SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromStephen Martin
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 08:05:16 +1300 (NZDT)
Another option is to reduce the 'Permanent' duration to a season.  That way each GM has more
control over the quantity of restoratives on their adventure.
If they are happy with boundless FT for casters then fine allow the party to have lots.  If not
then control the supply.

Obviously if they have a witch in the party then the limit doesn't apply but then at least the
party is using their own abilities rather than buying them.

But then in my experience Gut Busters allow lots more casting and have led to some odd
capabilities but not many problems.

Cheers, Stephen.

Zane Mendoza said:
> Over the past discussion with the 3 nasty spells in
> the game a few people brought up the point that
> Restoratives are over powered. I personally agree (To
> note I play a witch whose highest ranked spell is
> Create Restorative).
>
> In an effort to rectify this would it be better to
> alter the spell to being 2+1/4 ranks endurance for
> double that in fatigue. Also add in a price variable
> for the ammount of endurance dealt with permanant
> resoratives.
>
> I think this would be a good change as it would mean
> that to get the most commonly requested resoratives
> (6/12's or 8/16's)
>
> I don't agree with people insisting that resoratives
> not "heal" spell casting fatigue mostly due, as far as
> I am aware, only 1 or 2 ways to recover that,
> resoratives and a healer transfering fatigue, I could
> be wrong on that but I don't think I am.
>
> 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 --


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires
FromJonathan Bean - TME
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 09:06:05 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C61FFC.3D9C7040
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The new Namer college can stop all potions in an area working for a period
and I think that GMs that need to balance a production line of FT can do so
if they wish.

Jonathan

  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz
  Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 4:17 p.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] Base Chances of Spells - And Backfires





  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 = more fatigue out than in = endless
supply of spell fatigue = bad.



------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C61FFC.3D9C7040
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></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D084220420-22012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>The=20
new Namer college can stop all potions in an area working for a period =
and I=20
think&nbsp;that GMs that need to balance a production line of FT can do =
so if=20
they wish.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D084220420-22012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D084220420-22012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>Jonathan</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D084220420-22012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <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>Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 20 January 2006 =
4:17=20
  p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Base =
Chances of=20
  Spells - And Backfires<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
  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=20
  I don't think it will be a balancing point, <STRONG><EM>it will simply =

  increase 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 =

  (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=20
  out mental attacks and sleeps on a regular basis.<BR><BR>Restoratives =
plus=20
  magic healing =3D more fatigue out than in =3D endless supply of spell =
fatigue =3D=20
  bad.<BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C61FFC.3D9C7040--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Big Spells III : return of the argument.
FromMandos Mitchinson
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 09:19:13 +1300
> 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.

Good point. 

So any other idea's for a none straigt damage solution for the Resist
for half?

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromJonathan Bean - TME
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 09:25:46 +1300
> That way each GM has more control over the quantity of restoratives on
their adventure.
> If they are happy with boundless FT for casters then fine allow
> the party to have lots.  If not then control the supply.
>
> Obviously if they have a witch in the party then the limit doesn't apply
but then at least the
> party is using their own abilities rather than buying them.
>
> But then in my experience Gut Busters allow lots more casting and have led
to some odd
> capabilities but not many problems.
>
> Cheers, Stephen.

I do not think that Resoratives are broken at all, and I do not think they
need to be changed or 'fixed' as I do not see a problem with them, but
instead see a problem with the way games are run.

They are simply part of the game which the GM can control but it seems that
they are unwilling too.

Disjunction (S-4)
Range: 10 feet + 10 / Rank
Duration: 1 minute + 1 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 300
Base Chance: 30%
Resist: Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Object, Area
Effects: This spell prevents stored magics within an object or area from
coming into effect. Magics
that are affected by this spell include Wards, Invested items, Potions,
Magical Traps, and permanent magics
that need to be triggered. If a potion under the effects of a Disjunction is
consumed, the potion will take effect
after the spell effect ceases, provided it is still inside an entity. Other
items will simply be unable to be
triggered, and no charges will be lost.

At rank 8 the effect is:
Range: 90 feet
Duraion: 9 Mins
BC: 70% (or so)
Very usable and effective at stopping all of the problem.

Jonathan


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromSimpson
\ Mark\ \(NZ\)
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 09:51:28 +1300
Jono, sorry but I don't agree at all. Your "solution" is about the same as William's claiming active resistance was the reason hellfire and necrosis were not a problem. Pointing to one counter measure spell in one college does not mean there is no problem.

I think the fact that one 500sp potion (or free from group's wicca) effectively doubles casting fatigue is a little too good. The fact its standard operating procedure for any mage worth his/her salt to have several on hand every session should tell you something. Its like healing potions. At medium+ you are expected to have them and you are considered incompetent if you don't. 

Restoratives means stripping a mage of fatigue only stops them casting for 1 or 2 pulses. You have to put them down for good to guarantee they stop casting. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Jonathan Bean - TME
Sent: Monday, 23 January 2006 9:26 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Restoratives




I do not think that Resoratives are broken at all, and I do not think they
need to be changed or 'fixed' as I do not see a problem with them, but
instead see a problem with the way games are run.

They are simply part of the game which the GM can control but it seems that
they are unwilling too.

Disjunction (S-4)
Range: 10 feet + 10 / Rank
Duration: 1 minute + 1 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 300
Base Chance: 30%
Resist: Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Object, Area
Effects: This spell prevents stored magics within an object or area from
coming into effect. Magics
that are affected by this spell include Wards, Invested items, Potions,
Magical Traps, and permanent magics
that need to be triggered. If a potion under the effects of a Disjunction is
consumed, the potion will take effect
after the spell effect ceases, provided it is still inside an entity. Other
items will simply be unable to be
triggered, and no charges will be lost.

At rank 8 the effect is:
Range: 90 feet
Duraion: 9 Mins
BC: 70% (or so)
Very usable and effective at stopping all of the problem.

Jonathan


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromJonathan Bean - TME
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 10:16:01 +1300
Mark said:

> I think the fact that one 500sp potion (or free from group's
> wicca) effectively doubles casting fatigue is a little too good.

I dont not agree. Next we will be looking at Strength of Stones...
as it adds EN to all party members all the time. I dont see this as
broken.

> The fact its standard operating procedure for any mage worth
> his/her salt to have several on hand every session should tell
> you something. Its like healing potions. At medium+ you are
> expected to have them and you are considered incompetent if you don't.

Yes that is correct they are good - they should be. Looks like a Witch Hunt
to me ;-)
Amulate's of Luck are also seen by Med+ as standard, will we remove them
also?

> Restoratives means stripping a mage of fatigue only stops them
> casting for 1 or 2 pulses. You have to put them down for good to
> guarantee they stop casting.

Mages casting is an issue that a range of things such as Arrows (with iron),
Iron sand floors, Counter Spells, Disjuntion, Active resistance, going into
close,
are all part of it (GM control).

One of the bad things about the guild is that get a large group of
adventures together and you get an economy, and characters will sell
stuff to others, including quickness, Anulates, Armour, Invested, and yes
Wicca Potions.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromMartin Dickson
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 10:31:53 +1300
------=_Part_28798_3519475.1137965513212
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/23/06, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:
>
> Another option is to reduce the 'Permanent' duration to a season.  That
> way each GM has more
> control over the quantity of restoratives on their adventure.


Sounds a plan; it does seem to be the permanent ones -- and players carryin=
g
around large stocks of them -- that causes discussion.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_28798_3519475.1137965513212
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/23/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Stephen Martin</b> &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">stephenm@castle.pointclark.net</a>&=
gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0p=
t 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Another option is to reduce the 'Permanent' duration to a season.&nbsp;&nbs=
p;That way each GM has more<br>control over the quantity of restoratives on=
 their adventure.</blockquote><div><br>Sounds a plan; it does seem to be th=
e permanent ones -- and players carrying around large stocks of them -- tha=
t causes discussion.
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_28798_3519475.1137965513212--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromMandos Mitchinson
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 10:40:32 +1300
> One of the bad things about the guild is that get a large 
> group of adventures together and you get an economy, and 
> characters will sell stuff to others, including quickness, 
> Anulates, Armour, Invested, and yes Wicca Potions.

It isn't a bad thing at all....it is what would actually happen in this
evironment. I do need to find some of those Anulates they sound cool :-)

The problems arise from the inflationary effect that this has on the
games GM's are running. 

With restorative there are a number of things to take into
consideration. 

They are a frigile object weighing a pound. That's a lot of weight for a
pure mage unless they are also carrying strength potions but that's even
more weight. 

If as a GM you are concerned about the potion effects on a game ask your
players for an equipment list. I would bet a dollar that a fair number
of players don't consider potion weights and the effects that has on
their character sheets. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
Fromraro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 10:53:34 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 1/23/06, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:
> >
> > Another option is to reduce the 'Permanent' duration to a season.  That
> > way each GM has more
> > control over the quantity of restoratives on their adventure.
>
>
> Sounds a plan; it does seem to be the permanent ones -- and players carrying
> around large stocks of them -- that causes discussion.

I would bet it's not.

I would say it's the production line that is causing the discussion. Permanent
restoratives can be affected in the same way as any other potion in the game.
The production line is what people are disagreeing about.

In DQ, three are two ways to recover lost tiredness FT that doesn't involve
resting. Healer transfer FT, and Restoratives. Transferring FT is not a combat
option unless the combat is very very long, and the healer is otherwise
useless. Restorative is the only realistic option.

If you screw with Restorative, and by all means have a go, consider the effect
when the spell casters run out of FT in a fight. I predict that the game will
become quite boring for straight spell casting characters, and the balance will
swing back towards undifferentiated fighter/mage characters.

Jim.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromMartin Dickson
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 10:50:23 +1300
------=_Part_28966_22747836.1137966623943
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/23/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I dont not agree. Next we will be looking at Strength of Stones...
> as it adds EN to all party members all the time. I dont see this as
> broken.


A good point.  There are spells in several colleges that can substantially
"buff" a party -- SoS is one, Armour of Earth, or Enchant Armour (+42% def
all day) etc.  I've been in parties with a good Earth mage and Celestial,
and been at +10 PS, +20 EN, +42 Def all day.

But there could be a problem if these abilities could be stored cheaply and
easily. Invested have been tweaked (hard) in past to prevent just this.

The current invested (or alchemist potions) are neither cheap nor easy and
put the emphasis back on the abilities available in the party -- if you hav=
e
an Earth Mage you can get SoS easily, if not then not.

Having permanent Resoratives easily available is a bit like having SoS
easily available -- you can get the benefit without having to put up with a
Witch in the party.

But, on the flip-side, if permanent restoratives are not easily available
then even if you do have an Earth Mage in the party don't expect to have So=
S
and AoE on all day, because without the FT recovery the 2 x SK x 7 people =
=3D
28 FT.  (And whether that's a good or bad thing really depends on what the
GM wants for their adventure).

Stephen's suggestion of giving the ritual version restoratives a shelf life
until the next High Holiday seems a very reasonable option -- if GM's want
the party to be able to buff to the max every day then the potions are
easily available. If not, then not. (Like anything else the PCs can still
use PC contacts for this, but there are only a few PC wicca around).

Something of a price increase (perhaps Rk based) might also not go amiss,
though as William points out, 500sp is the making price, not the sale price=
.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_28966_22747836.1137966623943
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/23/06, <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:<span cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"></span><div><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;">
I dont not agree. Next we will be looking at Strength of Stones...<br>as it=
 adds EN to all party members all the time. I dont see this as<br>broken.</=
blockquote><br>
A good point.&nbsp; There are spells in several colleges that can
substantially &quot;buff&quot; a party -- SoS is one, Armour of Earth, or E=
nchant
Armour (+42% def all day) etc.&nbsp; I've been in parties with a good Earth
mage and Celestial, and been at +10 PS, +20 EN, +42 Def all day.<br>
<br>
But there could be a problem if these abilities could be stored cheaply
and easily. Invested have been tweaked (hard) in past to prevent just
this.<br>
<br>
The current invested (or alchemist potions) are neither cheap nor easy
and put the emphasis back on the abilities available in the party -- if
you have an Earth Mage you can get SoS easily, if not then not.<br>
<br>
Having permanent Resoratives easily available is a bit like having SoS
easily available -- you can get the benefit without having to put up
with a Witch in the party.<br>
<br>
But, on the flip-side, if permanent restoratives are not easily
available then even if you do have an Earth Mage in the party don't
expect to have SoS and AoE on all day, because without the FT recovery
the 2 x SK x 7 people =3D 28 FT.&nbsp; (And whether that's a good or bad th=
ing
really depends on what the GM wants for their adventure).<br>
<br>
Stephen's suggestion of giving the ritual version restoratives a shelf
life until the next High Holiday seems a very reasonable option -- if
GM's want the party to be able to buff to the max every day then the
potions are easily available. If not, then not. (Like anything else the
PCs can still use PC contacts for this, but there are only a few PC
wicca around).<br>
<br>
Something of a price increase (perhaps Rk based) might also not go
amiss, though as William points out, 500sp is the making price, not the
sale price.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Martin</div><br>


------=_Part_28966_22747836.1137966623943--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromMandos Mitchinson
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 11:06:49 +1300
> The current invested (or alchemist potions) are neither cheap nor easy
and
> put the emphasis back on the abilities available in the party -- if
you have
> an Earth Mage you can get SoS easily, if not then not.
>
> Having permanent Resoratives easily available is a bit like having SoS
easily
> available -- you can get the benefit without having to put up with a
Witch in the party.

Simple fix. Remove the permenant effects from the potion spells in the
game and add 'Storage: Potion' to the spell description. 

Characters with the spell can make them during the adventure as much as
they like and to make permenant ones takes as long as any other spell
providing the limitation. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
From
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 12:06:44 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=____1137971204951_yAx(oTx5.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I do not think there is an issue. I agree with Jono and Jim.

Restoratives and other power up techniques will not go away. they are part of the game, and unless you expect every party to nominate each other for 'stupidest' for NOT powering up, then relax and smell the coffee. 

the players will use what they can to create the game effect they want. If they do not want to max their PC then they will not do so. If they want an edge over the opposition then they will buff and pay/use restoratives.

The rest is up to the GM. they either enjoy the game the players are in, or they dont. Set the tone (rare, medium well done) and enjoy. 

I also ask that we resolve the Hellfire (et al) discussions as a priority, and then help Errol with the rulebook revisions/clarifications.

Ian

> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/23 Mon AM 10:50:23 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Restoratives
> 
> On 1/23/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > I dont not agree. Next we will be looking at Strength of Stones...
> > as it adds EN to all party members all the time. I dont see this as
> > broken.
> 
> 
> A good point.  There are spells in several colleges that can substantially
> "buff" a party -- SoS is one, Armour of Earth, or Enchant Armour (+42% def
> all day) etc.  I've been in parties with a good Earth mage and Celestial,
> and been at +10 PS, +20 EN, +42 Def all day.
> 
> But there could be a problem if these abilities could be stored cheaply and
> easily. Invested have been tweaked (hard) in past to prevent just this.
> 
> The current invested (or alchemist potions) are neither cheap nor easy and
> put the emphasis back on the abilities available in the party -- if you have
> an Earth Mage you can get SoS easily, if not then not.
> 
> Having permanent Resoratives easily available is a bit like having SoS
> easily available -- you can get the benefit without having to put up with a
> Witch in the party.
> 
> But, on the flip-side, if permanent restoratives are not easily available
> then even if you do have an Earth Mage in the party don't expect to have SoS
> and AoE on all day, because without the FT recovery the 2 x SK x 7 people =
> 28 FT.  (And whether that's a good or bad thing really depends on what the
> GM wants for their adventure).
> 
> Stephen's suggestion of giving the ritual version restoratives a shelf life
> until the next High Holiday seems a very reasonable option -- if GM's want
> the party to be able to buff to the max every day then the potions are
> easily available. If not, then not. (Like anything else the PCs can still
> use PC contacts for this, but there are only a few PC wicca around).
> 
> Something of a price increase (perhaps Rk based) might also not go amiss,
> though as William points out, 500sp is the making price, not the sale price.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 

------=____1137971204951_yAx(oTx5.6
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="reply"
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="reply"

On 1/23/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<span class="gmail_quote"></span><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I dont not agree. Next we will be looking at Strength of Stones...<br>as it adds EN to all party members all the time. I dont see this as<br>broken.</blockquote><br>
A good point.&nbsp; There are spells in several colleges that can
substantially &quot;buff&quot; a party -- SoS is one, Armour of Earth, or Enchant
Armour (+42% def all day) etc.&nbsp; I've been in parties with a good Earth
mage and Celestial, and been at +10 PS, +20 EN, +42 Def all day.<br>
<br>
But there could be a problem if these abilities could be stored cheaply
and easily. Invested have been tweaked (hard) in past to prevent just
this.<br>
<br>
The current invested (or alchemist potions) are neither cheap nor easy
and put the emphasis back on the abilities available in the party -- if
you have an Earth Mage you can get SoS easily, if not then not.<br>
<br>
Having permanent Resoratives easily available is a bit like having SoS
easily available -- you can get the benefit without having to put up
with a Witch in the party.<br>
<br>
But, on the flip-side, if permanent restoratives are not easily
available then even if you do have an Earth Mage in the party don't
expect to have SoS and AoE on all day, because without the FT recovery
the 2 x SK x 7 people = 28 FT.&nbsp; (And whether that's a good or bad thing
really depends on what the GM wants for their adventure).<br>
<br>
Stephen's suggestion of giving the ritual version restoratives a shelf
life until the next High Holiday seems a very reasonable option -- if
GM's want the party to be able to buff to the max every day then the
potions are easily available. If not, then not. (Like anything else the
PCs can still use PC contacts for this, but there are only a few PC
wicca around).<br>
<br>
Something of a price increase (perhaps Rk based) might also not go
amiss, though as William points out, 500sp is the making price, not the
sale price.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Martin</div><br>



------=____1137971204951_yAx(oTx5.6--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromMichael Scott
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 16:13:13 +1300


>From: <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz>

>I do not think there is an issue. I agree with Jono and Jim.
>
>Restoratives and other power up techniques will not go away. they are part 
>of the game, and unless you expect every party to nominate each other for 
>'stupidest' for NOT powering up, then relax and smell the coffee.
>
>the players will use what they can to create the game effect they want. If 
>they do not want to max their PC then they will not do so. If they want an 
>edge over the opposition then they will buff and pay/use restoratives.
>
>The rest is up to the GM. they either enjoy the game the players are in, or 
>they dont. Set the tone (rare, medium well done) and enjoy.
>
>I also ask that we resolve the Hellfire (et al) discussions as a priority, 
>and then help Errol with the rulebook revisions/clarifications.
>
>Ian

I think people are focusing on the wrong aspect, I agree that changing the 
duration is pointless as it would be inconsequental.

What poele should be focusing on if they wish to limit the resource is, IMO 
the cost of the poitions and/or how much ft you get.

Yes adventurers would still buy them but if the cost were greater they 
wouldn't have as many.
And if the poitions did half the ft it would force the witches to rk the 
spell or sell at lower ranks, adventurers would still buy lower ranked 
poitions but would require more thus encuring encumberance penalties or 
having to do without.

TTFN
Michael

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


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromMandos Mitchinson
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 16:19:05 +1300
> What poele should be focusing on if they wish to limit the 
> resource is, IMO 
> the cost of the poitions and/or how much ft you get.

Cost is never a particularly good limiter of anything. Some GM's give
out more cash than the US will need to go to war and others are stingier
than a Sscotsman with their pockets sewn shut.

How much fatigue you get back combined with weight would work, as would
time taken to make the potions as these factors are the same across all
players. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromAndrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 16:29:09 +1300
As many witches only rank it to Rk 6-8, changing the FT/Rank will just
get them to throw more EP at it. In 6 months the status quo will return.
Money is no limit. Many people have bags of holding or similar, so
weight doesn't affect the average Medium+ party. It only takes a moment
to create a permanent Restorative.

If you wish to limit Restoratives overall, you would need to look at
other factors.

On the other hand, I have no problem with Restoratives at high, only on
the medium-low end of the scale, so maybe some of these limiting
elements would work if this is the level where other people have doubts.


-----Original Message-----

How much fatigue you get back combined with weight would work, as would
time taken to make the potions as these factors are the same across all
players. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromStephen Martin
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 16:39:22 +1300 (NZDT)
Er no, I think that while we have been discussing duration, several of us disagree that the
current Restoratives are a problem at all.

As has been pointed out there are in-game mechanisms that GMs can use to restrict the use of
Restoratives if they feel that Restoratives are being used to much on their adventure.

Cheers, Stephen.

btw I disagree that changing the duration is pointless/inconsequential, but we disagree that there
is a problem so arguing the merits of solutions is somewhat pointless.

Michael Scott said:
>
>>From: <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz>
>
>>I do not think there is an issue. I agree with Jono and Jim.
>>
>
> I think people are focusing on the wrong aspect, I agree that changing the  duration is
> pointless as it would be inconsequental.
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromStephen Martin
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 16:45:40 +1300 (NZDT)
I think this is the reason why we should consider changing the Rk/FT/EN ratio, so that there is
some reason (for adventurers) to rank it beyond Rk 8.
If we were to do this then to be fair to Wicca I'd advocate dropping the EM too.

Or perhaps give them some other benefit of higher rank.  E.g. the FT restored caps at Rk 10 then
later ranks reduce the EN cost.

Cheers, Stephen.

Andrew said:
> As many witches only rank it to Rk 6-8, ...


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromSimpson
\ Mark\ \(NZ\)
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 16:46:27 +1300
For me it all comes back to the ridiculous amount of damage a single fire/wicca/necro can deal out with those resist for half spells (as the extreme example, but by no means the only example ... 20 casts of whirlwind vortex, TK rage or various other spells seems almost as daunting). Why have a constraint on spell fatigue (and how it can and cannot be restored) when restoratives are so freely/cheaply available in permanent form? (I think the rank/minute duration ones are much less of a problem). It ties back in with the seemingly disproportionate amount of bang you get for your 2 fatigue from different spells. This in turn drives the "why would I cast another spell other than XYZ" argument. Different (lower) fatigue cost requirements could make lesser damages spells seem more attractive.  

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
Sent: Monday, 23 January 2006 4:29 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Restoratives


As many witches only rank it to Rk 6-8, changing the FT/Rank will just
get them to throw more EP at it. In 6 months the status quo will return.
Money is no limit. Many people have bags of holding or similar, so
weight doesn't affect the average Medium+ party. It only takes a moment
to create a permanent Restorative.

If you wish to limit Restoratives overall, you would need to look at
other factors.

On the other hand, I have no problem with Restoratives at high, only on
the medium-low end of the scale, so maybe some of these limiting
elements would work if this is the level where other people have doubts.


-----Original Message-----

How much fatigue you get back combined with weight would work, as would
time taken to make the potions as these factors are the same across all
players. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromZane Mendoza
DateSun, 22 Jan 2006 20:41:47 -0800 (PST)
that was part of my point when I started this thread. 

tho personally I like the fact that to take a decent
gut buster you literally have to bust your guts open
due to ED damage. My main issues with the current
spell are 

A> there is no reason to rank the spell past RK 8
unless you expect to be giving potions to giants (even
then there is little reason)

B> The ammount of Fatigue you gain at later ranks is
useless most people will have a maximum FT of between
21 and 29 (excluding GM granted writeups) so there is
little point in casting the spell at anything above RK
8 (10ED for 20Ft) which I feel is silly and it makes
the spell a single session's worth of ranking to get
it at the best lvl which goes against the idea of
ranking spells IMHO. esp as the spell has a BC of at
least 57% at RK 8 before lesser/greater etc come into
play.

Zane


--- Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>
wrote:

> I think this is the reason why we should consider
> changing the Rk/FT/EN ratio, so that there is
> some reason (for adventurers) to rank it beyond Rk
> 8.
> If we were to do this then to be fair to Wicca I'd
> advocate dropping the EM too.
> 
> Or perhaps give them some other benefit of higher
> rank.  E.g. the FT restored caps at Rk 10 then
> later ranks reduce the EN cost.
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> Andrew said:
> > As many witches only rank it to Rk 6-8, ...
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 


__________________________________________________
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 --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
FromJohanna and Hamish
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 20:54:52 +1300
This Restoratives dialogue seems to be missing the point to me.

Being able to power up all 7 characters is a hallmark of even medium games
and stopping this drastically changes the balance of the game - Restoratives
aren't broken IMO

We got on to this topic after discussing how to stop mages casting HF WV and
N lots in a single combat.  Solutions which related only to the specific
spells seemed much closer to the mark to me.  Especially since getting
agreement to anything is really tricky.  Can we stick to discussing how to
fix these 3 spells since there seems to be agreement that they need fixing.


Hamish



Hamish Brown
Director

Zenergy
Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world
119 Mt Eden Rd,
Auckland
www.zenergyglobal.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Zane
Mendoza
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:42 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Restoratives

that was part of my point when I started this thread. 

tho personally I like the fact that to take a decent
gut buster you literally have to bust your guts open
due to ED damage. My main issues with the current
spell are 

A> there is no reason to rank the spell past RK 8
unless you expect to be giving potions to giants (even
then there is little reason)

B> The ammount of Fatigue you gain at later ranks is
useless most people will have a maximum FT of between
21 and 29 (excluding GM granted writeups) so there is
little point in casting the spell at anything above RK
8 (10ED for 20Ft) which I feel is silly and it makes
the spell a single session's worth of ranking to get
it at the best lvl which goes against the idea of
ranking spells IMHO. esp as the spell has a BC of at
least 57% at RK 8 before lesser/greater etc come into
play.

Zane


--- Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>
wrote:

> I think this is the reason why we should consider
> changing the Rk/FT/EN ratio, so that there is
> some reason (for adventurers) to rank it beyond Rk
> 8.
> If we were to do this then to be fair to Wicca I'd
> advocate dropping the EM too.
> 
> Or perhaps give them some other benefit of higher
> rank.  E.g. the FT restored caps at Rk 10 then
> later ranks reduce the EN cost.
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> Andrew said:
> > As many witches only rank it to Rk 6-8, ...
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 


__________________________________________________
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 --
SubjectRe: [dq] Restoratives
Fromraro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
DateMon, 23 Jan 2006 23:45:20 +1300
Another reason to take the cap of FT.

That way, there is a point in ranking Restorative beyond 14.

Jim.


Quoting Zane Mendoza <zcmendoza@yahoo.com>:

> that was part of my point when I started this thread.
>
> tho personally I like the fact that to take a decent
> gut buster you literally have to bust your guts open
> due to ED damage. My main issues with the current
> spell are
>
> A> there is no reason to rank the spell past RK 8
> unless you expect to be giving potions to giants (even
> then there is little reason)
>
> B> The ammount of Fatigue you gain at later ranks is
> useless most people will have a maximum FT of between
> 21 and 29 (excluding GM granted writeups) so there is
> little point in casting the spell at anything above RK
> 8 (10ED for 20Ft) which I feel is silly and it makes
> the spell a single session's worth of ranking to get
> it at the best lvl which goes against the idea of
> ranking spells IMHO. esp as the spell has a BC of at
> least 57% at RK 8 before lesser/greater etc come into
> play.
>
> Zane
>
>
> --- Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I think this is the reason why we should consider
> > changing the Rk/FT/EN ratio, so that there is
> > some reason (for adventurers) to rank it beyond Rk
> > 8.
> > If we were to do this then to be fair to Wicca I'd
> > advocate dropping the EM too.
> >
> > Or perhaps give them some other benefit of higher
> > rank.  E.g. the FT restored caps at Rk 10 then
> > later ranks reduce the EN cost.
> >
> > Cheers, Stephen.
> >
> > Andrew said:
> > > As many witches only rank it to Rk 6-8, ...
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify
> > mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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 --
>


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