| Subject | Re: [dq] Racial Modifiers |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Smith |
| Date | Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:50:55 +1300 |
--=====================_1377039859==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >At the last gods meeting before the guild meeting we voted on the >Racial Modifiers issue. We voted to consider the changes proposed >and then on the 4th vote we voted to not move forward with any item >and leave it for more discussion before the next gods meeting ahead >of the next guild meeting. > >Keith, can I get you to post the records of what we voted on, and >the votes please to the list (maybe again but I couldn't find it if >you already posted it). Here's a repost of what we decided: Voting Issue - Reduction of EM multiplier for non-humans Do we want to make a change? - Passed (9/4/0). By which method? a) Lower by .1 per 200,000xp - withdrawn b) Reduce to zero at the 500,000 mark - 9 votes c) 50,000:1.5->1.4 100,000:1.4->1.3 etc - 4 votes. Do we implement this for the next rulebook now? Failed(6/7/0) This means that a change is to done but the matter is still open for discussion on how to implement it. New options and a new vote will be taken at the next meeting. >What are people views on the Racial Modifier situation? >My views are I like the 500,000 exp to the racial modifier and then >dropping to a 1.0 modifier after that. I like this option as it is >simple, clear and clean. >My general intention is - I am aiming for a vote representing the >'middle ground view on Racial Modifiers' (as best I can make out) on >Racial Modifiers for the next Gods meeting. Personally I prefer a step down decrease, something like the option (a) that was withdrawn. This means that it should take longer for a race with a 1.4 multiplier to pay it off than one with 1.2 for instance. However, I agree that there should be a change because, as someone pointed out, as adventurers proceed on in their careers, they tend to pick up items and abilities that tends to even out any racial advantages. Keith --=====================_1377039859==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> <body> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2 color="#000080">At the last gods meeting before the guild meeting we voted on the Racial Modifiers issue. We voted to consider the changes proposed and then on the 4<sup>th</sup> vote we voted to not move forward with any item and leave it for more discussion before the next gods meeting ahead of the next guild meeting.<br> <br> Keith, can I get you to post the records of what we voted on, and the votes please to the list (maybe again but I couldn’t find it if you already posted it).</font></blockquote><br> Here's a repost of what we decided:<br> <font face="Arial, Helvetica"><u>Voting Issue</u> - Reduction of EM multiplier for non-humans<br> Do we want to make a change? - Passed (9/4/0).<br><br> By which method?<br> a) Lower by .1 per 200,000xp - withdrawn<br> b) Reduce to zero at the 500,000 mark - 9 votes<br> c) 50,000:1.5->1.4 100,000:1.4->1.3 etc - 4 votes.<br><br> Do we implement this for the next rulebook now? Failed(6/7/0)<br><br> This means that a change is to done but the matter is still open for discussion on how to implement it. New options and a new vote will be taken at the next meeting.<br> </font><font size=2 color="#000080"> <br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">What are people views on the Racial Modifier situation?<br> My views are I like the 500,000 exp to the racial modifier and then dropping to a 1.0 modifier after that. I like this option as it is simple, clear and clean.<br> My general intention is - I am aiming for a vote representing the ‘middle ground view on Racial Modifiers’ (as best I can make out) on Racial Modifiers for the next Gods meeting.</blockquote><br> Personally I prefer a step down decrease, something like the option (a) that was withdrawn. This means that it should take longer for a race with a 1.4 multiplier to pay it off than one with 1.2 for instance. <br><br> However, I agree that there should be a change because, as someone pointed out, as adventurers proceed on in their careers, they tend to pick up items and abilities that tends to even out any racial advantages.<br><br> Keith<br> </font></body> </html> --=====================_1377039859==.ALT-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Golems |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Smith |
| Date | Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:55:48 +1300 |
>Do golems have to be attuned to the language they'll be given >commands in? Can adventuring skills be one attunement or do they >need flying and climbing and swimming all seperatly? Can I give a >golem a language I don't have? What rank are a golems skills? Can I >give a golem a skill I don't have? My opinion on each one. Yes they should be otherwise they can't understand the commands. (but I might be wrong on that) Each adventuring skill has to be loaded seperately No, if you don't have the skill or the language you can't give it to the golem but, you can ask someone else who has the skill or language to contribute Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Golems |
|---|---|
| From | Cosmo |
| Date | Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:33:53 +1300 |
Keith covered a couple of these, but I noticed a few directions in the questions that suggested that you might be regarding Golems in the same fashion as the Sentient variety from the previous version of the college. I was involved in the retuning of the college about a decade ago, and it was a core objective to remove these as they were perceived to having lead to Binders being almost universally loathed. That didn't change, but no-one seemed to miss the Sentient golems. Q: Do golems have to be attuned to the language they'll be given commands in? A: Only if you need multiple command languages or for it to relay messages in multiple languages. From Wiki: A golem can be instructed in any language it has been attuned to, if no languages are attuned it will understand one language the creating Adept has at rank 8 or better. Comment: First language should probably explicitly be a freebie? Q: Can adventuring skills be one attunement or do they need flying and climbing and swimming all seperatly? A: They must be separately attuned for an Adept to use the skills while possessing that Golem. Q: Can I give a golem a language I don't have? A: Sure, that will allow them to parrot phrases in that language or take commands from some else who activates it, becoming it's master. Q: What rank are a golems skills? A: Golems do not have Skills (with the exception of Unarmed or that of an inbuilt weapon), they have Attunements. This means the skill is available when an adept is possessing the Golem and they may use it at their own Rank. Yes, this was a completely deliberate attempt to prevent Binders being followed by a string of Heal-Golems and the like and devaluing skills that the party actually has. No-one appreciated that. Q: Can I give a golem a skill I don't have? A: Sure, why not? But since neither of you can use it, you'd want a reason. Further Comments: While it never explicitly states it, the chain of Activation denoting the Golem's Master and Golems only following commands from that Master implies that you cannot command golems to follow instructions from another. Unless they are are a Binder, and shut down and reactivate the Golem, it will wait patiently for it's Master's voice. They are total automatons and do not behave in same way as Elementals and other controlled creatures (unless they are the dreaded Sentient variety.) Cheers, ben > RPer 4eva wrote: > > Do golems have to be attuned to the language they'll be given commands in? > Can adventuring skills be one attunement or do they need flying and climbing > and swimming all seperatly? Can I give a golem a language I don't have? What > rank are a golems skills? Can I give a golem a skill I don't have? > > Dylan > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Golems |
|---|---|
| From | Helen Saggers |
| Date | Sun, 7 Oct 2007 14:27:45 +1300 |
The wiki page was created from the rules and questions that had come up and either been answered by other GMs or could be answered from the intent at the time of retuning. > <Snip> I was involved in the retuning of the college about a decade > ago, and it was a core objective to remove these as they were perceived > to having lead to Binders being almost universally loathed. > > That didn't change, but no-one seemed to miss the Sentient golems. Sentient golems are not missed, and are for the most part unnecessary given the adventuring uses they are put to. The evil binder thing has remained for reasons other than golems, mostly it seems to me as the spreading of a personal hang up on some's part, or perhaps left over from the old version. > From Wiki: A golem can be instructed in any language it has been > attuned to, if no languages are attuned it will understand one language > the creating Adept has at rank 8 or better. > Comment: First language should probably explicitly be a freebie? Most of us put a language in as the first attunement anyway so it can talk and we can talk to the party while in possession. But the understanding of one is basicly a freebie. > Further Comments: While it never explicitly states it, the chain of > Activation denoting the Golem's Master and Golems only following > commands from that Master implies that you cannot command golems to > follow instructions from another. Unless they are are a Binder, and shut > down and reactivate the Golem, it will wait patiently for it's Master's > voice. They are total automatons and do not behave in same way as > Elementals and other controlled creatures (unless they are the dreaded > Sentient variety.) I have no problem with that, although it can be a shit when the party have to 'kill' 2 wks work to stop it following your last order. Rather than have another give instuctions, I've instucted one to follow another and carry whatever they load you with, and let them unload you too. Or issued simular orders where its doing what I said rather than another, but still working with another party member. The dreaded sentient variety are too rare and valuable to waste on adventuring. Helen -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |