage/Range/duration/base chance all improve with rank. The game system encourages "cookie cutter" mage spell templates.

D&D constrained you from repeatedly casting only your best attack spell (or healing spell etc.) by having a pyramid of spells available to a player each game day, with the best ones (highest level) being available in the most limited amount at the top. Runequest basically made you pay more fatigue for a bigger bang (so rank 1 hellfire might only cost you 1 fatigue, but rank 20 would cost 10+). Id really like to see some sort of constraint added to DQ, but maybe its too late.


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

> Is our current situation where tougher spells have low BCs a problem?
> 
> Most people who get a low BC spell that they want to use will 
> rank it until they have a reasonable chance of casting it.  
> It makes good tactical sense and is a lot more satisfying 
> than failing and backfiring all the time.

My take on this is even more divergant. I think a lot of the fear of
failure and backfire comes from the backfire table, it has a number of
backfire that instantly take the mage out of the combat (muteness etc). 

If the backfire table inflicts a punishment but not one that removes the
mage from the combat entirely there is a little less worry about
backfires and people are more willing to cast. 

Once people get a big spell they tend to rank the crap out of it anyway,
all increasing the BC will do is remove backfires from the game even
more (not a good thing IMHO). 

I agree with Mr Simpson that Ft cast is probably a very good balancer
except in the cases where the ft cap has been removed. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

>
> > Is our current situation where tougher spells have low BCs a problem?
> >
> > Most people who get a low BC spell that they want to use will
> > rank it until they have a reasonable chance of casting it.
> > It makes good tactical sense and is a lot more satisfying
> > than failing and backfiring all the time.
>
> My take on this is even more divergant. I think a lot of the fear of
> failure and backfire comes from the backfire table, it has a number of
> backfire that instantly take the mage out of the combat (muteness etc).
>
> If the backfire table inflicts a punishment but not one that removes the
> mage from the combat entirely there is a little less worry about
> backfires and people are more willing to cast.
>
> Once people get a big spell they tend to rank the crap out of it anyway,
> all increasing the BC will do is remove backfires from the game even
> more (not a good thing IMHO).

Then depower the backfire table so that it's a bit more playable. It has been
increased in severity.
>
> I agree with Mr Simpson that Ft cast is probably a very good balancer
> except in the cases where the ft cap has been removed.

Not true about the exception with respect to the FT cap being removed.

1) In the current game, restoratives and healing potions mean that players can
have as much FT as they want, until they run out of money. It may not cost them
money if the right characters are along.

2) Even if the FT cap were removed, but FT costs were increased for spells in
some way, then a more experienced character would just cast more
frequently/efficiently before having to recover than an inexperienced one. It
seems clear to me that George doesn't see this as a good model of development,
but it certainly seems like one to me.

Jim.


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

> Then depower the backfire table so that it's a bit more 
> playable. It has been increased in severity.

Already done! :-)

The one in the new GM's guide is one I stole from Adventurer and edited
a little to remove backfires I thought were not good from a roleplaying
PoV. It might need a bit more editing and honing down but is a lot
better IMO than the current one in the book. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

> > Then depower the backfire table so that it's a bit more
> > playable. It has been increased in severity.
>
> Already done! :-)
>
> The one in the new GM's guide is one I stole from Adventurer and edited
> a little to remove backfires I thought were not good from a roleplaying
> PoV. It might need a bit more editing and honing down but is a lot
> better IMO than the current one in the book.

The current one does horrible things to players, and takes much more effort to
get rid of. Arthritis now needs the services of a Rank 7 healer.

I'm trying hard not to say what I think about that.

Jim.


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

As a reversed approach to FT, rather than (or as well as?) removing a FT
cap, perhaps a very skilled caster casting at low ranks wouldn't cost
FT? A powerful (E&E) mage casting Rank 1 Unseen should just be able to
toss a dozen off without raising a sweat, but if they need to cast their
Rank 20 invis, they should have to put a bit of effort in.

Perhaps if one casts spells at (say) 10 ranks less, they cost 0 FT, or 1
FT / 5 casts, or similar. This means a mage in a siege could pepper away
all day with their "keep your heads down" Rank 2 Bolt of Fire, and when
the big push comes, they could open up with their Rank 15-20 DF/HF/BoF
for a minute, then rest for a while (or find their Witch).

This allows the use of "casual" non-powerful magic for powerful mages
without worrying about logistics.

Of course, the availability of restoratives screws most of the FT
limitations for spells, but that's addressable if we wanted to.

There are some flaws with the details of this suggestion - such as Rank
1 whitefires, which still sting. However, I think it assists in the
flavour of a magic-rich environment. Perhaps only non-resistable spells?
Whatever.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
Not true about the exception with respect to the FT cap being removed.

1) In the current game, restoratives and healing potions mean that
players can have as much FT as they want, until they run out of money.
It may not cost them money if the right characters are along.

2) Even if the FT cap were removed, but FT costs were increased for
spells in some way, then a more experienced character would just cast
more frequently/efficiently before having to recover than an
inexperienced one. It seems clear to me that George doesn't see this as
a good model of development, but it certainly seems like one to me.

Jim.


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

Jim said:

"1) In the current game, restoratives and healing potions mean that players can
have as much FT as they want, until they run out of money. It may not cost them
money if the right characters are along.

2) Even if the FT cap were removed, but FT costs were increased for spells in
some way, then a more experienced character would just cast more
frequently/efficiently before having to recover than an inexperienced one. It
seems clear to me that George doesn't see this as a good model of development,
but it certainly seems like one to me."

Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a constraint, but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway. But that could be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of pulses and/or make them self only. 

A constraint on repeatedly casting the nasty combat spells could take a number of forms. A simple one would be "the adept can only cast this spell once per hour". A more complex one would be to tie damage out to fatigue expended, "i.e. spell does D+(additional fatigue expended*2) dmg. No more than rank/2 additonal fatigue can be expended)".  You wouldnt need to have the constraints introduced accross the board to all spells, just certain of the combat spells. such constraints would force the mage player to keep making choices about which spell to cast and how much fatigue to invest.


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

> You wouldnt need to have the constraints introduced accross the board
to 
> all spells, just certain of the combat spells.

Any constrains should be across the board. No exceptions. New (and many
existing) players are confused enough about things without having rules
that only apply sometimes. 

Mandos
/s


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

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


> There are some flaws with the details of this suggestion - such as Rank
> 1 whitefires, which still sting. However, I think it assists in the
> flavour of a magic-rich environment. Perhaps only non-resistable spells?
> Whatever.

I don't see the point.If you went with the suggestion, you would just choose the
spells that it applied to, and add it to the spell description. You don't need
to find some indexible metric like it's resistance profile.

Jim.


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

The simplest and most obvious possible constraint ft wise would be to
make the ft cost for special knowldege spells the EM/100 Rounded down. 

So spells would cost between 1 and 6 or 7ft depending on power. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

> > You wouldnt need to have the constraints introduced accross the board
> to
> > all spells, just certain of the combat spells.
>
> Any constrains should be across the board. No exceptions. New (and many
> existing) players are confused enough about things without having rules
> that only apply sometimes.

They are always going to be confused. Hell, they're not the only ones. Everyone
is confused. Probably, confusion is the natural state, we just think we can
order things.

Constraints are applied as and when they are appropriate. Sometimes, they can be
applied generally, sometimes not. You make the decision based on the effect you
are trying to achieve. You don't make the decision global and unexceptional.
Because, in a week's time, there will be an exception.

Jim.


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

It have been made abundantly clear to me that my suggestions and opinions 
are not required by persons present in this discussion.

So, in that case... I shall leave you to it.

Jacqui

*turns and shuts the door behind her*


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

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

I want you to share your suggestions and opinions. As a DM. I have seen
instances where your contributions have been insightful, and mostly you have
said stuff that is worth listening to. I don't always agree with it, but I can
respect the point of view.

I have no patience with someone supporting their character in a forum where I'm
entitled to expect a more objective appreciation of what is good for the game.

Jim.

> It have been made abundantly clear to me that my suggestions and opinions
> are not required by persons present in this discussion.
>
> So, in that case... I shall leave you to it.
>
> Jacqui
>
> *turns and shuts the door behind her*
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

------=_Part_9611_12910011.1137717710044
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I really like that but one thing it would probably encourage is for my name=
r
to first of all rank her counterspells and then walk around with at least a
rank 1 counterspell of the mind college (both general and special) at all
times because she's so paranoid about them. I don't know if this is a big
deal or not but I can see in the right circumstances this being annoying to
some GMs. Particuly when applied to a whole party.
Dylan


On 1/20/06, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> wrote:
>
> As a reversed approach to FT, rather than (or as well as?) removing a FT
> cap, perhaps a very skilled caster casting at low ranks wouldn't cost
> FT? A powerful (E&E) mage casting Rank 1 Unseen should just be able to
> toss a dozen off without raising a sweat, but if they need to cast their
> Rank 20 invis, they should have to put a bit of effort in.
>
> Perhaps if one casts spells at (say) 10 ranks less, they cost 0 FT, or 1
> FT / 5 casts, or similar. This means a mage in a siege could pepper away
> all day with their "keep your heads down" Rank 2 Bolt of Fire, and when
> the big push comes, they could open up with their Rank 15-20 DF/HF/BoF
> for a minute, then rest for a while (or find their Witch).
>
> This allows the use of "casual" non-powerful magic for powerful mages
> without worrying about logistics.
>
> Of course, the availability of restoratives screws most of the FT
> limitations for spells, but that's addressable if we wanted to.
>
> There are some flaws with the details of this suggestion - such as Rank
> 1 whitefires, which still sting. However, I think it assists in the
> flavour of a magic-rich environment. Perhaps only non-resistable spells?
> Whatever.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Not true about the exception with respect to the FT cap being removed.
>
> 1) In the current game, restoratives and healing potions mean that
> players can have as much FT as they want, until they run out of money.
> It may not cost them money if the right characters are along.
>
> 2) Even if the FT cap were removed, but FT costs were increased for
> spells in some way, then a more experienced character would just cast
> more frequently/efficiently before having to recover than an
> inexperienced one. It seems clear to me that George doesn't see this as
> a good model of development, but it certainly seems like one to me.
>
> Jim.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_9611_12910011.1137717710044
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I really like that but one thing it would probably encourage is for my=
 namer to first of all rank her counterspells and then walk around with at =
least a rank 1 counterspell of the mind college (both general and special) =
at all times because she's so paranoid about them. I don't know if this is =
a big deal or not but I can see in the right circumstances this being annoy=
ing to some GMs. Particuly when applied to a whole party.
</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/20/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz">Andr=
ewW@datacom.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">As a reversed approach to FT, ra=
ther than (or as well as?) removing a FT<br>cap, perhaps a very skilled cas=
ter casting at low ranks wouldn't cost
<br>FT? A powerful (E&amp;E) mage casting Rank 1 Unseen should just be able=
 to<br>toss a dozen off without raising a sweat, but if they need to cast t=
heir<br>Rank 20 invis, they should have to put a bit of effort in.<br><br>
Perhaps if one casts spells at (say) 10 ranks less, they cost 0 FT, or 1<br=
>FT / 5 casts, or similar. This means a mage in a siege could pepper away<b=
r>all day with their &quot;keep your heads down&quot; Rank 2 Bolt of Fire, =
and when
<br>the big push comes, they could open up with their Rank 15-20 DF/HF/BoF<=
br>for a minute, then rest for a while (or find their Witch).<br><br>This a=
llows the use of &quot;casual&quot; non-powerful magic for powerful mages
<br>without worrying about logistics.<br><br>Of course, the availability of=
 restoratives screws most of the FT<br>limitations for spells, but that's a=
ddressable if we wanted to.<br><br>There are some flaws with the details of=
 this suggestion - such as Rank
<br>1 whitefires, which still sting. However, I think it assists in the<br>=
flavour of a magic-rich environment. Perhaps only non-resistable spells?<br=
>Whatever.<br><br>Andrew<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>Not true abou=
t the exception with respect to the FT cap being removed.
<br><br>1) In the current game, restoratives and healing potions mean that<=
br>players can have as much FT as they want, until they run out of money.<b=
r>It may not cost them money if the right characters are along.<br><br>
2) Even if the FT cap were removed, but FT costs were increased for<br>spel=
ls in some way, then a more experienced character would just cast<br>more f=
requently/efficiently before having to recover than an<br>inexperienced one=
. It seems clear to me that George doesn't see this as
<br>a good model of development, but it certainly seems like one to me.<br>=
<br>Jim.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-re=
quest@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div>
<br>

------=_Part_9611_12910011.1137717710044--


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

I totally disagree George. Put the "fatigue in = bang out" restriction into the spell descriptions of only those spells deemed to be a problem (eg. the tougher combat damage spells). By way of example, I don't have a problem with the flying spells always costing 2 ft. Rank it for more speed/duration/base chance that's fine, it already hurts the mage enough  that they need to shell out 7+ casts each time the party want to fly. 

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 12:45 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires


> You wouldnt need to have the constraints introduced accross the board
to 
> all spells, just certain of the combat spells.

Any constrains should be across the board. No exceptions. New (and many
existing) players are confused enough about things without having rules
that only apply sometimes. 

Mandos
/s


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

How many PCs have Necrosus?
Saydar has his own varient, Neroc, Zanes Necro soon, Saurus.
Dramus has had it removed.

How many PCs have Whirlwind Vortex?
Lath has a none standard varient.

How many PCs (Wicca) have Hellfire?
Amber, Mortimer, Archbishop Father Rowan has his own small varient?

Are there others?

Jonathan Bean


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

And would any of those with variants be affected by a multi- to
single-target change? Logic says possibly, as the variant was relative
to the status quo, but I bet most people aren't keen.

I'd like to hear reasons why the variants shouldn't be affected. Those
playing at OTT level would probably need the multi-target to make the 2
FT worthwhile, but for Med & High?

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:24 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0



How many PCs have Necrosus?
Saydar has his own varient, Neroc, Zanes Necro soon, Saurus. Dramus has
had it removed.

How many PCs have Whirlwind Vortex?
Lath has a none standard varient.

How many PCs (Wicca) have Hellfire?
Amber, Mortimer, Archbishop Father Rowan has his own small varient?

Are there others?

Jonathan Bean


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

Well its always open for gm's to hand out one-off spells. I'd say that they wouldnt be subject to changes to any derivative base spell. I mean, whos to say whats a "varient" to a base spell and whats a totally new spell (which just happens to have some correlation to a base spell). Perhaps the best thing to do would be to tell the players concerned to, where possible, check with the GM who wrote-up/created the new spell to check it again in light of the changes and modify it or leave it as is as he or she saw fit. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:36 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0


And would any of those with variants be affected by a multi- to
single-target change? Logic says possibly, as the variant was relative
to the status quo, but I bet most people aren't keen.

I'd like to hear reasons why the variants shouldn't be affected. Those
playing at OTT level would probably need the multi-target to make the 2
FT worthwhile, but for Med & High?

Andrew


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

The reasons why players could keep their spells would depend on the 
reasons for the proposed change to remove the spells, on which I gather 
there is not uniform agreement :)

If the reason to remove is lack of player choice, then presumably any 
player that has reasonable alternatives in combat should be allowed to 
keep their spell.

If the reason to remove is damage reduction, then all players should 
lose their variants and the net should be cast wider to apply the damage 
reduction to anything that causes too much damage across the board.

If the reason to remove is to remove the ability for NPCs to use these 
spells, then there is no reason to remove it from any player.

Think of the variants as items, then consider the reasons why they might 
be removed / modified.  Although the variant was given out as loot 
compared to the status quo, so were all the other items and abilities 
that people have ... you can see where this is leading :)

Ciao,
Andrew

Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:
> And would any of those with variants be affected by a multi- to
> single-target change? Logic says possibly, as the variant was relative
> to the status quo, but I bet most people aren't keen.
> 
> I'd like to hear reasons why the variants shouldn't be affected. Those
> playing at OTT level would probably need the multi-target to make the 2
> FT worthwhile, but for Med & High?
> 
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:24 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0
> 
> 
> 
> How many PCs have Necrosus?
> Saydar has his own varient, Neroc, Zanes Necro soon, Saurus. Dramus has
> had it removed.
> 
> How many PCs have Whirlwind Vortex?
> Lath has a none standard varient.
> 
> How many PCs (Wicca) have Hellfire?
> Amber, Mortimer, Archbishop Father Rowan has his own small varient?
> 
> Are there others?
> 
> Jonathan Bean
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

-- 
-------------------------------
Andrew Luxton-Reilly
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
Email: andrew@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Phone: +649-373-7599 x 85654


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

Mandos Mitchinson said:
>
>> Is our current situation where tougher spells have low BCs a problem?
>>
>> Most people who get a low BC spell that they want to use will
>> rank it until they have a reasonable chance of casting it.
>> It makes good tactical sense and is a lot more satisfying
>> than failing and backfiring all the time.
>
> My take on this is even more divergant. I think a lot of the fear of failure and backfire comes
> from the backfire table, it has a number of backfire that instantly take the mage out of the
> combat (muteness etc).

Yes and no.  Backfires can result in taking yourself out which is generally undesirable but is a
risk you take.
But if you have a 20% chance of casting one spell and 80% chance of casting another, it is a lot
more fun to cast the 80% spell and have some effect most of the time than to cast the 20% and have
no effect most of the time.
If both have a 40-60% chance of working then you choose based on which effect suits the situation
or your style best.


> If the backfire table inflicts a punishment but not one that removes the mage from the combat
> entirely there is a little less worry about
> backfires and people are more willing to cast.
>
> Once people get a big spell they tend to rank the crap out of it anyway, all increasing the BC
> will do is remove backfires from the game even more (not a good thing IMHO).

I think that it is more likely that many people will stop ranking their big damage spells around
rank 10 when they do 20+ damage to a few people and diversify a bit more.  Afterall you can spend
5k on one rank and get 2 more damage or you can get a new spell to rank 6 and have a whole new way
of being effective.
Currently you have the same choice but BC increases swing the choice strongly in favour of
increasing your rank.

>
> I agree with Mr Simpson that Ft cast is probably a very good balancer except in the cases where
> the ft cap has been removed.

Currently we have two tiers of FT costs for spells, Generals at 1FT, specials at 2FT.
Perhaps there is room for another tier of spells at 4 or 5 FT that do have more powerful effects.
But I don't think it will be a balancing point, it will simply increase the dependency on gut
busters and other FT recovery aids.
But this is another issue.


Cheers, Stephen.


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

I think that if the spells display the same 'problems' then they also need
to be fixed.

Jono

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:36 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0
>
>
> And would any of those with variants be affected by a multi- to
> single-target change? Logic says possibly, as the variant was relative
> to the status quo, but I bet most people aren't keen.
>
> I'd like to hear reasons why the variants shouldn't be affected. Those
> playing at OTT level would probably need the multi-target to make the 2
> FT worthwhile, but for Med & High?
>
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:24 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0
>
>
>
> How many PCs have Necrosus?
> Saydar has his own varient, Neroc, Zanes Necro soon, Saurus. Dramus has
> had it removed.
>
> How many PCs have Whirlwind Vortex?
> Lath has a none standard varient.
>
> How many PCs (Wicca) have Hellfire?
> Amber, Mortimer, Archbishop Father Rowan has his own small varient?
>
> Are there others?
>
> Jonathan Bean
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


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

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

> And would any of those with variants be affected by a multi- to
> single-target change? Logic says possibly, as the variant was relative
> to the status quo, but I bet most people aren't keen.

I don't know about the other variants. Saydar's has been explained to me, but
I'm afraid my eyes glazed over and I started to snore after the first defense
of the treatise.

Father Rowan's variety of hellfire is that 'invisible bolts of fiery doom surge
forth from his eyes'. If the number of targets were reduced to one, I expect it
would be 'an invisible bolt of fiery doom...'

I hope the bloody thing gets bigger with rank, but.


Jim.
>
> I'd like to hear reasons why the variants shouldn't be affected. Those
> playing at OTT level would probably need the multi-target to make the 2
> FT worthwhile, but for Med & High?
>
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Bean - TME
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 2:24 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Moving along - Step 0.0
>
>
>
> How many PCs have Necrosus?
> Saydar has his own varient, Neroc, Zanes Necro soon, Saurus. Dramus has
> had it removed.
>
> How many PCs have Whirlwind Vortex?
> Lath has a none standard varient.
>
> How many PCs (Wicca) have Hellfire?
> Amber, Mortimer, Archbishop Father Rowan has his own small varient?
>
> Are there others?
>
> Jonathan Bean
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:

>
> I think that it is more likely that many people will stop ranking their big
> damage spells around
> rank 10 when they do 20+ damage to a few people and diversify a bit more.
> Afterall you can spend
> 5k on one rank and get 2 more damage or you can get a new spell to rank 6 and
> have a whole new way
> of being effective.
> Currently you have the same choice but BC increases swing the choice strongly
> in favour of
> increasing your rank.

Were the base chance even 15 points higher, I would probably leave it where it
is right now (14), and pursue other ranking. If it were 20 points higher, I
would have stopped a couple of ranks ago.


Jim.


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

> I think that it is more likely that many people will stop 
> ranking their big damage spells around rank 10 when they do 
> 20+ damage to a few people and diversify a bit more.  
> Afterall you can spend 5k on one rank and get 2 more damage 
> or you can get a new spell to rank 6 and have a whole new way 
> of being effective. Currently you have the same choice but BC 
> increases swing the choice strongly in favour of increasing your rank.

Personally I pay no attention to BC at all when it comes to ranking. I
simply rank the spells based on what they do. From watching a few other
people who do their ranking in a group as a social thing most of them
don't look at BC either, they simply look at what the spell can do for
them and the EP cost to get there. 

When I originally got Necrosis I ranked it as fast as possible, not to
get the BC but to get it to the maximum damage, I got to about 12 before
I realised this was going to make combats insanely boring and an
opportunity arose to get rid of it. 

I doubt they are a good representative selection of players in the game
but it shows that for at least a chunk of our players a BC change won't
change ranking habits. 

Mandos
/s


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

I've ranked for base chance - particularly Barth, my E&E. With ~40-50%
BC on quickness, combats tend to go like this:
1,2:fail quickness.
3,4:fail quickness
5,6: quicken self, half the party
7: fail quickness
8: quicken rest of party
9: Is there still a combat?

Similarly, I ranked Locate specifically to get a low backfire chance -
I've seen adventures where the party demands locate be used a lot.

I do quite like the idea of 30% initial BC on all spells, +2, 3, 4 or 5%
per rank depending on the difficulty of the spell. It may disadvantage
fighter/mages however - they likely don't have much MA bonus, and it
makes it harder to counteract the difference with a few extra ranks (for
the hard spells.)


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

------=_Part_753_2470206.1137726346640
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/20/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a
> constraint, but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway.
> But that could be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life =
of
> pulses and/or make them self only.


Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life may be.

The current spell description allows for either standard cast, no special
costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,  500sp in
ingredients, indefinite duration.

When playing I'll make them for party members on demand, and only have a fe=
w
"permanents" on hand for emergencies.

Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?  Are PCs
making and selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or have
GMs commoditized them?

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_753_2470206.1137726346640
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/20/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.si=
g.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smt=
p.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gma=
il_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Well I agr=
ee restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a constraint, but=
 then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway. But that could b=
e easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of pulses and/or m=
ake them self only.
</blockquote><div><br>Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite she=
lf life may be.<br><br>The current spell description allows for either stan=
dard cast, no special costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritu=
al,&nbsp; 500sp in ingredients, indefinite duration.
<br><br>When playing I'll make them for party members on demand, and only h=
ave a few &quot;permanents&quot; on hand for emergencies.<br><br>Where are =
the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?&nbsp; Are PCs making an=
d selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or have GMs commod=
itized them?
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_753_2470206.1137726346640--


-- 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_01C61D6F.40872794
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

In my experience a mixture of from PCs, loot, and made available in
appropriate numbers (which may be zero) by GMs when tooling up.
 
Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 16:06
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires


On 1/20/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz>  <
Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> > wrote: 


Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a
constraint, but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway.
But that could be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of
pulses and/or make them self only. 


Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life may be.

The current spell description allows for either standard cast, no special
costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,  500sp in
ingredients, indefinite duration. 

When playing I'll make them for party members on demand, and only have a few
"permanents" on hand for emergencies.

Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?  Are PCs
making and selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or have
GMs commoditized them? 

Cheers,
Martin




------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D6F.40872794
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

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


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In my 
experience a mixture of from PCs, loot, and made available in appropriate 
numbers (which may be zero) by GMs when tooling up.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><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> Martin 
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 20 January 2006 16:06<BR><B>To:</B> 
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And 
  Backfires<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 1/20/06, <B class=gmail_sendername><A 
  href="mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A></B> &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A>&gt; wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote 
  style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Well 
    I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a constraint, 
    but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway. But that could 
    be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of pulses and/or 
    make them self only. </BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life may 
  be.<BR><BR>The current spell description allows for either standard cast, no 
  special costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,&nbsp; 500sp 
  in ingredients, indefinite duration. <BR><BR>When playing I'll make them for 
  party members on demand, and only have a few "permanents" on hand for 
  emergencies.<BR><BR>Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming 
  from?&nbsp; Are PCs making and selling them (and losing the appropriate 
  ranking time) or have GMs commoditized them? 
  <BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Martin<BR></DIV></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D6F.40872794--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D70.009BC170
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





Stephen said:

"Currently we have two tiers of FT costs for spells, Generals at 1FT, =
specials at 2FT.
Perhaps there is room for another tier of spells at 4 or 5 FT that do =
have more powerful effects.
But I don't think it will be a balancing point, it will simply increase =
the dependency on gut
busters and other FT recovery aids.
But this is another issue."

Well actually restoratives/gutbusters are totally broken IMHO, but could =
be easily fixed.

A 3-4 mage group composed of, say, a mind mage for empathy, nuke mage =
(necrosis/hellfire), wiccan for restoratives and E&E (for optional =
damage enchance and quickness) can theoretically cast infinite rank 20+ =
hellfires/necrosis at the rate of 1.5 or thereabouts hellfires a pulse =
(restorative wiccan alternates between casting restoratives and more =
rank 20 hellfires). Mindmage cures endurance damage from drinking =
restoratives and occasionally drinks one himself). Not to mention they =
would also be throwing out mental attacks and sleeps on a regular basis.

Restoratives plus magic healing =3D more fatigue out than in =3D endless =
supply of spell fatigue =3D bad.




------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D70.009BC170
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=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT><BR><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Stephen said:<BR><BR>"Currently we have two tiers of =
FT costs=20
for spells, Generals at 1FT, specials at 2FT.<BR>Perhaps there is room =
for=20
another tier of spells at 4 or 5 FT that do have more powerful =
effects.<BR>But I=20
don't think it will be a balancing point, <STRONG><EM>it will simply =
increase=20
the dependency on gut<BR>busters and other FT recovery=20
aids</EM></STRONG>.<BR>But this is another issue."<BR><BR>Well actually=20
restoratives/gutbusters are totally broken IMHO, but could be easily=20
fixed.<BR><BR>A 3-4 mage group composed of, say, a mind mage for =
empathy, nuke=20
mage (necrosis/hellfire), wiccan for restoratives and E&amp;E (for =
optional=20
damage enchance and quickness) can theoretically cast infinite rank 20+=20
hellfires/necrosis at the rate of 1.5 or thereabouts hellfires a pulse=20
(restorative wiccan alternates between casting restoratives and more =
rank 20=20
hellfires). Mindmage cures endurance damage from drinking restoratives =
and=20
occasionally drinks one himself). Not to mention they would also be =
throwing out=20
mental attacks and sleeps on a regular basis.<BR><BR>Restoratives plus =
magic=20
healing =3D more fatigue out than in =3D endless supply of spell fatigue =
=3D=20
bad.<BR><BR></FONT></P></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D70.009BC170--


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

--0-976090947-1137727348=:99574
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Speaking as a DM I tend to use them on NPC's myself where appropriate, so each and every time one of those NPC's has gotten splatted, the party has gained restoratives.  Also they are only a spell, so are just buyable from the guild as far as I know, per the all spells availible at Rk 6.  The Permanent ones aren't an invested so not covered by that, it's possible I've missed some tiny piece in the rules on spells which can be made permanent?
   
  Bernard

Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:
      In my experience a mixture of from PCs, loot, and made available in appropriate numbers (which may be zero) by GMs when tooling up.
   
  Cheers
  Errol
    -----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Martin Dickson
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 16:06
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires


On 1/20/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:     Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a constraint, but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway. But that could be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of pulses and/or make them self only.   
Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life may be.

The current spell description allows for either standard cast, no special costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,  500sp in ingredients, indefinite duration. 

When playing I'll make them for party members on demand, and only have a few "permanents" on hand for emergencies.

Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?  Are PCs making and selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or have GMs commoditized them? 

Cheers,
Martin



  



From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
  The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.
--0-976090947-1137727348=:99574
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>Speaking as a DM I tend to use them on NPC's myself where appropriate, so each and every time one of those NPC's has gotten splatted, the party has gained restoratives.&nbsp; Also they are only a spell, so are just buyable from the guild as far as I know, per the all spells availible at Rk 6.&nbsp; The Permanent ones aren't an invested so not covered by that, it's possible I've missed some tiny piece in the rules on spells which can be made permanent?</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Bernard<BR><BR><B><I>Errol Cavit &lt;ecavit@tollnz.co.nz&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>  <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">  <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>  <DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>In my experience a mixture of from PCs, loot, and made available in appropriate numbers (which may be zero) by GMs when tooling up.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>  <DIV><SPAN
 class=921190903-20012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>  <DIV><SPAN class=921190903-20012006><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> Martin Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 20 January 2006 16:06<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 1/20/06, <B class=gmail_sendername><A href="mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A></B> &lt;<A href="mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A>&gt; wrote:   <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN>  <BLOCKQUOTE
 class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a constraint, but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway. But that could be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of pulses and/or make them self only. </BLOCKQUOTE>  <DIV><BR>Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life may be.<BR><BR>The current spell description allows for either standard cast, no special costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,&nbsp; 500sp in ingredients, indefinite duration. <BR><BR>When playing I'll make them for party members on demand, and only have a few "permanents" on hand for emergencies.<BR><BR>Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?&nbsp; Are PCs making and selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or have GMs commoditized them?
 <BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Martin<BR></DIV></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>  <DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p>
		<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> 
<a 
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/au/tag/newmovies/**http%3A%2F%2Fau.movies.yahoo.com%2F"> 
The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database.</a>
--0-976090947-1137727348=:99574--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D70.F8558674
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

500sp in ingredients is pretty nominal to medium+ partys. Its less than =
healing potions and partys happily stock up on those. In any event I =
have always hated trying to use money as any sort of balancing =
mechanism.=20
=20
For any significant fight of medium or high level party a GM can expect =
there to be multiple restoratives avaialble within the group. Put a =
wiccan with the spell in the group and you then also have a practically =
limitless supply (for the purposes of one combat anyway). =20
=20
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of =
Martin Dickson
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 4:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires


On 1/20/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz < Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:=20


Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a =
constraint, but then I think restoratives are a problem right now =
anyway. But that could be easily solved by making restoratives have a =
shelf life of pulses and/or make them self only.=20


Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life may be.

The current spell description allows for either standard cast, no =
special costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,  500sp =
in ingredients, indefinite duration.=20

When playing I'll make them for party members on demand, and only have a =
few "permanents" on hand for emergencies.

Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?  Are PCs =
making and selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or =
have GMs commoditized them?=20

Cheers,
Martin




------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D70.F8558674
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=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">


<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D925471803-20012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>500sp=20
in ingredients is pretty nominal to medium+ partys. Its less than =
healing=20
potions and partys happily stock up on those. In any event I have always =
hated=20
trying to use money as any sort of balancing mechanism. =
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D925471803-20012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D925471803-20012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>For=20
any significant fight&nbsp;of medium or high level party a GM can expect =
there=20
to be multiple restoratives avaialble within the group. Put a wiccan =
with the=20
spell in the group and you then also have a practically limitless supply =
(for=20
the purposes of one combat anyway).&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D925471803-20012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D925471803-20012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Martin=20
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 20 January 2006 4:06 =
p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - =
And=20
  Backfires<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 1/20/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A></B> =
&lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A>&gt; =
wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Well=20
    I agree restoratives are a problem when using spell fatigue as a =
constraint,=20
    but then I think restoratives are a problem right now anyway. But =
that could=20
    be easily solved by making restoratives have a shelf life of pulses =
and/or=20
    make them self only. </BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite shelf life =
may=20
  be.<BR><BR>The current spell description allows for either standard =
cast, no=20
  special costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour ritual,&nbsp; =
500sp=20
  in ingredients, indefinite duration. <BR><BR>When playing I'll make =
them for=20
  party members on demand, and only have a few "permanents" on hand for=20
  emergencies.<BR><BR>Where are the many permanent ones in circulation =
coming=20
  from?&nbsp; Are PCs making and selling them (and losing the =
appropriate=20
  ranking time) or have GMs commoditized them?=20
  =
<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Martin<BR></DIV></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61D70.F8558674--


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

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 16:05, Martin Dickson wrote:
> Where are the many permanent ones in circulation coming from?  Are PCs
> making and selling them (and losing the appropriate ranking time) or
> have GMs commoditized them? 

My witch (Anathea) has generally offered casting the spell to make
permanent restoratives for 100sp/cast. I've probably produced 1 or 2
dozen like this, over several years - not a big effect.

Thinking about non-permanents: On one high level adventure, I was doing
about 8 every morning (for about a month) for everyone's daily power-up
(SoS, AoE, etc.)

If you lost a point of EN for several days each time you took a
restorative, that would slow people down.


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

Mages have modifiers between -12 and +15 for MA; +0-21 for Greater; and -25 to +25 (but usually +5
to 10) for college bonuses.

At 40 +1 :
  most mages will be operating at between 60 and 110% depending on their level.
  most fighter mages will be operating at 30 to 90% depending on level and their fighter/mage
balance.

I quite like the effect this has on the game, it brings up the initial BCs of the hardest spells
and brings down the BCs of high levels.  It also expands the gap between specialist pure mages and
the generalists.  But it is quite a radical change.
Perhaps 30 to 40 base plus 2 per rank is a more moderate position.

Adding 3-5 per rank is too much effect on bc for rank.

Cheers, Stephen.

Michael Woodhams said:
> I do quite like the idea of 30% initial BC on all spells, +2, 3, 4 or 5% per rank depending on
> the difficulty of the spell. It may disadvantage fighter/mages however - they likely don't have
> much MA bonus, and it makes it harder to counteract the difference with a few extra ranks (for
> the hard spells.)


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

My witch advertises in the SG times the sale of
resoratives and yes I do take that into consideration
during my ranking time both the time costs and the
cash expenditure. 

Zane

--- Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/20/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz
> <Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Well I agree restoratives are a problem when using
> spell fatigue as a
> > constraint, but then I think restoratives are a
> problem right now anyway.
> > But that could be easily solved by making
> restoratives have a shelf life of
> > pulses and/or make them self only.
> 
> 
> Pulses aren't really the point, though indefinite
> shelf life may be.
> 
> The current spell description allows for either
> standard cast, no special
> costs, lasts 2+2/Rk minutes, or cast as a 1 hour
> ritual,  500sp in
> ingredients, indefinite duration.
> 
> When playing I'll make them for party members on
> demand, and only have a few
> "permanents" on hand for emergencies.
> 
> Where are the many permanent ones in circulation
> coming from?  Are PCs
> making and selling them (and losing the appropriate
> ranking time) or have
> GMs commoditized them?
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 


__________________________________________________
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 --

Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:

> Mages have modifiers between -12 and +15 for MA; +0-21 for Greater; and -25
> to +25 (but usually +5
> to 10) for college bonuses.
>
> At 40 +1 :
>   most mages will be operating at between 60 and 110% depending on their
> level.
>   most fighter mages will be operating at 30 to 90% depending on level and
> their fighter/mage
> balance.
>
> I quite like the effect this has on the game, it brings up the initial BCs of
> the hardest spells
> and brings down the BCs of high levels.  It also expands the gap between
> specialist pure mages and
> the generalists.  But it is quite a radical change.
> Perhaps 30 to 40 base plus 2 per rank is a more moderate position.

It's a waste of time wondering whether or not something is a moderate position.
You are trying to solve a problem. If the solution is radical but effective,
then you go for the radical solution. What moron is going to come up with an
effective solution, and then not use it because it's not moderate? Point them
out to me. I want to know where they live.

In any case, it seems to me you're trying for a solution that is elegant and
global. Waste of time. Just assign a higher base chance to some test spells,
and see what the effect is. Worry about elegance after you know whether or not
it's effective.

Jim.


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