------=_Part_55033_15529253.1164085901020
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I like the idea of shaking up the doubles and tripples a bit. Especialy the
half magic resistance thing. One quick question about them. Under normal
DTJ's does a tripple just tripple the damage of each javalin? I've seen it
played you get 3 times as many which was more interesting. Especialy given
the natural armor of the golem they were being fired at.
Dylan
On 11/21/06, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some thoughts on doubles and triples as they currently stand, and some
> idea's to do things with them.
>
>
> As they currently stand..... the only double and triple that gets any real
> amount of use is damage in combat or duration on buffs. Why. When you take
> any resist for half spell... and double it, even if they resist they still
> take the equivilent of the old full damage, and if you triple it even if
> they resist they take more than the old full damage.
> This has the consequence of making the magic resistance tripple option
> almost inconsequential especially once you take counterspells taking people
> well over 100 magic resistance into acount.
>
>
> Some idea's for changes to doubles and triples to make for a more dynamic
> use of them rather than 9 out of 10 going for damage on combat spells or
> duration on buffs.
>
> Drop damage double or triple. Replace it with doubling or tripling
> targets. This makes the single target spells with nasty effects more viable
> if they have the basechance to double since then you get two or three
> targets. And on the pure damage spells, assuming you have the targets you
> get the same damage increase, but makes it an option to spread damage across
> more people rather than pour more onto the same people, meaning it's more of
> a tactical choice.
>
> Change Magic resistance doubles to give -20% magic resistance and magic
> resistance triples to halve the targets magic resistance.... why? Because
> that makes a triple done on magic resistance meaningfull & scary if your
> trying to take down a specific target rather than spread damage across
> numbers. Yet without simply making it a hugely oversized gun regardless of
> if they resist.
>
> New idea: Double option to take 1 off the fatigue cost of a spell, triple
> to take 2(to some minimum, possibly 0 or 1). Makes magic viable in a low
> mana zone if your skilled at a more simple spell, since you may be able to
> outlast your opponent trying his fancier spells by not using as much fatigue
> to cast.
>
> These are at the moment just idea's to improve the dynamic of magical
> combat rather than it just being a no brainer for what to double on most
> spells. A few spells will probably still need special considerations even
> if these went through, but that will be the case no matter what rules you
> use.
>
> From Bernard Hoggins
> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
------=_Part_55033_15529253.1164085901020
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>I like the idea of shaking up the doubles and tripples a bit. Especialy the half magic resistance thing. One quick question about them. Under normal DTJ's does a tripple just tripple the damage of each javalin? I've seen it played you get 3 times as many which was more interesting. Especialy given the natural armor of the golem they were being fired at.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Dylan<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/21/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bernard Hoggins</b> <<a href="mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Some thoughts on doubles and triples as they currently stand, and some idea's to do things with them.<br><br>
<br>As they currently stand..... the only double and triple that gets any real amount of use is damage in combat or duration on buffs. Why. When you take any resist for half spell... and double it, even if they resist they still take the equivilent of the old full damage, and if you triple it even if they resist they take more than the old full damage.
<br>This has the consequence of making the magic resistance tripple option almost inconsequential especially once you take counterspells taking people well over 100 magic resistance into acount.<br><br><br>Some idea's for changes to doubles and triples to make for a more dynamic use of them rather than 9 out of 10 going for damage on combat spells or duration on buffs.
<br><br>Drop damage double or triple. Replace it with doubling or tripling targets. This makes the single target spells with nasty effects more viable if they have the basechance to double since then you get two or three targets. And on the pure damage spells, assuming you have the targets you get the same damage increase, but makes it an option to spread damage across more people rather than pour more onto the same people, meaning it's more of a tactical choice.
<br><br>Change Magic resistance doubles to give -20% magic resistance and magic resistance triples to halve the targets magic resistance.... why? Because that makes a triple done on magic resistance meaningfull & scary if your trying to take down a specific target rather than spread damage across numbers. Yet without simply making it a hugely oversized gun regardless of if they resist.
<br><br>New idea: Double option to take 1 off the fatigue cost of a spell, triple to take 2(to some minimum, possibly 0 or 1). Makes magic viable in a low mana zone if your skilled at a more simple spell, since you may be able to outlast your opponent trying his fancier spells by not using as much fatigue to cast.
<br><br>These are at the moment just idea's to improve the dynamic of magical combat rather than it just being a no brainer for what to double on most spells. A few spells will probably still need special considerations even if these went through, but that will be the case no matter what rules you use.
<br><br>From Bernard Hoggins<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>
<p>Send instant messages to your online friends <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://au.messenger.yahoo.com/" target="_blank">http://au.messenger.yahoo.com</a> </p></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_55033_15529253.1164085901020--
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
|