Purely my opinion...

I do think the big 3 are over powered but I don't
think that there is a catch all way to fix all 3. With
Hellfire & Necrosis they are very similar (Multi
Target, Mass Damage, Resist for Half) but also very
different (Necrosis can't hurt undead, Hellfire
reduces MR, Range etc), with Whirlwind Vortex you fail
to resist you die, if you resist you take damage.

There is 1 problem that is glaringly obvious from
Jim's rants/posts which no one disputes the power of
these spells makes other options less appealing. 1 of
the main reasons is that even if the target resists
there is a good chance that they will die anyway and
they are multi target. 

We as a group have to decide what factors of these
spells we think is OTT, and work on the issues from
there.

With Fire College Hellfire reducing the damage is a
good option as the college still has an amazing amount
of punch, the main thing that separates Hellfire is
the resist for half damage effect which makes hellfire
preferable to D-Flames for general ability to target
specific entities. My suggestion, for good or worse,
is to accept Mandos's idea for if you resist only
receiving FT damage, this negates the resist and still
die aspect of the spell and forces the fire mage to
look at other options once the targets FT has been
stripped.

For Wicca Hellfire the options are a lot more limited
as the college doesn't have any other direct damage
spells, in fact in the college there are only 3 spells
that do ED/FT damage, Namely Wall of Thorns, Hellfire
and Create Restorative. So with this spell there are
less damaging options available to wiccans. 
My suggestions for this spell are split it into 2
different spells, 1 which is multi target low damage
resist for half and 1 single target large amount of
damage resist for half spell.

For Whirlwind Vortex I would suggest reducing the
amount of damage done if the target resists or
including no damage on resist but a slow effect (just
as nasty but not necessarily as fatal)

For Necrosis there are not as many options available,
the college has lots of damage options with the only 1
that comes close being Stream of Corruption. Now in
this case I would actually recommend reducing
Necrosis's damage and increasing the effectiveness of
other options. Of the current options available to
guild necro's you have Necrosis, long range Multi
Target (limited target choices) resist for half mass
damage spell 450EM. Hand of Death, Long range Single
Target resist for none low damage spell 250EM, Stream
of Corruption, short range multi target (potentially)
resist for none mass damage spell 350EM, Life
Draining, Range Touch single target resist for none
low damage spell 300EM, Spectral Warrior, Good all
round more utilitarian than anything else can cause
lots of damage but also easy to stop with a friendly
namer 400EM, & Putrid Wound, long range single target
(Limited target choices) resist for none high damage
spell EM250 general. Of the options if we ignore money
as a constraint, as Jim has pointed out it is a very
bad way to try and limit spells, the options are
limited due to some of the spells being near
pointless, some of them (life draining in particular)
I have had a great deal of difficulty in working out
when you would ever want to cast it.. period. For the
necro spells I would actually recommend a couple of
the Necro players submit ideas that might make for a
better selection over all. 

anyway just my 2sp worth

Zane




--- Mandos Mitchinson <mandos@allowed.to> wrote:

> > 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 --
> 


__________________________________________________
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 Zane Mendoza <zcmendoza@yahoo.com>:

>
> There is 1 problem that is glaringly obvious from
> Jim's rants/posts which no one disputes the power of
> these spells makes other options less appealing. 1 of
> the main reasons is that even if the target resists
> there is a good chance that they will die anyway and
> they are multi target.
>

This is not true of Hellfire, because of its damage equation.

In any case, if you are looking at my rants/posts, and think I have a problem
with a lot of damage, you have misread me, entirely. My issue with the spells
is not with their power, it is with the relative lack of any other action
choice that is a viable alternative, given a rational player.

> We as a group have to decide what factors of these
> spells we think is OTT, and work on the issues from
> there.
>
> With Fire College Hellfire reducing the damage is a
> good option as the college still has an amazing amount
> of punch, the main thing that separates Hellfire is
> the resist for half damage effect which makes hellfire
> preferable to D-Flames for general ability to target
> specific entities. My suggestion, for good or worse,
> is to accept Mandos's idea for if you resist only
> receiving FT damage, this negates the resist and still
> die aspect of the spell and forces the fire mage to
> look at other options once the targets FT has been
> stripped.
>
The Fire college provides a pc that is a blast mage with many different attack
options. If they are narrow, then it is in the area of the kind of damage that
they can inflict and deal with, namely fire. Reducing the effectiveness of
Hellfire in this way means that pcs are offered fewer choices. They would go
for Fireball or Dragonflames or what have you.

There are occasions where you might want to cast Dragonflames, other occasions
where you might want to cast Fireball, and yet other occasions where you might
like to cast Bolt of Fire. In the middle of a fight, you are likely to be
confronted with choices, and that is exciting. This, as a suggestion, reduces
the excitement.

>
> For Whirlwind Vortex I would suggest reducing the
> amount of damage done if the target resists or
> including no damage on resist but a slow effect (just
> as nasty but not necessarily as fatal)
>
Nothing is more likely to slow down combats than spells that alters the number
of actions a player has. If for no other reason than that it increases the
tediousness of gameplay, I don't encourage this.


Jim
> Zane
>
>
>
>
> --- Mandos Mitchinson <mandos@allowed.to> wrote:
>
> > > 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 --
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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 --

Hey all,

i have not had the luxury of reading all the posts, but it seems that some people are fixed on a particular solution and are only willing to argue what the problem is.

on reading Jim's post below, it seems to me that he has good points. It is obvious that Mandos also has some worthy points. And i am guessing someothers have too. <g>

I like Jim's view that increasing the range of _viable_ and _rational_ options makes for a more exciting game, as PCs and NPCs can logically rank different spells, rather than only taking the best (and currently they are the best by a large margin). An NPC airmage without whirlwind is a joke for seriuos parties and deserves destruction (any rationale for not not having it must include 'stays out of combat' which reinforces teh argument that all 'combat oriented air mages MUST take whirlwind').

The option of depowering the key damage spells to the point where they are equal to the otehr damage spells is somewhat of a strange one to me. Unless the objective is to reduce teh magical damage in the game.
EMs and Base Chances are the game mechanisms for ballancing damage spells. a 200 EM BC40% blast spell at Rank 20 is not as useful as a Rank 11 550em spell BC1% as teh special effects take over (multi target, resist for half). 
So put the EM up for the tough spells. 
But that all pales to insignificance in combat when it comes down to damage per pulse. And that probably cannot be solved in a simple review of damage.

IIRC, ranking time in teh proposed Adventurer was EM dependent and so was cast time. The problem wiht that is that it encourages Mages to skulk for a few pulse and then unleash a maelstrom of damage. Which is so 'urgh' from a action oriented game.

So, all in all, i see many proposed solutions, and chaotic problems. I blame fractals.

What i would like to read:
a cogent summary of what the problems are with the current range of damage spells (which i see as):
1. too much damage per pulse in some spells (targets, damage per target, resist for damage) which makes combat arbritrary  (who roles triple effect first) and reduces everyone else to bodygurds for the blast mages.
2. only some collegs have blast magics, so all others are bodyguards and of little consequence in a combat.
3. pressure on PCs to blast them pure and simple
 
Solution Sets:
(there is not a single solution, but rather an amalgamation of changes may solve all of the above. the conundrum facing us is that all of the solutions proposed so far only solve some the assocaited problems and so do not met teh fractured needs of everyone.) I see two policy options:
1. reduce the power of the top end damage spells. This is the more complex option as simple solutions will not answer the problem (EG reducing the range of blast spells as most combats are short range). It would have to include a review of EMs, increasing the cast time for blast spells and increaseing teh ranking time as well. This is a big change for DQ but i feel we are mature enough to scream and bitch our way through it.
2. Increase the lesser spells so that they are real options in the types of combats we generally encounter and give real incetives to rank and cast alternatives.

phew, some email.

So in summary, 
1. i see several key people perceive different problems with the damage spells, and different solutions involving blast spells.
2. I would like to read several posts where people explain their percieved problem (and others refrain from commenting on them, just accept a point of view) and the philosophy of how combat magic could work to solve that.
3. Some erudite discusion is needed on teh range of problems.
4. A clear summary of all of this
5. some discussion on how to create a rule set that is creative and inspires the kind of combat magic we want to experience.
6. acknowledgement that we all benefit from teh input of everyone. we may not agree, but that is probably because we do not understand, or we value different aspects of the game. so we need flexible rules that allow us to value different parts, but which does not 'force us down a simple logic path'.


I hope it is of use,

Ian


> 
> From: raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
> Date: 2006/05/03 Wed AM 01:13:03 GMT+12:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Options with: Necrosis, Whirlwind Vortex and Hellfire? Part 4, Another chapter
> 
> Quoting Zane Mendoza <zcmendoza@yahoo.com>:
> 
> >
> > There is 1 problem that is glaringly obvious from
> > Jim's rants/posts which no one disputes the power of
> > these spells makes other options less appealing. 1 of
> > the main reasons is that even if the target resists
> > there is a good chance that they will die anyway and
> > they are multi target.
> >
> 
> This is not true of Hellfire, because of its damage equation.
> 
> In any case, if you are looking at my rants/posts, and think I have a problem
> with a lot of damage, you have misread me, entirely. My issue with the spells
> is not with their power, it is with the relative lack of any other action
> choice that is a viable alternative, given a rational player.
> 
> > We as a group have to decide what factors of these
> > spells we think is OTT, and work on the issues from
> > there.
> >
> > With Fire College Hellfire reducing the damage is a
> > good option as the college still has an amazing amount
> > of punch, the main thing that separates Hellfire is
> > the resist for half damage effect which makes hellfire
> > preferable to D-Flames for general ability to target
> > specific entities. My suggestion, for good or worse,
> > is to accept Mandos's idea for if you resist only
> > receiving FT damage, this negates the resist and still
> > die aspect of the spell and forces the fire mage to
> > look at other options once the targets FT has been
> > stripped.
> >
> The Fire college provides a pc that is a blast mage with many different attack
> options. If they are narrow, then it is in the area of the kind of damage that
> they can inflict and deal with, namely fire. Reducing the effectiveness of
> Hellfire in this way means that pcs are offered fewer choices. They would go
> for Fireball or Dragonflames or what have you.
> 
> There are occasions where you might want to cast Dragonflames, other occasions
> where you might want to cast Fireball, and yet other occasions where you might
> like to cast Bolt of Fire. In the middle of a fight, you are likely to be
> confronted with choices, and that is exciting. This, as a suggestion, reduces
> the excitement.
> 
> >
> > For Whirlwind Vortex I would suggest reducing the
> > amount of damage done if the target resists or
> > including no damage on resist but a slow effect (just
> > as nasty but not necessarily as fatal)
> >
> Nothing is more likely to slow down combats than spells that alters the number
> of actions a player has. If for no other reason than that it increases the
> tediousness of gameplay, I don't encourage this.
> 
> 
> Jim
> > Zane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Mandos Mitchinson <mandos@allowed.to> wrote:
> >
> > > > 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 --
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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 --
>


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

> Fuck, George. If you can only talk crap, shut the fuck up.

Jim wins, I too am folowing the example of others recently and leaving
the list. 

Mandos
/s


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

Can we gain a new posting of current members of the DQ email list please.

Jono


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2006 8:44 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] 
> 
> 
> > Fuck, George. If you can only talk crap, shut the fuck up.
> 
> Jim wins, I too am folowing the example of others recently and leaving
> the list. 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 
>


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

>Can we gain a new posting of current members of the DQ email list please.

Yep ... as soon as I can login to the server again .. I seem to be 
having some difficulty and have contacted the site admin

Keith


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

Merlin had one, so did Gandalf, Pug is never seen without his and so is
Ridcully, Rand, Thom, Anna, Creslin and Zed.

The Shield! Oh wait, they didn't.

Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one
hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included

"I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."
"I want to be able to cast while climbing."
"I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."

Now, after several years of this rule I have seen very few instances of this
and many of PC mages with as big a shield as they can carry strapped to
their arm to grant them as big a defence bonus as possiable. Why? Because
you'ld be crazy not to.

The upshot is that mages have the same DF as warriors and no need to worry
about tactical options in a fight. Needing two hands means you have to make
such choices, it makes mages easier to hit, and therefore disrupt and gives
an edge to warriors who don't have to care about chopping and changing like
a fighter-mage.

But mainly it lowers DF which is absurd on some 'pure-spellcasters'.

Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
shield then they can cast at -30.

William
--
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 --

William Dymock wrote:

>Merlin had one, so did Gandalf, Pug is never seen without his and so is
>Ridcully, Rand, Thom, Anna, Creslin and Zed.
>
>The Shield! Oh wait, they didn't.
>
>Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one
>hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included
>
>"I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."
>"I want to be able to cast while climbing."
>"I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."
>
>Now, after several years of this rule I have seen very few instances of this
>and many of PC mages with as big a shield as they can carry strapped to
>their arm to grant them as big a defence bonus as possiable. Why? Because
>you'ld be crazy not to.
>
>The upshot is that mages have the same DF as warriors and no need to worry
>about tactical options in a fight. Needing two hands means you have to make
>such choices, it makes mages easier to hit, and therefore disrupt and gives
>an edge to warriors who don't have to care about chopping and changing like
>a fighter-mage.
>
>But mainly it lowers DF which is absurd on some 'pure-spellcasters'.
>
>Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
>with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
>point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
>holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
>shield then they can cast at -30.
>
>William
>--
>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 --
>
>
>  
>
I agree with what william has stated here.  It makes a lot of sense.

Scott Whitaker


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

At 09:21 3/05/06, you wrote:
>Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
>with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
>point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
>holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
>shield then they can cast at -30.

Alternatively, I'd suggest that while casting the mage gains little or no 
defence from a prepared shield... which makes sense because while casting 
you're a bit too busy to concentrate on using a shield to fend off attackers.

I don't think mages should ever be penalised for holding a staff, wand or 
other spell focus-type item.

Oh, and if using a shield drops your MD below the minimum MD required to 
wield it, you should get no defence - not even magical bonuses - from using 
it. I don't think this is clearly stated, and I've seen players try it.

J


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

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 09:21, William Dymock wrote:
> Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one
> hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included
> 
> "I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."
> "I want to be able to cast while climbing."
> "I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."

Some of these are reasonable. An altered rule could allow: waving a
staff (or functional equivalent) counts as using that hand for casting,
and you can cast with one hand if the other hand is holding the target
of your spell. 

> Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
> with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
> point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
> holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
> shield then they can cast at -30.

Sounds reasonable - perhaps a straight -10 per MD penalty, and a
requirement to have your hand free (so you'd have to take a half action
to ready your shield again after casting, if you normally hold the
shield with hand as well as arm straps. Any medievalists care to comment
on that?)


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

------=_Part_9721_27343652.1146630931684
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/3/06, Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Alternatively, I'd suggest that while casting the mage gains little or no
> defence from a prepared shield... which makes sense because while casting
> you're a bit too busy to concentrate on using a shield to fend off
> attackers.


Excellent, simple solution. Could even go further and make it that casting
unprepares any weapon or shield held.

I don't think mages should ever be penalised for holding a staff, wand or
> other spell focus-type item.


Agreed.  I don't see that holding the shield, or a sword, or whatever,
should cause a cast penalty, but would be very happy if there was no combat
benefit applied.

- Martin

------=_Part_9721_27343652.1146630931684
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/3/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jacqui Smith</b> &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">flamis@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D=
"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left=
: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1e=
x;">
<br>Alternatively, I'd suggest that while casting the mage gains little or =
no<br>defence from a prepared shield... which makes sense because while cas=
ting<br>you're a bit too busy to concentrate on using a shield to fend off =
attackers.
</blockquote><div><br>Excellent, simple solution. Could even go further and=
 make it that casting unprepares any weapon or shield held.<br></div><br><b=
lockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 20=
4, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I don't think mages should ever be penalised for holding a staff, wand or<b=
r>other spell focus-type item.</blockquote><div><br>Agreed.&nbsp; I don't s=
ee that holding the shield, or a sword, or whatever, should cause a cast pe=
nalty, but would be very happy if there was no combat benefit applied.
<br><br>- Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_9721_27343652.1146630931684--


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

------=_Part_19173_3767155.1146631979414
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

*Nods* Makes sense. I'd prefer to avoid the whole issue but rather than
complicate it with numbers if we do have to go down this path just
unpreparing things is easier.
Dylan


On 5/3/06, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/3/06, Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> > Alternatively, I'd suggest that while casting the mage gains little or
> > no
> > defence from a prepared shield... which makes sense because while
> > casting
> > you're a bit too busy to concentrate on using a shield to fend off
> > attackers.
>
>
> Excellent, simple solution. Could even go further and make it that castin=
g
> unprepares any weapon or shield held.
>
>
> I don't think mages should ever be penalised for holding a staff, wand or
> > other spell focus-type item.
>
>
> Agreed.  I don't see that holding the shield, or a sword, or whatever,
> should cause a cast penalty, but would be very happy if there was no comb=
at
> benefit applied.
>
> - Martin
>
>
>
>

------=_Part_19173_3767155.1146631979414
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>*Nods* Makes sense. I'd prefer to avoid the whole issue but rather tha=
n complicate it with numbers if we do have to go down this path just unprep=
aring things is easier.</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 5/3/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">M=
artin Dickson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com">martin.di=
ckson@gmail.com</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">
<div style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr"><span class=3D"q">On 5/3/06, <b class=3D"gmai=
l_sendername">Jacqui Smith</b> &lt;<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(=
window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz" target=3D"_blank">fla=
mis@ihug.co.nz
</a>&gt; wrote:</span></div>
<div style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr">
<div></div>
<div style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr"><span class=3D"q"><span class=3D"gmail_quote"=
></span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0=
pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><br>Alternatively, I=
'd suggest that while casting the mage gains little or no<br>defence from a=
 prepared shield... which makes sense because while casting
<br>you're a bit too busy to concentrate on using a shield to fend off atta=
ckers. </blockquote></span></div>
<div style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr">
<div><br>Excellent, simple solution. Could even go further and make it that=
 casting unprepares any weapon or shield held.<br>&nbsp;</div></div>
<div style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr"><span class=3D"q"><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0=
pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">I don't think mages =
should ever be penalised for holding a staff, wand or<br>other spell focus-=
type item.
</blockquote></span></div>
<div style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr">
<div><br>Agreed.&nbsp; I don't see that holding the shield, or a sword, or =
whatever, should cause a cast penalty, but would be very happy if there was=
 no combat benefit applied. <br><br>- Martin<br>&nbsp;</div></div><br>&nbsp=
;</div></blockquote>
</div><br>

------=_Part_19173_3767155.1146631979414--


-- 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_01C66E70.EF9C5892
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:50
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] The mage accessory of choice...
> 
> 
<snip>
> 
> Oh, and if using a shield drops your MD below the minimum MD 
> required to 
> wield it, you should get no defence - not even magical 
> bonuses - from using 
> it. I don't think this is clearly stated, and I've seen 
> players try it.
> 

This seems reasonable. You could also argue that it follows from the rules
regarding MD (and PS) loss in weapons* - you can't "achieve Rank" in weapons
that you don't have the MD (or PS) for, so you could say that if you lose MD
(to below weapon minimum) that you become effectively unranked. You get no
defence bonus for an unranked shield (3.10 Resolving Attempted Attacks -
Defence).
This isn't a chain of logic that it is reasonable to follow at 'run-time',
and the "achieve Rank" could be argued to apply to ranking only, rather than
making use of a rank already learned.

Best to state it clearly (assuming this is what we want) to remove doubt and
save time.

How about 

'If a figure's MD (after the MD loss for the shield, see &56.2) is less than
that required to use the shield as a weapon (normally 12), then the shield
may not be prepared. Note that any magical defence bonuses from a enchanted
shield generally only apply if it is prepared.'

Best placed in the 'Manual Dexterity Loss' note of the table 56.2 Shields?
3.10 Resolving Attempted Attacks - Defence?



To clear up the "achieve Rank", we could change 13.3 (twice) to 'A figure
may not learn or use a Rank in a weapon they do not have the [MD/PS] to
[manipulate/wield].' (could add a 'currently' before 'have', or 'modified'
before 'MD')

Cheers
Errol



*The following is in 3.13 Weapons (referring to headings of the table 56.1
Weapons)

Manual Dexterity 
The minimum modified Manual
Dexterity a figure needs to manipulate the weapon
properly; a figure without the required MD has the
Base Chance of the weapon lowered by 5 for every
point they are below the minimum. A figure may
never achieve Rank in a weapon they do not have the
MD to manipulate.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C66E70.EF9C5892
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] The mage accessory of choice...</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Jacqui Smith [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2006 15:50</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] The mage accessory of =
choice...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Oh, and if using a shield drops your MD below =
the minimum MD </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; required to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; wield it, you should get no defence - not even =
magical </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; bonuses - from using </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; it. I don't think this is clearly stated, and =
I've seen </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; players try it.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This seems reasonable. You could also argue that it =
follows from the rules regarding MD (and PS) loss in weapons* - you =
can't &quot;achieve Rank&quot; in weapons that you don't have the MD =
(or PS) for, so you could say that if you lose MD (to below weapon =
minimum) that you become effectively unranked. You get no defence bonus =
for an unranked shield (3.10 Resolving Attempted Attacks - =
Defence).</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This isn't a chain of logic that it is reasonable to =
follow at 'run-time', and the &quot;achieve Rank&quot; could be argued =
to apply to ranking only, rather than making use of a rank already =
learned.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Best to state it clearly (assuming this is what we =
want) to remove doubt and save time.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>How about </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>'If a figure's MD (after the MD loss for the shield, =
see &amp;56.2) is less than that required to use the shield as a weapon =
(normally 12), then the shield may not be prepared. Note that any =
magical defence bonuses from a enchanted shield generally only apply if =
it is prepared.'</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Best placed in the 'Manual Dexterity Loss' note of =
the table 56.2 Shields? 3.10 Resolving Attempted Attacks - =
Defence?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>To clear up the &quot;achieve Rank&quot;, we could =
change 13.3 (twice) to 'A figure may not learn or use a Rank in a =
weapon they do not have the [MD/PS] to [manipulate/wield].' (could add =
a 'currently' before 'have', or 'modified' before 'MD')</FONT></P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>*The following is in 3.13 Weapons (referring to =
headings of the table 56.1 Weapons)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Manual Dexterity </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The minimum modified Manual</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Dexterity a figure needs to manipulate the =
weapon</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>properly; a figure without the required MD has =
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Base Chance of the weapon lowered by 5 for =
every</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>point they are below the minimum. A figure =
may</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>never achieve Rank in a weapon they do not have =
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>MD to manipulate.</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C66E70.EF9C5892--


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

------=_Part_10549_2199321.1146636993194
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

The current rules for insufficient MD with weapons that Errol quotes (below=
)
seem fine to me; his proposed change appears overly harsh.

If a PC has less that 18 MD then its fine that they can't learn (gain rank
with) a Rapier. But if they do have Rank (and their normal MD is 18+) and
they then lose some MD due to injury it seems excessive to reduce them to
unranked.

(Bit of a strawman, but nonetheless):  Swashbuckler with Rk10 Rapier and 18
MD loses their off-hand (spec Grev roll 26-27).  This reduces their MD by
2.  Once healed, but with their secondary hand still missing, can they figh=
t
with their Rapier?  It seems reasonable that there would be some penalty as
their balance isn't right -- and the current rules would impose a -10 SC --
but reverting to unranked?

- Martin

On 5/3/06, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote:
>
> To clear up the "achieve Rank", we could change 13.3 (twice) to 'A figure
> may not learn or use a Rank in a weapon they do not have the [MD/PS] to
> [manipulate/wield].' (could add a 'currently' before 'have', or 'modified=
'
> before 'MD')
> ...
>
> *The following is in 3.13 Weapons (referring to headings of the table 56.=
1Weapons)
>
> Manual Dexterity
> The minimum modified Manual Dexterity a figure needs to manipulate the
> weapon
> properly; a figure without the required MD has the Base Chance of the
> weapon lowered by 5 for every point they are below the minimum. A figure
> may never achieve Rank in a weapon they do not have the MD to manipulate.
>

------=_Part_10549_2199321.1146636993194
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

The current rules for insufficient MD with weapons that Errol quotes (below=
) seem fine to me; his proposed change appears overly harsh.<br><br>If a PC=
 has less that 18 MD then its fine that they can't learn (gain rank with) a=
 Rapier. But if they do have Rank (and their normal MD is 18+) and they the=
n lose some MD due to injury it seems excessive to reduce them to unranked.
<br><br>(Bit of a strawman, but nonetheless):&nbsp; Swashbuckler with Rk10 =
Rapier and 18 MD loses their off-hand (spec Grev roll 26-27).&nbsp; This re=
duces their MD by 2.&nbsp; Once healed, but with their secondary hand still=
 missing, can they fight with their Rapier?&nbsp; It seems reasonable that =
there would be some penalty as their balance isn't right -- and the current=
 rules would impose a -10 SC -- but reverting to unranked?
<br><br>- Martin<br><br>On 5/3/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavi=
t</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>&gt=
; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt =
0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><p><font size=3D"2">To clear up the &quot;ac=
hieve Rank&quot;, we could change 13.3 (twice) to 'A figure may not learn o=
r use a Rank in a weapon they do not have the [MD/PS] to [manipulate/wield]=
.' (could add a 'currently' before 'have', or 'modified' before 'MD')
</font></p>...<p><font size=3D"2">*The following is in 3.13 Weapons (referr=
ing to headings of the table 56.1 Weapons)</font>
</p>

<p><font size=3D"2">Manual Dexterity </font>
<br><font size=3D"2">The minimum modified Manual</font>
<font size=3D"2">Dexterity a figure needs to manipulate the weapon</font>
<br><font size=3D"2">properly; a figure without the required MD has the</fo=
nt>
<font size=3D"2">Base Chance of the weapon lowered by 5 for every</font>
<font size=3D"2">point they are below the minimum. A figure may</font>
<font size=3D"2">never achieve Rank in a weapon they do not have the</font>
<font size=3D"2">MD to manipulate.</font>
</p>



</div></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_10549_2199321.1146636993194--


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

Shield defence is very limited.

It only covers the shield and front hexes, leaving the other facings
unprotected. In addition, anyone executing a cast action cannot be evading or
even moving unless they have some unusual advantage.

> William Dymock wrote:
>
> >Merlin had one, so did Gandalf, Pug is never seen without his and so is
> >Ridcully, Rand, Thom, Anna, Creslin and Zed.
> >
> >The Shield! Oh wait, they didn't

I don't recall Conan using one. Nor Druss, nor Aragorn. I don't see anyone
suggesting that we should take them away from warriors.

I also don't recall Pug, Gandalf or Merlin wandering around the place in leather
armour either, but Adventurer's Guild spell casters often do.

Dedicated spell casters are rare. Of the few that exist, I don't know of any
that use shields. Even if they all lined up and started using shields, their
physical defense would move from somewhere between 10 and 20 to 40 and 50. If
they have defense spells on, it might be up as high as 95. And, that's only if
the attack comes through the shield or front hex.

If a character is a dedicated spell caster, and they are engaged in melee, then
the best thing that can happen to them is that they are going to lose 2/3rds of
the spell preparation/casting actions. I'm assuming, here, that they aren't
hit.

If they're hit, and they make reasonably good targets, then the numbers are
going to be much worse. Shield defence won't do much to improve the situation,
but taking it away is almost certainly going to make things one hell of a lot
more dull.

Stepping aside from the rationalisation, how are you going to make the game
interesting? The player of a spell caster is wagering their next two actions to
get a spell off. The agressive bugger in front of him is just betting on
getting one good hit in over the next two actions. Over half the time, when
engaged in combat, a spell caster's actions will be valueless. And, it can take
up to two pulses to find that out. You see some advantage in making it even
more uninteresting for spell casters?

Jim

Quoting Kharsis <kharsis@ihug.co.nz>:

.
> >
> >Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one
> >hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included
> >
> >"I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."
> >"I want to be able to cast while climbing."
> >"I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."
> >
> >Now, after several years of this rule I have seen very few instances of this
> >and many of PC mages with as big a shield as they can carry strapped to
> >their arm to grant them as big a defence bonus as possiable. Why? Because
> >you'ld be crazy not to.
> >
> >The upshot is that mages have the same DF as warriors and no need to worry
> >about tactical options in a fight. Needing two hands means you have to make
> >such choices, it makes mages easier to hit, and therefore disrupt and gives
> >an edge to warriors who don't have to care about chopping and changing like
> >a fighter-mage.
> >
> >But mainly it lowers DF which is absurd on some 'pure-spellcasters'.
> >
> >Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
> >with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
> >point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
> >holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
> >shield then they can cast at -30.
> >
> >William
> >--
> >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 --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I agree with what william has stated here.  It makes a lot of sense.
>
> Scott Whitaker
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Quoting raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz:


> If a character is a dedicated spell caster, and they are engaged in melee,
> then
> the best thing that can happen to them is that they are going to lose 2/3rds
> of
> the spell preparation/casting actions. I'm assuming, here, that they aren't
> hit.

Should be 1/3rd of the time.

Jim


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

--0-1940797456-1146647098=:47137
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I like the principle of this idea.  I assume the -5 per MD penelty is for a situation where one hand is free and the other is holding the giant tower shield?  Not casting from the giant tower shield hand.  That seems to be what you meant but seems a little confusion?

I'd like to see a carrot offered with this though rather than all stick.  At low levels base chances are low, defence is low, and a small shield makes a lot of relative difference to survival, since it's a lot more luck related, so how about rather than a -10% penelty for using one hand, you get a +10% bonus for both hands being free?  Still same difference, just gives a reward for using 2 hands.

This way Gandalf with his staff held high in one hand isn't penalized.

All in all though in favour of it, just a finicky detail piece, it's nice and simple.  Same effect as carrying a silvered weapon prepared knocks off base chance(which a lot of low PC's are allso using so penalty there allready).  Steps of 5 make it easy to count.  And people know beforehand what shield they use so can prepare their spell sheets accordingly.

Bernard

William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote: 
Merlin had one, so did Gandalf, Pug is never seen without his and so is
Ridcully, Rand, Thom, Anna, Creslin and Zed.

The Shield! Oh wait, they didn't.

Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one
hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included

"I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."
"I want to be able to cast while climbing."
"I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."

Now, after several years of this rule I have seen very few instances of this
and many of PC mages with as big a shield as they can carry strapped to
their arm to grant them as big a defence bonus as possiable. Why? Because
you'ld be crazy not to.

The upshot is that mages have the same DF as warriors and no need to worry
about tactical options in a fight. Needing two hands means you have to make
such choices, it makes mages easier to hit, and therefore disrupt and gives
an edge to warriors who don't have to care about chopping and changing like
a fighter-mage.

But mainly it lowers DF which is absurd on some 'pure-spellcasters'.

Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
shield then they can cast at -30.

William
--
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 -


From Bernard Hoggins
nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
		
---------------------------------
On Yahoo!7 
  Answers: Real people ask and answer questions on any topic. 
--0-1940797456-1146647098=:47137
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I like the principle of this idea.&nbsp; I assume the -5 per MD penelty is for a situation where one hand is free and the other is holding the giant tower shield?&nbsp; Not casting from the giant tower shield hand.&nbsp; That seems to be what you meant but seems a little confusion?<br><br>I'd like to see a carrot offered with this though rather than all stick.&nbsp; At low levels base chances are low, defence is low, and a small shield makes a lot of relative difference to survival, since it's a lot more luck related, so how about rather than a -10% penelty for using one hand, you get a +10% bonus for both hands being free?&nbsp; Still same difference, just gives a reward for using 2 hands.<br><br>This way Gandalf with his staff held high in one hand isn't penalized.<br><br>All in all though in favour of it, just a finicky detail piece, it's nice and simple.&nbsp; Same effect as carrying a silvered weapon prepared knocks off base chance(which a lot of low PC's are allso
 using so penalty there allready).&nbsp; Steps of 5 make it easy to count.&nbsp; And people know beforehand what shield they use so can prepare their spell sheets accordingly.<br><br>Bernard<br><br><b><i>William Dymock &lt;dworkin@ihug.co.nz&gt;</i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <br>Merlin had one, so did Gandalf, Pug is never seen without his and so is<br>Ridcully, Rand, Thom, Anna, Creslin and Zed.<br><br>The Shield! Oh wait, they didn't.<br><br>Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one<br>hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included<br><br>"I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."<br>"I want to be able to cast while climbing."<br>"I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."<br><br>Now, after several years of this rule I have seen very few instances of this<br>and many of PC mages with as big a shield as
 they can carry strapped to<br>their arm to grant them as big a defence bonus as possiable. Why? Because<br>you'ld be crazy not to.<br><br>The upshot is that mages have the same DF as warriors and no need to worry<br>about tactical options in a fight. Needing two hands means you have to make<br>such choices, it makes mages easier to hit, and therefore disrupt and gives<br>an edge to warriors who don't have to care about chopping and changing like<br>a fighter-mage.<br><br>But mainly it lowers DF which is absurd on some 'pure-spellcasters'.<br><br>Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting<br>with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD<br>point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while<br>holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite<br>shield then they can cast at -30.<br><br>William<br>--<br>No virus found in this outgoing message.<br>Checked by AVG Free
 Edition.<br>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 1/05/2006<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -<br></blockquote><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.answers.yahoo.com%2F"> 
Answers: Real people ask and answer questions on any topic. </a>
--0-1940797456-1146647098=:47137--


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

Jim wrote:

I don't recall Conan using one. Nor Druss, nor Aragorn. I don't see anyone
suggesting that we should take them away from warriors.

Conan's, Druss' and Aragorn's weapons as represented in DQ have clear
advantages (Big damage, high SC and multiple strike capability)). To use a
shield as a warrior carries definite choices. No such choice exists for
mages.


Jim
I also don't recall Pug, Gandalf or Merlin wandering around the place in
leather
armour either, but Adventurer's Guild spell casters often do.

William
And yet one of the main argumaents used for one handed casting was that it
would support a more traditional image of a mage with staff in hand (or
sword, were progressive). This hasn't happened.

Jim
Dedicated spell casters are rare. Of the few that exist, I don't know of any
that use shields.

William
Amber the Witch: Uses a shield
Logan the Enchanter: Uses a shield
Engalton the Engalton: Uses a shield
Lizzete the Namer: Uses a shield
Lucius the Enchanter: Uses a shield
Lath the air mage: Uses a shield
Liessa the Mind mage: Uses a shield

And that's just off the top of my head.

Jim
 Even if they all lined up and started using shields, their
physical defense would move from somewhere between 10 and 20 to 40 and 50.
If
they have defense spells on, it might be up as high as 95. And, that's only
if
the attack comes through the shield or front hex.

William
Pure spell casters with over 100 DF are common, Shields with a magic bonus
to DF are common. It may be that players beg borrow or steal these things
off each other prior to being GM'd by me out of fear of the things that
lurch about eating PCs but I doubt it.

Jim
If they're hit, and they make reasonably good targets, then the numbers are
going to be much worse. Shield defence won't do much to improve the
situation,
but taking it away is almost certainly going to make things one hell of a
lot
more dull.

William
Are you saying getting hit and taking damage is dull? Players in my games
seem to enjoy it. They must since the daft buggers keep coming back. If you
play DQ as it is written combat can be fast and furious so getting hit and
losing an action is no big deal. You'll get another in a few minutes.

Jim
Stepping aside from the rationalisation, how are you going to make the game
interesting? The player of a spell caster is wagering their next two actions
to
get a spell off. The agressive bugger in front of him is just betting on
getting one good hit in over the next two actions. Over half the time, when
engaged in combat, a spell caster's actions will be valueless. And, it can
take
up to two pulses to find that out. You see some advantage in making it even
more uninteresting for spell casters?

William
It's a question of tactical choices. In casting a spell, a mage is taking a
significant risk for reasonably significant returns. The old rules had that
risk, the current ones reduce it.
It encourages thought and tactics within a party. Having a pure spell caster
means the fighters and fighter mages must work to protect, intercept and
leap in front of the dedicated spell caster.
It makes for interesting choices when being a fighter mage as to when to
disable defence prior to casting and this messing about is the price they
pay for being ultra-flexible.
It gives warriors who get in amongst the mages some extra time to wreak
revenge on the effeminite creeps.

If you think an enemy is going to get to you then I guess you have to learn
the unfortunate truth that a mage is at a serious disadvantage at knife
range. Pull out some weapons and hit back or holler for some support. I
don't see it as uninteresting to actually have to think, plan and out move
the enemy. I don't see it as uninteresting to use a little combined arms
thinking in my Mil Sci time out.

I find PCs cheesing their DF and PR ever upwards dull. I find lack of
differentiation between character development choices dull. I find the
lousy, half-assed tactics used as a result dull.

But what the hell do I know?

William
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 2/05/2006


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

------=_Part_22615_7128662.1146649017507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Being one of the mages who uses a shield every chance they get at first I
was against the idea of the penalty. But after reading Williams post I see
the point. Suprisingly often you even see a mage with 2 hands fighting for =
a
few rounds then casting and going back to fighting and it never really
bothered me they cast with hands full. But the whole choice and risk vs gai=
n
thing does strike me as interesting. In theory how would it work? Could you
as a free action just drop whats in your hands and cast? And then can you
pick up and ready a shield in your next pulse? I'm assuming both of these
are true but during that time you'd have no weapon to keep people out of
close or shield defense.
Dylan


On 5/3/06, William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> I don't recall Conan using one. Nor Druss, nor Aragorn. I don't see anyon=
e
> suggesting that we should take them away from warriors.
>
> Conan's, Druss' and Aragorn's weapons as represented in DQ have clear
> advantages (Big damage, high SC and multiple strike capability)). To use =
a
> shield as a warrior carries definite choices. No such choice exists for
> mages.
>
>
> Jim
> I also don't recall Pug, Gandalf or Merlin wandering around the place in
> leather
> armour either, but Adventurer's Guild spell casters often do.
>
> William
> And yet one of the main argumaents used for one handed casting was that i=
t
> would support a more traditional image of a mage with staff in hand (or
> sword, were progressive). This hasn't happened.
>
> Jim
> Dedicated spell casters are rare. Of the few that exist, I don't know of
> any
> that use shields.
>
> William
> Amber the Witch: Uses a shield
> Logan the Enchanter: Uses a shield
> Engalton the Engalton: Uses a shield
> Lizzete the Namer: Uses a shield
> Lucius the Enchanter: Uses a shield
> Lath the air mage: Uses a shield
> Liessa the Mind mage: Uses a shield
>
> And that's just off the top of my head.
>
> Jim
> Even if they all lined up and started using shields, their
> physical defense would move from somewhere between 10 and 20 to 40 and 50=
.
> If
> they have defense spells on, it might be up as high as 95. And, that's
> only
> if
> the attack comes through the shield or front hex.
>
> William
> Pure spell casters with over 100 DF are common, Shields with a magic bonu=
s
> to DF are common. It may be that players beg borrow or steal these things
> off each other prior to being GM'd by me out of fear of the things that
> lurch about eating PCs but I doubt it.
>
> Jim
> If they're hit, and they make reasonably good targets, then the numbers
> are
> going to be much worse. Shield defence won't do much to improve the
> situation,
> but taking it away is almost certainly going to make things one hell of a
> lot
> more dull.
>
> William
> Are you saying getting hit and taking damage is dull? Players in my games
> seem to enjoy it. They must since the daft buggers keep coming back. If
> you
> play DQ as it is written combat can be fast and furious so getting hit an=
d
> losing an action is no big deal. You'll get another in a few minutes.
>
> Jim
> Stepping aside from the rationalisation, how are you going to make the
> game
> interesting? The player of a spell caster is wagering their next two
> actions
> to
> get a spell off. The agressive bugger in front of him is just betting on
> getting one good hit in over the next two actions. Over half the time,
> when
> engaged in combat, a spell caster's actions will be valueless. And, it ca=
n
> take
> up to two pulses to find that out. You see some advantage in making it
> even
> more uninteresting for spell casters?
>
> William
> It's a question of tactical choices. In casting a spell, a mage is taking
> a
> significant risk for reasonably significant returns. The old rules had
> that
> risk, the current ones reduce it.
> It encourages thought and tactics within a party. Having a pure spell
> caster
> means the fighters and fighter mages must work to protect, intercept and
> leap in front of the dedicated spell caster.
> It makes for interesting choices when being a fighter mage as to when to
> disable defence prior to casting and this messing about is the price they
> pay for being ultra-flexible.
> It gives warriors who get in amongst the mages some extra time to wreak
> revenge on the effeminite creeps.
>
> If you think an enemy is going to get to you then I guess you have to
> learn
> the unfortunate truth that a mage is at a serious disadvantage at knife
> range. Pull out some weapons and hit back or holler for some support. I
> don't see it as uninteresting to actually have to think, plan and out mov=
e
> the enemy. I don't see it as uninteresting to use a little combined arms
> thinking in my Mil Sci time out.
>
> I find PCs cheesing their DF and PR ever upwards dull. I find lack of
> differentiation between character development choices dull. I find the
> lousy, half-assed tactics used as a result dull.
>
> But what the hell do I know?
>
> William
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 2/05/2006
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_22615_7128662.1146649017507
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Being one of the mages who uses a shield every chance they get at firs=
t I was against the idea of the penalty. But after reading Williams post I =
see the point. Suprisingly often you even see a mage with 2 hands fighting =
for a few rounds then casting and going back to fighting and it never reall=
y bothered me they cast with hands full. But the whole choice and risk vs g=
ain thing does strike me as interesting. In theory how would it work? Could=
 you as a free action just drop whats in your hands and cast? And then can =
you pick up and ready a shield in your next pulse? I'm assuming both of the=
se are true but during that time you'd have no weapon to keep people out of=
 close or shield defense.
</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 5/3/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">W=
illiam Dymock</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin@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">Jim wrote:<br><br>I don't recall=
 Conan using one. Nor Druss, nor Aragorn. I don't see anyone<br>suggesting =
that we should take them away from warriors.
<br><br>Conan's, Druss' and Aragorn's weapons as represented in DQ have cle=
ar<br>advantages (Big damage, high SC and multiple strike capability)). To =
use a<br>shield as a warrior carries definite choices. No such choice exist=
s for
<br>mages.<br><br><br>Jim<br>I also don't recall Pug, Gandalf or Merlin wan=
dering around the place in<br>leather<br>armour either, but Adventurer's Gu=
ild spell casters often do.<br><br>William<br>And yet one of the main argum=
aents used for one handed casting was that it
<br>would support a more traditional image of a mage with staff in hand (or=
<br>sword, were progressive). This hasn't happened.<br><br>Jim<br>Dedicated=
 spell casters are rare. Of the few that exist, I don't know of any<br>
that use shields.<br><br>William<br>Amber the Witch: Uses a shield<br>Logan=
 the Enchanter: Uses a shield<br>Engalton the Engalton: Uses a shield<br>Li=
zzete the Namer: Uses a shield<br>Lucius the Enchanter: Uses a shield<br>
Lath the air mage: Uses a shield<br>Liessa the Mind mage: Uses a shield<br>=
<br>And that's just off the top of my head.<br><br>Jim<br>Even if they all =
lined up and started using shields, their<br>physical defense would move fr=
om somewhere between 10 and 20 to 40 and 50.
<br>If<br>they have defense spells on, it might be up as high as 95. And, t=
hat's only<br>if<br>the attack comes through the shield or front hex.<br><b=
r>William<br>Pure spell casters with over 100 DF are common, Shields with a=
 magic bonus
<br>to DF are common. It may be that players beg borrow or steal these thin=
gs<br>off each other prior to being GM'd by me out of fear of the things th=
at<br>lurch about eating PCs but I doubt it.<br><br>Jim<br>If they're hit, =
and they make reasonably good targets, then the numbers are
<br>going to be much worse. Shield defence won't do much to improve the<br>=
situation,<br>but taking it away is almost certainly going to make things o=
ne hell of a<br>lot<br>more dull.<br><br>William<br>Are you saying getting =
hit and taking damage is dull? Players in my games
<br>seem to enjoy it. They must since the daft buggers keep coming back. If=
 you<br>play DQ as it is written combat can be fast and furious so getting =
hit and<br>losing an action is no big deal. You'll get another in a few min=
utes.
<br><br>Jim<br>Stepping aside from the rationalisation, how are you going t=
o make the game<br>interesting? The player of a spell caster is wagering th=
eir next two actions<br>to<br>get a spell off. The agressive bugger in fron=
t of him is just betting on
<br>getting one good hit in over the next two actions. Over half the time, =
when<br>engaged in combat, a spell caster's actions will be valueless. And,=
 it can<br>take<br>up to two pulses to find that out. You see some advantag=
e in making it even
<br>more uninteresting for spell casters?<br><br>William<br>It's a question=
 of tactical choices. In casting a spell, a mage is taking a<br>significant=
 risk for reasonably significant returns. The old rules had that<br>risk, t=
he current ones reduce it.
<br>It encourages thought and tactics within a party. Having a pure spell c=
aster<br>means the fighters and fighter mages must work to protect, interce=
pt and<br>leap in front of the dedicated spell caster.<br>It makes for inte=
resting choices when being a fighter mage as to when to
<br>disable defence prior to casting and this messing about is the price th=
ey<br>pay for being ultra-flexible.<br>It gives warriors who get in amongst=
 the mages some extra time to wreak<br>revenge on the effeminite creeps.
<br><br>If you think an enemy is going to get to you then I guess you have =
to learn<br>the unfortunate truth that a mage is at a serious disadvantage =
at knife<br>range. Pull out some weapons and hit back or holler for some su=
pport. I
<br>don't see it as uninteresting to actually have to think, plan and out m=
ove<br>the enemy. I don't see it as uninteresting to use a little combined =
arms<br>thinking in my Mil Sci time out.<br><br>I find PCs cheesing their D=
F and PR ever upwards dull. I find lack of
<br>differentiation between character development choices dull. I find the<=
br>lousy, half-assed tactics used as a result dull.<br><br>But what the hel=
l do I know?<br><br>William<br>--<br>No virus found in this outgoing messag=
e.
<br>Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.=
5.2/329 - Release Date: 2/05/2006<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailt=
o:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --
<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_22615_7128662.1146649017507--


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

The principle of this idea is that it is restrictive no pure spell casters, who
are rare.

William's experience is not mine. If these characters did in fact use shields,
they would not be increasing their defence all that high. Most defence comes
from evading with a prepared weapon. If you're evading with a shield, then
you're not casting. If you're evading with a weapon, and they blow their attack
roll, then you're in like a robber's dog.

Such advantage as it pertains to a pure spell caster who uses a shield is minor,
and may serve to keep them active a little longer, if they are engaged.

As far as the rationalisation is concerned, I don't know that there is all that
much to be said about shields, anyway. They just don't come up often enough in
stories or movies of a fantasy nature. You'd think they would, really, given
how effective they are, and given how important they were socially.

Do I want to see the world full of shield wielding pure spell casters? I don't
really care. I don't believe it is at all likely, but so what if it were? It's
hardly going to unbalance the game.

If you want to worry about stupidly high defense values, then look for the
problem where it canonically occurs, i.e. in high-AG fighters. Worrying about
the def values of characters who stereotypically have quite low base def is a
waste of time, and doesn't address the imbalance William claims to be concerned
about.

This constraint will require pure spell casters to adhere to a particular form,
and they're already reasonably limited in play. There are many many reasons
not to cast spells in combat: it takes so long, it costs FT which you can't
repair easily, and your movement is seriously restricted.

It is as well to consider what a player is saying when they advance a pure spell
caster. They are telling the game that they are sacrificing their safety in
melee to provide general support or artillery for the other people they
adventure with. When they adventure, that investment will have paid off if they
are protected by members of the party whose role that is.

Writing a rule that stops those pure spell casters who might be able to use a
shield simply encourages players to choose a broader type of character. After
all, the more broadly you develop your character, the wider the variety of
games you can play in.

What do you want to achieve here? More hybrid characters or more specialists?
Which character type do we have the least of? Choose that.

Jim.



Quoting Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk>:

> I like the principle of this idea.  I assume the -5 per MD penelty is for a
> situation where one hand is free and the other is holding the giant tower
> shield?  Not casting from the giant tower shield hand.  That seems to be what
> you meant but seems a little confusion?
>
> I'd like to see a carrot offered with this though rather than all stick.  At
> low levels base chances are low, defence is low, and a small shield makes a
> lot of relative difference to survival, since it's a lot more luck related,
> so how about rather than a -10% penelty for using one hand, you get a +10%
> bonus for both hands being free?  Still same difference, just gives a reward
> for using 2 hands.
>
> This way Gandalf with his staff held high in one hand isn't penalized.
>
> All in all though in favour of it, just a finicky detail piece, it's nice and
> simple.  Same effect as carrying a silvered weapon prepared knocks off base
> chance(which a lot of low PC's are allso using so penalty there allready).
> Steps of 5 make it easy to count.  And people know beforehand what shield
> they use so can prepare their spell sheets accordingly.
>
> Bernard
>
> William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Merlin had one, so did Gandalf, Pug is never seen without his and so is
> Ridcully, Rand, Thom, Anna, Creslin and Zed.
>
> The Shield! Oh wait, they didn't.
>
> Some time ago it was decided that mages should be allowed to cast with one
> hand free. There were many reasons stated for which included
>
> "I want to be able to hold my staff when I cast."
> "I want to be able to cast while climbing."
> "I want to cast a weapon spell on a weapon while holding it."
>
> Now, after several years of this rule I have seen very few instances of this
> and many of PC mages with as big a shield as they can carry strapped to
> their arm to grant them as big a defence bonus as possiable. Why? Because
> you'ld be crazy not to.
>
> The upshot is that mages have the same DF as warriors and no need to worry
> about tactical options in a fight. Needing two hands means you have to make
> such choices, it makes mages easier to hit, and therefore disrupt and gives
> an edge to warriors who don't have to care about chopping and changing like
> a fighter-mage.
>
> But mainly it lowers DF which is absurd on some 'pure-spellcasters'.
>
> Of course if people are so attached to the current rule I suggest casting
> with one hand carry a penalty of -10 with a further penaty of -5 per MD
> point penalty of your shield. That way people who want to can cast while
> holding their favourite teddy bear (whoever you are) and if it is a kite
> shield then they can cast at -30.
>
> William
> --
> 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 -
>
>
> From Bernard Hoggins
> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
>
> ---------------------------------
> On Yahoo!7
>   Answers: Real people ask and answer questions on any topic.


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

I have to say that William's suggestions and counter
arguments are very compelling. I would like to see
this rule addition being trialed. The worst thing that
occurs is that we as a group discard it in favor of no
change. 

It would also likely see more pure mages running
around with a Main Gauche in their off hand rather
than use a sheild. This being the case isn't a bad
thing as it would force the players to think more in
combats. 

I also agree with William most of the time the Mil Sci
time out seems to be when people delcare what they are
doing with no real cohesive battle plan (I have seen
exceptions but not many), It would also make people
consider options to avoid letting the pure mage be
engaged in melee combat, os use the pure mage as bait
at the back of the group as they prepare to cast. 

Jim while you have, as usual, pointed out all the bad
points to the status quo with the proposal you haven't
given any constructive ideas for it except for not
bothering to try it out. At run time the formula
presented is easier to follow than a number of other
rules quirks in DQ. 

The main idea behind this entire series of posts is to
try and make some distinction between the 3 different
character archetype that exist in Dq, These being
Fighter, Fighter-Mage and Pure Mage. 

Zane



--- William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> 
> I don't recall Conan using one. Nor Druss, nor
> Aragorn. I don't see anyone
> suggesting that we should take them away from
> warriors.
> 
> Conan's, Druss' and Aragorn's weapons as represented
> in DQ have clear
> advantages (Big damage, high SC and multiple strike
> capability)). To use a
> shield as a warrior carries definite choices. No
> such choice exists for
> mages.
> 
> 
> Jim
> I also don't recall Pug, Gandalf or Merlin wandering
> around the place in
> leather
> armour either, but Adventurer's Guild spell casters
> often do.
> 
> William
> And yet one of the main argumaents used for one
> handed casting was that it
> would support a more traditional image of a mage
> with staff in hand (or
> sword, were progressive). This hasn't happened.
> 
> Jim
> Dedicated spell casters are rare. Of the few that
> exist, I don't know of any
> that use shields.
> 
> William
> Amber the Witch: Uses a shield
> Logan the Enchanter: Uses a shield
> Engalton the Engalton: Uses a shield
> Lizzete the Namer: Uses a shield
> Lucius the Enchanter: Uses a shield
> Lath the air mage: Uses a shield
> Liessa the Mind mage: Uses a shield
> 
> And that's just off the top of my head.
> 
> Jim
>  Even if they all lined up and started using
> shields, their
> physical defense would move from somewhere between
> 10 and 20 to 40 and 50.
> If
> they have defense spells on, it might be up as high
> as 95. And, that's only
> if
> the attack comes through the shield or front hex.
> 
> William
> Pure spell casters with over 100 DF are common,
> Shields with a magic bonus
> to DF are common. It may be that players beg borrow
> or steal these things
> off each other prior to being GM'd by me out of fear
> of the things that
> lurch about eating PCs but I doubt it.
> 
> Jim
> If they're hit, and they make reasonably good
> targets, then the numbers are
> going to be much worse. Shield defence won't do much
> to improve the
> situation,
> but taking it away is almost certainly going to make
> things one hell of a
> lot
> more dull.
> 
> William
> Are you saying getting hit and taking damage is
> dull? Players in my games
> seem to enjoy it. They must since the daft buggers
> keep coming back. If you
> play DQ as it is written combat can be fast and
> furious so getting hit and
> losing an action is no big deal. You'll get another
> in a few minutes.
> 
> Jim
> Stepping aside from the rationalisation, how are you
> going to make the game
> interesting? The player of a spell caster is
> wagering their next two actions
> to
> get a spell off. The agressive bugger in front of
> him is just betting on
> getting one good hit in over the next two actions.
> Over half the time, when
> engaged in combat, a spell caster's actions will be
> valueless. And, it can
> take
> up to two pulses to find that out. You see some
> advantage in making it even
> more uninteresting for spell casters?
> 
> William
> It's a question of tactical choices. In casting a
> spell, a mage is taking a
> significant risk for reasonably significant returns.
> The old rules had that
> risk, the current ones reduce it.
> It encourages thought and tactics within a party.
> Having a pure spell caster
> means the fighters and fighter mages must work to
> protect, intercept and
> leap in front of the dedicated spell caster.
> It makes for interesting choices when being a
> fighter mage as to when to
> disable defence prior to casting and this messing
> about is the price they
> pay for being ultra-flexible.
> It gives warriors who get in amongst the mages some
> extra time to wreak
> revenge on the effeminite creeps.
> 
> If you think an enemy is going to get to you then I
> guess you have to learn
> the unfortunate truth that a mage is at a serious
> disadvantage at knife
> range. Pull out some weapons and hit back or holler
> for some support. I
> don't see it as uninteresting to actually have to
> think, plan and out move
> the enemy. I don't see it as uninteresting to use a
> little combined arms
> thinking in my Mil Sci time out.
> 
> I find PCs cheesing their DF and PR ever upwards
> dull. I find lack of
> differentiation between character development
> choices dull. I find the
> lousy, half-assed tactics used as a result dull.
> 
> But what the hell do I know?
> 
> William
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 -
> Release Date: 2/05/2006
> 
> 
> -- 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 --

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

> Jim wrote:
>
> I don't recall Conan using one. Nor Druss, nor Aragorn. I don't see anyone
> suggesting that we should take them away from warriors.
>
> Conan's, Druss' and Aragorn's weapons as represented in DQ have clear
> advantages (Big damage, high SC and multiple strike capability)). To use a
> shield as a warrior carries definite choices. No such choice exists for
> mages.

Based on...What? Wizards are fantastical creatures, after all. While we might be
able to point to distinct tactical choices in the real world, it's a little
hard to do this when you are talking about a spell.
>
>
> Jim
> I also don't recall Pug, Gandalf or Merlin wandering around the place in
> leather
> armour either, but Adventurer's Guild spell casters often do.
>
> William
> And yet one of the main argumaents used for one handed casting was that it
> would support a more traditional image of a mage with staff in hand (or
> sword, were progressive). This hasn't happened.

Yes, well. Have you seen the stats required on a staff. You wouldn't have
thought it was a weapon to be used by old men by the look of it.

But, so what if they haven't done that? Do they need to?

Players fill power vaccuums, where they exist. It's as well to identify that
they are filling that power vaccuum, but you have to ask yourself if it's doing
any harm just BECAUSE they're filling a power vaccuum.

If you nail this particular advantage, trivial as it is, then they will probably
find another one. Maybe the next one won't be as easy to deal with.

First of all, ask yourself if there is a lot of advantage to be had from this. I
just don't see this.
>
> Jim
> Dedicated spell casters are rare. Of the few that exist, I don't know of any
> that use shields.
>
> William
> Amber the Witch: Uses a shield

Good on her.

> Logan the Enchanter: Uses a shield

Logan is so yellow with cowardice that custard has started to protest outside of
his house for proprietary misuse. He is always going to maximise his defence,
and it really doesn't matter that he does it with a shield. At least he has to
be close enough to the enemy to warrant the time and experience it took to
advance it to that point.

> Engalton the Engalton: Uses a shield

Engalaton is a hybrid. He might call himself a pure spell caster, but he has
lots of weapons skills, and lots of options outside of spell casting. It's just
that he hardly ever uses them because he's busy doing unnatural things.

> Lizzete the Namer: Uses a shield

Not when I last saw her and that was just a couple of months ago.

> Lucius the Enchanter: Uses a shield

Who?
> Lath the air mage: Uses a shield

Sure. While they're in fashion.

> Liessa the Mind mage: Uses a shield
>
Mind mages usually do.


> Jim
>  Even if they all lined up and started using shields, their
> physical defense would move from somewhere between 10 and 20 to 40 and 50.
> If
> they have defense spells on, it might be up as high as 95. And, that's only
> if
> the attack comes through the shield or front hex.
>
> William
> Pure spell casters with over 100 DF are common, Shields with a magic bonus
> to DF are common. It may be that players beg borrow or steal these things
> off each other prior to being GM'd by me out of fear of the things that
> lurch about eating PCs but I doubt it.

They're only common towards the top end of the game...somewhere above medium. I
haven't seen a pure spell caster who has that kind of bonus, unless they were
being supported by other, tougher characters.

In any case, the def bonus only applies to the secondary and front facings. Even
if they HAVE a large bonus, it's only across 1/3rd of their total exposure.
Frankly, if they have to be getting magical bonuses to def as a result of
shield, then I'm happy. The alternative is for it to be an accross the board
bonus, and that's very bad.
>
> Jim
> If they're hit, and they make reasonably good targets, then the numbers are
> going to be much worse. Shield defence won't do much to improve the
> situation,
> but taking it away is almost certainly going to make things one hell of a
> lot
> more dull.
>
> William
> Are you saying getting hit and taking damage is dull? Players in my games
> seem to enjoy it. They must since the daft buggers keep coming back. If you
> play DQ as it is written combat can be fast and furious so getting hit and
> losing an action is no big deal. You'll get another in a few minutes.

DQ as written is one of the worse designed games around. The combat system
stinks to high Heaven. It has lots of peculiar rules that make no particular
sense, it has a stilted action resolution sequence, movement is weird and it's
hard to learn. I don't think anyone really accepts that the combat engine is
particularly workable.

What makes the game fast and furious is the person running it. I think you are
projecting your expertise onto the game, and that is not warranted.

Play in a couple of other games, particularly games run by people who are new to
it, and you will see what I mean.
>
> Jim
> Stepping aside from the rationalisation, how are you going to make the game
> interesting? The player of a spell caster is wagering their next two actions
> to
> get a spell off. The agressive bugger in front of him is just betting on
> getting one good hit in over the next two actions. Over half the time, when
> engaged in combat, a spell caster's actions will be valueless. And, it can
> take
> up to two pulses to find that out. You see some advantage in making it even
> more uninteresting for spell casters?
>
> William
> It's a question of tactical choices. In casting a spell, a mage is taking a
> significant risk for reasonably significant returns. The old rules had that
> risk, the current ones reduce it.
> It encourages thought and tactics within a party. Having a pure spell caster
> means the fighters and fighter mages must work to protect, intercept and
> leap in front of the dedicated spell caster.
> It makes for interesting choices when being a fighter mage as to when to
> disable defence prior to casting and this messing about is the price they
> pay for being ultra-flexible.
> It gives warriors who get in amongst the mages some extra time to wreak
> revenge on the effeminite creeps.

The issue is that to cast a spell, you have to wager two actions. If either one
of these is disrupted, the entire action is lost and must be started again. By
contrast, someone using a melee attack gets an attack each action. Even if they
are interrupted, once they recover, their action is resolved pretty much as
soon as it's decided on.

As for encouraging fighter and fighter mages to work together...I don't see it.
There are very very few players that play that way. On a recent adventure, I
saw three players maximise their own safety to the increased threat of the
dedicated spell casters. It is RARE to see players put themselves at risk for
the greater safety of the party.

If you want to see that kind of behaviour, then you need to be addressing that
directly. It will not happen by enforcing draconic rules about defence,
particularly when it does not have much of an impact on their increased
effectiveness/safety.
>
> If you think an enemy is going to get to you then I guess you have to learn
> the unfortunate truth that a mage is at a serious disadvantage at knife
> range. Pull out some weapons and hit back or holler for some support. I
> don't see it as uninteresting to actually have to think, plan and out move
> the enemy. I don't see it as uninteresting to use a little combined arms
> thinking in my Mil Sci time out.

Neither do I, but I also don't see that it makes much difference whether or not
they use a shield. And, why bother to make every spellcaster the same? What
does that achieve?
>
> I find PCs cheesing their DF and PR ever upwards dull. I find lack of
> differentiation between character development choices dull. I find the
> lousy, half-assed tactics used as a result dull.

Stop DMing for a while, then. Your expectations are obviously too high.

What do you expect out of players? Endless cleverness? It's not going to happen.
Ultimately, play tends to a norm, and there's not much variation in it. The
greatest amount of variety happens when the game is new. At this point, the
game is old, and it really wasn't a very good game when it was new...Compared
to more modern games.

Players tend to maximise their safety, then their damage. In DQ, you do that by
increasing your defence. Damage is harder to come by.

Jim.


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

Quoting Zane Mendoza <zcmendoza@yahoo.com>:

> Jim while you have, as usual, pointed out all the bad
> points to the status quo with the proposal you haven't
> given any constructive ideas for it except for not
> bothering to try it out. At run time the formula
> presented is easier to follow than a number of other
> rules quirks in DQ.

I don't have any constructive ideas. I am AGAINST the change, because it:
a) doesn't address the percieved problem of high pc def
b) reduces the viability of a type of character that there is not a lot of.

I am saying that there is no obvious problem with pure spell casters using
shields. This discussion is about style, not substance, over the way things
might appear rather than the effect that it has on the game itself.
>
> The main idea behind this entire series of posts is to
> try and make some distinction between the 3 different
> character archetype that exist in Dq, These being
> Fighter, Fighter-Mage and Pure Mage.

That might be your intention. But, this change won't address that, will it?

I mean, if you can't use a shield when  you're casting, then that's a rule you
apply as much to a non-mage figher, a fighter mage or a pure spell caster. Who
is disadvantaged? The fighter mage and the pure spell caster. What does this
encourage the fighter mage to do? It encourages them to fight, not cast. What
does it encourage the pure spell caster to do? Learn a weapon.

And, for the record, if there is any weapon a spell caster is almost entirely
unlikely to use, then it will be a main-gauche. They were never used in the way
that DQ indicates. I remember reading some research by a couple of stuntmen who
tried to use a main-gauche to parry with. They said that it required a lot of
nerve, and on the few occasions that they managed to engage the attacking
blade, they found it very difficult to turn. The blade they were turning was a
rapier. Not a broadsword or a spear.

I could believe a mage might use a shield and cast. I would never believe they
could use a main-gauche and cast.

Jim


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