Another idea for fixing the resist and die spells. 

Change them so that if resisted the spells may never cause endurance
damage. 

Still damn handy to clear the fatigue on lots of opponents, if they fail
to resist they are still toast, but it may leave something for the
fighters to do and encourage the adept to use other spells. 

Mandos
/s


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

The problem with these spells specifically was that they were so good that there
weren't many reasons to use anything else in combat.

The damage on them is fine, it has never been a problem, in and of itself.

Jim

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

>
> Another idea for fixing the resist and die spells.
>
> Change them so that if resisted the spells may never cause endurance
> damage.
>
> Still damn handy to clear the fatigue on lots of opponents, if they fail
> to resist they are still toast, but it may leave something for the
> fighters to do and encourage the adept to use other spells.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> The problem with these spells specifically was that they were 
> so good that there weren't many reasons to use anything else 
> in combat.
> 
> The damage on them is fine, it has never been a problem, in 
> and of itself.

The idea being that if you remove the endurance damage for resisting
entities the damage remains the same but pushes the use of other spells
if the entities are resisting. 

It still means they are the first spell to use in a combat but if they
are resisting then the adept is more likely to use other spells in
preference rather than keep casting in the hope of them not-resisting. 

Mandos
/s


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

I'm well aware of what the idea is. It's an old one.

It won't work in the way that you suggest.

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

> > The problem with these spells specifically was that they were
> > so good that there weren't many reasons to use anything else
> > in combat.
> >
> > The damage on them is fine, it has never been a problem, in
> > and of itself.
>
> The idea being that if you remove the endurance damage for resisting
> entities the damage remains the same but pushes the use of other spells
> if the entities are resisting.
>
> It still means they are the first spell to use in a combat but if they
> are resisting then the adept is more likely to use other spells in
> preference rather than keep casting in the hope of them not-resisting.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> I'm well aware of what the idea is. It's an old one.
> 
> It won't work in the way that you suggest.

So how do you think it will work?

Mandos
/s


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

On the grounds of utility:
It is too minor a change to substantially offer a player a reason to choose
anything else.

On the grounds of rationalisation:
It is too weird an effect to reasonably be expected. To rationally extrapolate
from this, you would expect spells that inflicted less damage (Bolt of Energy,
etc) to be similarly compromised. Yet, to do so would be to increase the
utility of the big three to the situation that pertains at the moment.
Contrariwise, if they are written so that they do stand outside what has become
the baseline of the game, then they  become, like light and darkness spells,
harder to administer.

Jim

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

>
> > I'm well aware of what the idea is. It's an old one.
> >
> > It won't work in the way that you suggest.
>
> So how do you think it will work?
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> On the grounds of utility:
> It is too minor a change to substantially offer a player a 
> reason to choose anything else.

Actually it does, the spells start out doing lots of damage but there
are diminishing returns, which means you move to other spells after the
initial salvo's.

> On the grounds of rationalisation:
> It is too weird an effect to reasonably be expected. To 
> rationally extrapolate from this, you would expect spells 
> that inflicted less damage (Bolt of Energy,
> etc) to be similarly compromised. Yet, to do so would be to 
> increase the utility of the big three to the situation that 
> pertains at the moment. Contrariwise, if they are written so 
> that they do stand outside what has become the baseline of 
> the game, then they  become, like light and darkness spells, 
> harder to administer.

I thought your primary argument was define what effect you want and then
rationalise. 

Since bolt of energy is resist for none, it wouldn't be affected by this
change even if we did make it an across the game change, that particular
argument is specious. 

Mandos
/s


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

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

> > On the grounds of utility:
> > It is too minor a change to substantially offer a player a
> > reason to choose anything else.
>
> Actually it does, the spells start out doing lots of damage but there
> are diminishing returns, which means you move to other spells after the
> initial salvo's.

No, you wouldn't, unless your other spells were better. If your alternatives are
crap, you won't switch.

So, actually, George, no they wouldn't.
>
> > On the grounds of rationalisation:
> > It is too weird an effect to reasonably be expected. To
> > rationally extrapolate from this, you would expect spells
> > that inflicted less damage (Bolt of Energy,
> > etc) to be similarly compromised. Yet, to do so would be to
> > increase the utility of the big three to the situation that
> > pertains at the moment. Contrariwise, if they are written so
> > that they do stand outside what has become the baseline of
> > the game, then they  become, like light and darkness spells,
> > harder to administer.
>
> I thought your primary argument was define what effect you want and then
> rationalise.

The system has to make sense. The more non-standard it is, the harder to learn,
the harder to administer, and the more difficult to predict. If you have a
spell that does weird things, like, say, light and darkness, then you will get
wild variants of the base game propagating across the game world.

I don't have a problem with each game being different, because they're going to
be different at some point, anyway. I do have a problem with a change like
this, which is minor, achieves nothing that it pretends to address and
increases the workload of players and DMs alike.
>
> Since bolt of energy is resist for none, it wouldn't be affected by this
> change even if we did make it an across the game change, that particular
> argument is specious.

It's entirely NOT specious. The point is, because Whirlwind Vortex, Hellfire and
Necrosis are spells with a particular game cachet, the expectation would be
that other spells would be less effective. They have high base chances, good
ranges and low ExpMults.

However, let's not argue about this. For a start, I would not to be addressing
someone who had a point that was not formed by the cone-like protrusion of his
head.

Jim.


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

> No, you wouldn't, unless your other spells were better. If 
> your alternatives are crap, you won't switch.

If the spell stops having a useful effect you swap to a spell that does
have a better effect.

> So, actually, George, no they wouldn't.

So actually Jim, you would. 

I have a spell similar to the proposal so I have seen this actually have
an effect in the game, have you tried anything similar?

> The system has to make sense. The more non-standard it is, 
> the harder to learn, the harder to administer, and the more 
> difficult to predict. If you have a spell that does weird 
> things, like, say, light and darkness, then you will get wild 
> variants of the base game propagating across the game world.

Hmm I can see how the sentence 'Resist for fatigue only' would be open
to the kinds of confusion you get with light and dark. There is no
comparison with this. It is a simple and effective chanfe. 

> I don't have a problem with each game being different, 
> because they're going to be different at some point, anyway. 
> I do have a problem with a change like this, which is minor, 
> achieves nothing that it pretends to address and increases 
> the workload of players and DMs alike.

It increases the workload how? 

In actual fact it decreases the workload, you no longer have to work out
if that resisited spell did enough damamge to kill someone, you can
simply subtract the damage from fatigue. No additional calculation. 

> It's entirely NOT specious. The point is, because Whirlwind 
> Vortex, Hellfire and Necrosis are spells with a particular 
> game cachet, the expectation would be that other spells would 
> be less effective. They have high base chances, good ranges 
> and low ExpMults.

And what has this got to do with a change to resisting spells? This
paragraph is not just specious it is not even remotly connected to the
proposal. 

> However, let's not argue about this. For a start, I would not 
> to be addressing someone who had a point that was not formed 
> by the cone-like protrusion of his head.

I do love the way that you stoop to mindless abuse rather than putting a
sensible argument forward. 

Is it an aim to annoy and offend people enough that no-one uses the list
at all for open debate? 

Mandos
/s


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

I'm waiting for part 5, The damage strikes back :.-)

I don't see how this makes for casting choice. Necrosis, WWV, Hellfire are
still main choices since any who fail will be fryalated. It may make a necro
want to toss off a Spectral warrior but the concentration element of that
spell means they can only be tempted to throw one.

Besides, at the point where these spells are flying you want EN damage from
big magic. PCs are hard to kill as it is.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2006 8:16 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Options with: Necrosis, Whirlwind Vortex and Hellfire?
Part 4, Another chapter



Another idea for fixing the resist and die spells.

Change them so that if resisted the spells may never cause endurance
damage.

Still damn handy to clear the fatigue on lots of opponents, if they fail
to resist they are still toast, but it may leave something for the
fighters to do and encourage the adept to use other spells.

Mandos
/s


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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 1/05/2006

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 1/05/2006


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

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

>
> > No, you wouldn't, unless your other spells were better. If
> > your alternatives are crap, you won't switch.
>
> If the spell stops having a useful effect you swap to a spell that does
> have a better effect.
>
> > So, actually, George, no they wouldn't.
>
> So actually Jim, you would.
>
> I have a spell similar to the proposal so I have seen this actually have
> an effect in the game, have you tried anything similar?

Yes, of course.

Players will use the spell, if it's what they have. They don't cycle through
their other options, if their other options do not have as much utility. With
respect to the big three, the problem was not about the amount of damage, it
was about the disparity between any other alternative. This does not address
the disparity. You would simply decrease the effectiveness of the spell. If it
is still much better than any other alternative, it does not encourage
variation. You have just made the spell weaker. It does not address that
problem.

>
> > The system has to make sense. The more non-standard it is,
> > the harder to learn, the harder to administer, and the more
> > difficult to predict. If you have a spell that does weird
> > things, like, say, light and darkness, then you will get wild
> > variants of the base game propagating across the game world.
>
> Hmm I can see how the sentence 'Resist for fatigue only' would be open
> to the kinds of confusion you get with light and dark. There is no
> comparison with this. It is a simple and effective chanfe.

It might be simple. It's not effective, and it creates a strange and hard to
rationalise situation.
>
> > I don't have a problem with each game being different,
> > because they're going to be different at some point, anyway.
> > I do have a problem with a change like this, which is minor,
> > achieves nothing that it pretends to address and increases
> > the workload of players and DMs alike.
>
> It increases the workload how?

These spells would have a behaviour that would be markedly different to any
other damage effect. This means that the new behaviour has to be learnt and
effectively applied. Learning something quickly and applying it without error
is most often done by establishing an underlying pattern that is abstractable,
and therefore reasonable. This is not what is going to happen here. These are
exceptional rules.

There is an argument to be made for exceptional rules. No system is without
them, because no system can be used to describe anything completely. There are
always instances where it cannot model well or even at all. Having said that
exceptional rules are always going to be present, there is no reason to go out
and populate the entire rule book with the bloody things.

Ideally, exceptional rules are the bare minimum for the game, in an ideal world.
Your suggestion is an exceptional rule that pretends to be trying to find a way
to offer players who have one of the big three a different choice. In fact,
even if it were accepted, it would not do this. It would simply reduce the
amount of damage in the game, which is what you are really interested in doing.


>
> In actual fact it decreases the workload, you no longer have to work out
> if that resisited spell did enough damamge to kill someone, you can
> simply subtract the damage from fatigue. No additional calculation.

What additional calculation? Players know how much damage they can take before
they die. When you generate your NPCs, you know what amount of damage will kill
them. You always need to know this. This change would not change that, unless
it were propagated across the entire system.
>

> > It's entirely NOT specious. The point is, because Whirlwind
> > Vortex, Hellfire and Necrosis are spells with a particular
> > game cachet, the expectation would be that other spells would
> > be less effective. They have high base chances, good ranges
> > and low ExpMults.
>
> And what has this got to do with a change to resisting spells? This
> paragraph is not just specious it is not even remotly connected to the
> proposal.

When I use a spell like Hellfire, the players have a pretty good idea of what
the effect is like, and it worries them. That worry is a good thing, because
it's dramatic tension I don't have to generate. Sure, I could have a spell
called 'Testicle Crush' which, when I declared that the enemy mage was casting,
would have the male adventurer's squirming in their seats...But, I have to
actually work on that effect. Hellfire, Whirlwind Vortex and Necrosis already
come with enough street cred that it's going to have them sitting a bit further
forward on their chairs.

>
> > However, let's not argue about this. For a start, I would not
> > to be addressing someone who had a point that was not formed
> > by the cone-like protrusion of his head.
>
> I do love the way that you stoop to mindless abuse rather than putting a
> sensible argument forward.

I stoop, because that's where your argument is coming from, George.
>
> Is it an aim to annoy and offend people enough that no-one uses the list
> at all for open debate?

This isn't about open debate, and you know it, George. You have been prosecuting
the notion of reducing the amount of save for half damage in the game, and that
is what this is about. I do not believe that your suggestions spring from any
other source than a desire to somehow get people to accept this policy. And,
that has nothing to do with honesty or debate, and a lot to do with spin
doctoring.

As has been said by people other than me, you need high value save for half
damage spells beyond a certain point in the game. Your suggestion just
increases the comfort and safety of pcs. Will you be happy when the game world
is entirely warm, pink and cuddly?

I, personally, prefer a world where the world has lots of hard, sharp edges. And
hooks. And noises like finger bones being chewed up.

I encourage you to run the game that you most feel comfortable with. I don't
encourage you to export your particular flavour of the world into the base
ruleset.

Jim.
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

--0-1055068427-1146553489=:93095
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

To cut through a lot of this.

First, decide what the problem with these spells is.  There are 2 options.

1:  The spells are too powerfull.  Answer, reduce them

2:  The spells are allright but some colleges don't have options.  Answer, increase some of the colleges other spells, leave the existing spells alone.


Now from a personal point, I go for option 1 and for several other spells also, but at least decide which issue your trying to address before filling inboxs with arguments about how to fix the issue. Please.

Bernard.


From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
		
---------------------------------
On Yahoo!7 
  360°:  Your own space to share what you want with who you want!
--0-1055068427-1146553489=:93095
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

To cut through a lot of this.<br><br>First, decide what the problem with these spells is.&nbsp; There are 2 options.<br><br>1:&nbsp; The spells are too powerfull.&nbsp; Answer, reduce them<br><br>2:&nbsp; The spells are allright but some colleges don't have options.&nbsp; Answer, increase some of the colleges other spells, leave the existing spells alone.<br><br><br>Now from a personal point, I go for option 1 and for several other spells also, but at least decide which issue your trying to address before filling inboxs with arguments about how to fix the issue. Please.<br><br>Bernard.<br><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<br>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<p>
		<hr size=1>On Yahoo!7 <br> 
<a 
href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**http%3A%2F%2Fau.360.yahoo.com%2F"> 
360°:  Your own space to share what you want with who you want!</a>
--0-1055068427-1146553489=:93095--


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

Bernard Hoggins wrote:

> To cut through a lot of this.
>
> First, decide what the problem with these spells is.  There are 2 options.
>
> 1:  The spells are too powerfull.  Answer, reduce them
>
> 2:  The spells are allright but some colleges don't have options.  
> Answer, increase some of the colleges other spells, leave the existing 
> spells alone.
>
>
> Now from a personal point, I go for option 1 and for several other 
> spells also, but at least decide which issue your trying to address 
> before filling inboxs with arguments about how to fix the issue. Please.
>
> Bernard.
>
>
> From Bernard Hoggins
> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Yahoo!7
> 360°: Your own space to share what you want with who you want! 
> <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**http%3A%2F%2Fau.360.yahoo.com%2F> 

I actually go with option2 in this case.

Scott Whitaker


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

------=_Part_799_6145024.1146566128011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I second that. I think if there aren't enough choices then lets add a few
rather than weaken the better spells.
Dylan


On 5/2/06, Kharsis <kharsis@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Bernard Hoggins wrote:
>
> > To cut through a lot of this.
> >
> > First, decide what the problem with these spells is.  There are 2
> options.
> >
> > 1:  The spells are too powerfull.  Answer, reduce them
> >
> > 2:  The spells are allright but some colleges don't have options.
> > Answer, increase some of the colleges other spells, leave the existing
> > spells alone.
> >
> >
> > Now from a personal point, I go for option 1 and for several other
> > spells also, but at least decide which issue your trying to address
> > before filling inboxs with arguments about how to fix the issue. Please=
.
> >
> > Bernard.
> >
> >
> > From Bernard Hoggins
> > nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
> > On Yahoo!7
> > 360=B0: Your own space to share what you want with who you want!
> > <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**http%3A%2F%2Fau.360.yahoo.com%2F>
>
> I actually go with option2 in this case.
>
> Scott Whitaker
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_799_6145024.1146566128011
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I second that. I think if there aren't enough choices then lets add a =
few rather than weaken the better spells.</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 5/2/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">K=
harsis</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:kharsis@ihug.co.nz">kharsis@ihug.co.nz</a>=
&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Bernard Hoggins wrote:<br><br>&g=
t; To cut through a lot of this.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; First, decide what the pro=
blem with these spells is.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are 2 options.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt; 1:&nbsp;&nbsp;The spells are too powerfull.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ans=
wer, reduce them<br>&gt;<br>&gt; 2:&nbsp;&nbsp;The spells are allright but =
some colleges don't have options.<br>&gt; Answer, increase some of the coll=
eges other spells, leave the existing
<br>&gt; spells alone.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Now from a personal point, I=
 go for option 1 and for several other<br>&gt; spells also, but at least de=
cide which issue your trying to address<br>&gt; before filling inboxs with =
arguments about how to fix the issue. Please.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Bernard.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; From Bernard Hoggins<br>&=
gt; <a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><br>&gt=
;<br>&gt; -----------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
<br>&gt; On Yahoo!7<br>&gt; 360=B0: Your own space to share what you want w=
ith who you want!<br>&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**=
http%3A%2F%2Fau.360.yahoo.com%2F">http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**http%3A=
%2F%2Fau.360.yahoo.com%2F
</a>&gt;<br><br>I actually go with option2 in this case.<br><br>Scott Whita=
ker<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request=
@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_799_6145024.1146566128011--


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

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

> I second that. I think if there aren't enough choices then lets add a few
> rather than weaken the better spells.

Then, you didn't read what he wrote, Dylan.

Jim.
> Dylan
>
>
> On 5/2/06, Kharsis <kharsis@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Bernard Hoggins wrote:
> >
> > > To cut through a lot of this.
> > >
> > > First, decide what the problem with these spells is.  There are 2
> > options.
> > >
> > > 1:  The spells are too powerfull.  Answer, reduce them
> > >
> > > 2:  The spells are allright but some colleges don't have options.
> > > Answer, increase some of the colleges other spells, leave the existing
> > > spells alone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now from a personal point, I go for option 1 and for several other
> > > spells also, but at least decide which issue your trying to address
> > > before filling inboxs with arguments about how to fix the issue. Please.
> > >
> > > Bernard.
> > >
> > >
> > > From Bernard Hoggins
> > > nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > On Yahoo!7
> > > 360°: Your own space to share what you want with who you want!
> > > <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tag/**http%3A%2F%2Fau.360.yahoo.com%2F>
> >
> > I actually go with option2 in this case.
> >
> > Scott Whitaker
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>


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

> You would simply decrease the effectiveness of the spell. If it
> is still much better than any other alternative, it does not encourage
> variation. You have just made the spell weaker. It does not address that
> problem.

The previous discussions and your original methods to fix involved
depowering the top spells a little while inproving the other spells a
little, your original plan was to make them single target, something I agree
with you on, however other did not seem keen.

I am simply looking at other ways to depower the spells a little, without
depowering them a lot. People don't want to remove damage. No problems with
that, but people are also unkeen to remove range and targets has already
been mentioned.

What else is left?

I think we should be adding resist for half damage to some of the other
spells particularly the area effect ones. Swapping the damage effects of
Necrosis and Stream of corruption might do the trick. Then at least you have
a bit of choice with both having their place in the game and both having
some limitations on when they are useful.

Or swapping whirlwing vortex's damage with lightning bolt. A short range
everything dies spell and a long range lots or people take some damage spell
seems to increase the options and tactics abit.

> It might be simple. It's not effective, and it creates a strange and hard
to
> rationalise situation.

What that if you resist something it cannot hurt you as much? Seems pretty
rational.

> I encourage you to run the game that you most feel comfortable with. I
don't
> encourage you to export your particular flavour of the world into the base
> ruleset.

I encourage you to do the same.

Mandos
/s


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