Hi Jono,

I would be interested in what you see as being the
problem that you are trying to fix. What you are
suggesting is a very large depowerment of both spells
so I am interested in the justification.

In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of
both sides, which means you basically run 2.5 second
pulses, though triggers and start/end of pulse
activities (such as Mil Sci time out) are lowered in
effectiveness, as they occur relatively less often.
There is no question that agony and/or slowness in the
same battle creates complexity. Add to that the out of
college abilities to act faster, more often, free
actions, power point actions, out of time actions,
etc, and the task of tracking who is doing what next
is made that much harder, especially at the top
levels. In the end, I see it as being one of the
challenges of being a GM running high level combats,
but one that can be overcome.

Regards,

Dean
--- Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to see Quickness and Slowness (and
> Agony) changed so that
> combat runs mor smoothly and quickly. I understand
> that 'Quickness and
> Slowness' is 'the' strong offering by the E&E mages
> to any group and want
> any replacement or change to also be strong.
> 
> In general:
> I would like to see Quickness changed to be: a plus
> to TMR and plus to IV.
> I would like to see Slowness changed to be a minus
> to TMR and a minus to IV.
> 
> Quickness:
> *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> The targets becomes faster when under the effect of
> this spell. They gain; 1
> +1 TMR per 3 full ranks. The target also gains 10 +
> 5 per 5 full ranks to
> their IV (ie either 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30). The
> targets TMR is will not
> exceed the rank in the spell.
> 
> Example: So at rank 12 the 4 targets would get +4
> TMR but not over a total
> of TMR 12. So Bash the Giant already on 9 TMR would
> only gain +3 TMR from
> the spell. Oscar the Dwarf on 3 TMR would gain the
> full +4 TMR leading to a
> new total of 7 TMR. Both would gain +15 IV.
> 
> Slowness:
> *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> The targets becomes slower when under the effect of
> this spell. They lose; 1
> +1 TMR per 4 full ranks. The targets also loses at
> ranks 5, 10, 15 and 20
> the same amount to their IV (ie either 5, 10, 15 or
> 20 to IV). The targets
> TMR will never go lower than 2 TMR.
> 
> What do other people think?
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jonathan Bean
> H: +64 9 828 2959
> M: +64 21 917 173
> G: jonobean@gmail.com
>


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

------=_Part_7153_1100033.1210716284202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Dean,

I do agree GMs including myself can run and do run complex combats with
Quickness and Slowness and Agony involved. I can do this, but I am aware
that the time it takes to resolve a pulse incrases. In short yes I can, but
do I want to? No I dont. It becomes longer and slower.

As you point out when one side has Quickness often both sides end up with
it, often because Quickness is such a large effect, and for a GM to run a
challenging game, it is needed.

Given that, I do not see these changes as a 'very large depowerment' as I
think since they will become less critical, it is more likely that if the
characters are quickened, then the other side does not have to 'match' it,
so that the effect will be larger than if both sides where balanced.

Their are very few spells in the game which increase TMR & IV, so it would
still be of great value, to any group.

Jono

2008/5/14 Dean Ellis <deangellis@yahoo.com>:

> Hi Jono,
>
> I would be interested in what you see as being the
> problem that you are trying to fix. What you are
> suggesting is a very large depowerment of both spells
> so I am interested in the justification.
>
> In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of
> both sides, which means you basically run 2.5 second
> pulses, though triggers and start/end of pulse
> activities (such as Mil Sci time out) are lowered in
> effectiveness, as they occur relatively less often.
> There is no question that agony and/or slowness in the
> same battle creates complexity. Add to that the out of
> college abilities to act faster, more often, free
> actions, power point actions, out of time actions,
> etc, and the task of tracking who is doing what next
> is made that much harder, especially at the top
> levels. In the end, I see it as being one of the
> challenges of being a GM running high level combats,
> but one that can be overcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dean
> --- Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to see Quickness and Slowness (and
> > Agony) changed so that
> > combat runs mor smoothly and quickly. I understand
> > that 'Quickness and
> > Slowness' is 'the' strong offering by the E&E mages
> > to any group and want
> > any replacement or change to also be strong.
> >
> > In general:
> > I would like to see Quickness changed to be: a plus
> > to TMR and plus to IV.
> > I would like to see Slowness changed to be a minus
> > to TMR and a minus to IV.
> >
> > Quickness:
> > *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> > The targets becomes faster when under the effect of
> > this spell. They gain; 1
> > +1 TMR per 3 full ranks. The target also gains 10 +
> > 5 per 5 full ranks to
> > their IV (ie either 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30). The
> > targets TMR is will not
> > exceed the rank in the spell.
> >
> > Example: So at rank 12 the 4 targets would get +4
> > TMR but not over a total
> > of TMR 12. So Bash the Giant already on 9 TMR would
> > only gain +3 TMR from
> > the spell. Oscar the Dwarf on 3 TMR would gain the
> > full +4 TMR leading to a
> > new total of 7 TMR. Both would gain +15 IV.
> >
> > Slowness:
> > *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> > The targets becomes slower when under the effect of
> > this spell. They lose; 1
> > +1 TMR per 4 full ranks. The targets also loses at
> > ranks 5, 10, 15 and 20
> > the same amount to their IV (ie either 5, 10, 15 or
> > 20 to IV). The targets
> > TMR will never go lower than 2 TMR.
> >
> > What do other people think?
> >
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Jonathan Bean
> > H: +64 9 828 2959
> > M: +64 21 917 173
> > G: jonobean@gmail.com
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>



-- 
Kind regards,

Jonathan Bean
H: +64 9 828 2959
M: +64 21 917 173
G: jonobean@gmail.com

------=_Part_7153_1100033.1210716284202
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Dean,<br><br>I do agree GMs including myself can run and do run complex combats with Quickness and Slowness and Agony involved. I can do this, but I am aware that the time it takes to resolve a pulse incrases. In short yes I can, but do I want to? No I dont. It becomes longer and slower. <br>
<br>As you point out when one side has Quickness often both sides end up with it, often because Quickness is such a large effect, and for a GM to run a challenging game, it is needed.<br><br>Given that, I do not see these changes as a &#39;very large depowerment&#39; as I think since they will become less critical, it is more likely that if the characters are quickened, then the other side does not have to &#39;match&#39; it, so that the effect will be larger than if both sides where balanced.<br>
<br>Their are very few spells in the game which increase TMR &amp; IV, so it would still be of great value, to any group.<br><br>Jono<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/5/14 Dean Ellis &lt;<a href="mailto:deangellis@yahoo.com" target="_blank">deangellis@yahoo.com</a>&gt;:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

Hi Jono,<br>
<br>
I would be interested in what you see as being the<br>
problem that you are trying to fix. What you are<br>
suggesting is a very large depowerment of both spells<br>
so I am interested in the justification.<br>
<br>
In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of<br>
both sides, which means you basically run 2.5 second<br>
pulses, though triggers and start/end of pulse<br>
activities (such as Mil Sci time out) are lowered in<br>
effectiveness, as they occur relatively less often.<br>
There is no question that agony and/or slowness in the<br>
same battle creates complexity. Add to that the out of<br>
college abilities to act faster, more often, free<br>
actions, power point actions, out of time actions,<br>
etc, and the task of tracking who is doing what next<br>
is made that much harder, especially at the top<br>
levels. In the end, I see it as being one of the<br>
challenges of being a GM running high level combats,<br>
but one that can be overcome.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dean<br>
--- Jonathan Bean &lt;<a href="mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target="_blank">jonobean@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Hi all,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I would like to see Quickness and Slowness (and<br>
&gt; Agony) changed so that<br>
&gt; combat runs mor smoothly and quickly. I understand<br>
&gt; that &#39;Quickness and<br>
&gt; Slowness&#39; is &#39;the&#39; strong offering by the E&amp;E mages<br>
&gt; to any group and want<br>
&gt; any replacement or change to also be strong.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; In general:<br>
&gt; I would like to see Quickness changed to be: a plus<br>
&gt; to TMR and plus to IV.<br>
&gt; I would like to see Slowness changed to be a minus<br>
&gt; to TMR and a minus to IV.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Quickness:<br>
&gt; *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*<br>
&gt; The targets becomes faster when under the effect of<br>
&gt; this spell. They gain; 1<br>
&gt; +1 TMR per 3 full ranks. The target also gains 10 +<br>
&gt; 5 per 5 full ranks to<br>
&gt; their IV (ie either 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30). The<br>
&gt; targets TMR is will not<br>
&gt; exceed the rank in the spell.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Example: So at rank 12 the 4 targets would get +4<br>
&gt; TMR but not over a total<br>
&gt; of TMR 12. So Bash the Giant already on 9 TMR would<br>
&gt; only gain +3 TMR from<br>
&gt; the spell. Oscar the Dwarf on 3 TMR would gain the<br>
&gt; full +4 TMR leading to a<br>
&gt; new total of 7 TMR. Both would gain +15 IV.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Slowness:<br>
&gt; *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*<br>
&gt; The targets becomes slower when under the effect of<br>
&gt; this spell. They lose; 1<br>
&gt; +1 TMR per 4 full ranks. The targets also loses at<br>
&gt; ranks 5, 10, 15 and 20<br>
&gt; the same amount to their IV (ie either 5, 10, 15 or<br>
&gt; 20 to IV). The targets<br>
&gt; TMR will never go lower than 2 TMR.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; What do other people think?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt; Kind regards,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Jonathan Bean<br>
&gt; H: +64 9 828 2959<br>
&gt; M: +64 21 917 173<br>
&gt; G: <a href="mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target="_blank">jonobean@gmail.com</a><br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kind regards,<br><br>Jonathan Bean<br>H: +64 9 828 2959<br>M: +64 21 917 173<br>G: <a href="mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target="_blank">jonobean@gmail.com</a>

------=_Part_7153_1100033.1210716284202--


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

Dean Ellis wrote:
> In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of
> both sides, which means you basically run 2.5 second
> pulses

I believe that this highlights one of the issues. Quickness is such a significant effect for one
side to have it and the other not changes the balance significantly.
Both sides get Quickness because it is easier for GMs to balance and run combats.

So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither side has it?

Quoting Dean to answer the question...
> .. though triggers and start/end of pulse
> activities (such as Mil Sci time out) are lowered in
> effectiveness, as they occur relatively less often.


The current standard that we balance items and abilities to is that everyone will be quickened
during combat.
If we remove the doubled-actions part of quickness then the most significant issues will be around
unbalanced items and abilities that now operate twice as fast or twice as much as the author
intended.

This is not an argument against making the change, just pointing out that it is going to require
buy-in from GMs and Players that it may result in some of their existing items and abilities being
adjusted to maintain balance.

As an example, we may also want to change triggering so that it takes two actions/pulses.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8B555.FB7F650D
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither
side has it?"

Well the same could be said of  several game defining abilities namely:


*	Greaters, and in particular Rank 20 "all areas" Greaters;
*	High ranks Strength of Stone (+21 Endurance on one side but not
the other is like doubling the number of opponents if you are trying to
deal with them by damage spells and melee damage)
*	Quickness=20

If one side has any of the above, and the other doesn't, its likely to
be a one sided combat (everything else being about equal).=20
=20
Any solution to quickness I think should push towards REALLY shortening
the duration rather than a radical change to a TMR/IV bonus. Something
like "quickness effects up to rank/2  targets and lasts 1 pulse plus one
per 10 full ranks" (i.e. rank 20 =3D 3 pulses for 10 characters/NPC). =
Will
NOT stack or Queue. That way its a very short burst. Still absolutely
worth casting (which shows how tough it is even in this diminished
version). I'd even think about adding in another restriction that
someone who has had quickness cast on them cannot have it cast on them
again for X minutes, making it a once per combat burst of speed. The
timing of when you use it then becomes very tactical and your E&E can do
other stuff the rest of the time. Makes the GM's job easier in that
there only a couple of pulses where quickness is in effect.
=20
Personally I'd like to see Greater's go away before quickness, as again
any medium to high party is going to be expected to have Greaters and to
expect to run across baddies with the same bonuses. Greaters then just
become a money drain for PC's, and I absolutely hate money being used as
any sort of balancing mechanism in the game given how inconsistently its
gets handed out and how much of it is out there. Character A with 12
adventures might struggle to scrap together the cash to buy a new spell
from his/her college while player B in the same party with the same
number of adventures has 50,000 a quarter investment income from "trade
ventures" from another GM from a previous adventure ...=20
=20
Just my 2c
=20
Mark
=20



-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:32 AM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness

Dean Ellis wrote:
> In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of both sides,
> which means you basically run 2.5 second pulses

I believe that this highlights one of the issues. Quickness is such a
significant effect for one side to have it and the other not changes the
balance significantly.
Both sides get Quickness because it is easier for GMs to balance and run
combats.

So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither
side has it?

Quoting Dean to answer the question...
> .. though triggers and start/end of pulse activities (such as Mil Sci
> time out) are lowered in effectiveness, as they occur relatively less
> often.


The current standard that we balance items and abilities to is that
everyone will be quickened during combat.
If we remove the doubled-actions part of quickness then the most
significant issues will be around unbalanced items and abilities that
now operate twice as fast or twice as much as the author intended.

This is not an argument against making the change, just pointing out
that it is going to require buy-in from GMs and Players that it may
result in some of their existing items and abilities being adjusted to
maintain balance.

As an example, we may also want to change triggering so that it takes
two actions/pulses.

Cheers, Stephen.


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


------_=_NextPart_001_01C8B555.FB7F650D
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=3D2>"So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not =
drop it so=20
neither side has it?"<BR><BR>Well the same could be said of&nbsp; =
several game=20
defining abilities namely:<BR></FONT></P><FONT size=3D2>
<UL>
  <LI>Greaters, and in particular Rank 20 "all areas" Greaters;</LI>
  <LI>High ranks Strength of Stone (+21 Endurance on one side but not =
the other=20
  is like doubling the number of opponents if you are trying to deal =
with them=20
  by damage spells and melee damage)</LI>
  <LI>Quickness </LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>If one side has any of the =
above, and the=20
other doesn't, its likely to be a one sided combat (everything else =
being about=20
equal). </FONT><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Any solution to quickness I =
think should=20
push towards REALLY shortening the duration rather than a radical change =
to=20
a&nbsp;TMR/IV bonus. Something like "quickness effects up to =
rank/2&nbsp;=20
targets and lasts 1 pulse plus one per 10 full ranks" (i.e. rank 20 =3D =
3 pulses=20
for 10 characters/NPC). Will NOT stack or Queue. That way its a very =
short=20
burst. Still absolutely worth casting (which shows how tough it is even =
in this=20
diminished version). I'd even think about adding in another restriction =
that=20
someone who has had quickness cast on them cannot have it cast on them =
again for=20
X minutes, making it a once per combat burst of speed. The timing of =
when you=20
use it then becomes very tactical and your E&amp;E can do other stuff =
the rest=20
of the time. Makes the GM's job easier in that there only a couple of =
pulses=20
where quickness is in effect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Personally I'd like to see =
Greater's go away=20
before quickness, as again any medium to&nbsp;high party is going to be =
expected=20
to have Greaters and to expect to run across baddies with the same =
bonuses.=20
Greaters then just become a money drain for PC's, and I absolutely hate =
money=20
being used as any sort of balancing mechanism in the game given how=20
inconsistently its gets handed out and how much of it is out=20
there.&nbsp;Character A with 12 adventures might struggle to scrap =
together the=20
cash to buy a new spell from his/her college while player B in the same =
party=20
with the same number of adventures has 50,000 a quarter investment =
income from=20
"trade ventures"&nbsp;from another GM from a previous adventure ...=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Just my 2c</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Mark</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>] =
On Behalf=20
Of Stephen Martin<BR>Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:32 AM<BR>To:=20
dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR>Subject: Re: [dq] E&amp;E Quickness &amp;=20
Slowness<BR><BR>Dean Ellis wrote:<BR>&gt; In my experience, quickness is =
usually=20
in the hands of both sides,<BR>&gt; which means you basically run 2.5 =
second=20
pulses<BR><BR>I believe that this highlights one of the issues. =
Quickness is=20
such a significant effect for one side to have it and the other not =
changes the=20
balance significantly.<BR>Both sides get Quickness because it is easier =
for GMs=20
to balance and run combats.<BR><BR>So if both sides have it 99% of the =
time, why=20
not drop it so neither side has it?<BR><BR>Quoting Dean to answer the=20
question...<BR>&gt; .. though triggers and start/end of pulse activities =
(such=20
as Mil Sci<BR>&gt; time out) are lowered in effectiveness, as they occur =

relatively less<BR>&gt; often.<BR><BR><BR>The current standard that we =
balance=20
items and abilities to is that everyone will be quickened during =
combat.<BR>If=20
we remove the doubled-actions part of quickness then the most =
significant issues=20
will be around unbalanced items and abilities that now operate twice as =
fast or=20
twice as much as the author intended.<BR><BR>This is not an argument =
against=20
making the change, just pointing out that it is going to require buy-in =
from GMs=20
and Players that it may result in some of their existing items and =
abilities=20
being adjusted to maintain balance.<BR><BR>As an example, we may also =
want to=20
change triggering so that it takes two actions/pulses.<BR><BR>Cheers,=20
Stephen.<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify <A=20
href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A=
>=20
--<BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8B555.FB7F650D--


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

Jonathan Bean wrote:
> Quickness:
> *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> The targets becomes faster when under the effect of this spell. They gain; 1
> +1 TMR per 3 full ranks. The target also gains 10 + 5 per 5 full ranks to
> their IV (ie either 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30). The targets TMR is will not
> exceed the rank in the spell.
>
> Example: So at rank 12 the 4 targets would get +4 TMR but not over a total
> of TMR 12. So Bash the Giant already on 9 TMR would only gain +3 TMR from
> the spell. Oscar the Dwarf on 3 TMR would gain the full +4 TMR leading to a
> new total of 7 TMR. Both would gain +20 IV.
>
> Slowness:
> *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> The targets becomes slower when under the effect of this spell. They lose; 1
> +1 TMR per 4 full ranks. The targets also loses at ranks 5, 10, 15 and 20
> the same amount to their IV (ie either 5, 10, 15 or 20 to IV). The targets
> TMR will never go lower than 2 TMR.

btw I'm assuming you intended the slowing effect of agony to be the same as the equivalent rank of
Slowness.


I understand you want to keep the numbers simple and chunky for easier math on the fly, but I
dislike the 5/5 full ranks.  I would prefer 1 per rank so that every rank you increase has some
effect (other than range and BC).
Players will know what rank their E&E has and can work out their IV in advance.
For GMing, the NPC E&E has whatever rank is required to make their initiative simple to calculate
on the fly.

Why restrict the maximum TMR?
One of the benefits of being a giant or having high AG is the increased mobility of higher TMR. 
By capping the increase you are penalising those who have chosen to be more mobile, presumably at
the expense of other options.

If two sides with equal PC meet, should the side with the MilSci or the side with the E&E go first?
Currently Quick adds 10 to IV making it equivalent to having a Rk5 MilSci for unengaged IV.
Making it add 10+Rk means that Rk 10 Quickness is equivalent to Rk10 MilSci.
I'd prefer it add Rk IV so that Rk10 spell is equivalent to Rk5 MS and Rk20 spell is equivalent to
Rk10 MilSci.


Other thoughts/options..
The extra action from Quickness is resolved immediately before or after the standard action.
+ simplifies the sequence of the pulse
- means mages can cast uninterrupted
- two attacks from a fighter before you get to respond or attack/evade
- withdraw and move is an automatic and safe withdrawal from melee

The extra action may only be a pass action and is resolved immediately before or after the std
action.
- means mages can cast uninterrupted

The extra action may only be a non-magical pass action and is resolved immediately before or after
the std action.
+ still a benefit to everyone for drinking potions, preparing items, small movement without being
as  significant to balance.

Quickness & Slowness cancel ranks in each other and the nett effect is applied.
E.g. Quickened at rk 12, then slowed:
* rk 10 results in rk 2 quickened for effect.
* rk 12 results in rk 0 quickened for effect.
* rk 14 results in rk 2 Slow for effect.
Also Agony and Slow have the same effect so do not stack, apply the higher of the two ranks.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

--0-1854937769-1210725131=:61488
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0AThat bastard William gave the opposition ranged healing via Empathy, we =
almost finished lunch in the time it took Sabrina to wear down her oponents=
.. =0A=0A=0A=0AIan=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Mark Simpson <Ma=
rk.Simpson@hughescastell.co.nz>=0ATo: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=0ASent: Wednesday, 14=
 May, 2008 12:03:47 PM=0ASubject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness=0A=0A=
=0A"So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither si=
de has it?"=0A=0AWell the same could be said of  several game defining abil=
ities namely:=0A=0AGreaters, and in particular Rank 20 "all areas" Greaters=
;=0AHigh ranks Strength of Stone (+21 Endurance on one side but not the oth=
er is like doubling the number of opponents if you are trying to deal with =
them by damage spells and melee damage)=0AQuickness =0AIf one side has any =
of the above, and the other doesn't, its likely to be a one sided combat (e=
verything else being about equal). =0A =0AAny solution to quickness I think=
 should push towards REALLY shortening the duration rather than a radical c=
hange to a TMR/IV bonus. Something like "quickness effects up to rank/2  ta=
rgets and lasts 1 pulse plus one per 10 full ranks" (i.e. rank 20 =3D 3 pul=
ses for 10 characters/NPC). Will NOT stack or Queue. That way its a very sh=
ort burst. Still absolutely worth casting (which shows how tough it is even=
 in this diminished version). I'd even think about adding in another restri=
ction that someone who has had quickness cast on them cannot have it cast o=
n them again for X minutes, making it a once per combat burst of speed. The=
 timing of when you use it then becomes very tactical and your E&E can do o=
ther stuff the rest of the time. Makes the GM's job easier in that there on=
ly a couple of pulses where quickness is in effect.=0A =0APersonally I'd li=
ke to see Greater's go away before quickness, as again any medium to high p=
arty is going to be expected to have Greaters and to expect to run across b=
addies with the same bonuses. Greaters then just become a money drain for P=
C's, and I absolutely hate money being used as any sort of balancing mechan=
ism in the game given how inconsistently its gets handed out and how much o=
f it is out there. Character A with 12 adventures might struggle to scrap t=
ogether the cash to buy a new spell from his/her college while player B in =
the same party with the same number of adventures has 50,000 a quarter inve=
stment income from "trade ventures" from another GM from a previous adventu=
re ... =0A =0AJust my 2c=0A =0AMark=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message---=
--=0AFrom: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf O=
f Stephen Martin=0ASent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:32 AM=0ATo: dq@dq.sf.org=
..nz=0ASubject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness=0A=0ADean Ellis wrote:=0A>=
 In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of both sides,=0A> whi=
ch means you basically run 2.5 second pulses=0A=0AI believe that this highl=
ights one of the issues. Quickness is such a significant effect for one sid=
e to have it and the other not changes the balance significantly.=0ABoth si=
des get Quickness because it is easier for GMs to balance and run combats.=
=0A=0ASo if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither =
side has it?=0A=0AQuoting Dean to answer the question...=0A> .. though trig=
gers and start/end of pulse activities (such as Mil Sci=0A> time out) are l=
owered in effectiveness, as they occur relatively less=0A> often.=0A=0A=0AT=
he current standard that we balance items and abilities to is that everyone=
 will be quickened during combat.=0AIf we remove the doubled-actions part o=
f quickness then the most significant issues will be around unbalanced item=
s and abilities that now operate twice as fast or twice as much as the auth=
or intended.=0A=0AThis is not an argument against making the change, just p=
ointing out that it is going to require buy-in from GMs and Players that it=
 may result in some of their existing items and abilities being adjusted to=
 maintain balance.=0A=0AAs an example, we may also want to change triggerin=
g so that it takes two actions/pulses.=0A=0ACheers, Stephen.=0A=0A=0A-- to =
unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
--0-1854937769-1210725131=:61488
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;=
font-size:12pt"><P>&nbsp;</P>=0A<P>That bastard William gave the opposition=
 ranged healing via Empathy, we almost finished lunch in the time it took S=
abrina to wear down her oponents. </P>=0A<P>&nbsp;</P>=0A<P>&nbsp;</P>=0A<P=
>&nbsp;</P>=0A<P>Ian<BR></P>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: =
times new roman, new york, times, serif">=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; =
FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">----- Original Messag=
e ----<BR>From: Mark Simpson &lt;Mark.Simpson@hughescastell.co.nz&gt;<BR>To=
: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR>Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 12:03:47 PM<BR>Subject: =
Re: [dq] E&amp;E Quickness &amp; Slowness<BR><BR>=0A<P><FONT size=3D2>"So i=
f both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither side has i=
t?"<BR><BR>Well the same could be said of&nbsp; several game defining abili=
ties namely:<BR></FONT></P><FONT size=3D2>=0A<UL>=0A<LI>Greaters, and in pa=
rticular Rank 20 "all areas" Greaters;</LI>=0A<LI>High ranks Strength of St=
one (+21 Endurance on one side but not the other is like doubling the numbe=
r of opponents if you are trying to deal with them by damage spells and mel=
ee damage)</LI>=0A<LI>Quickness </LI></UL>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=
=3D#0000ff>If one side has any of the above, and the other doesn't, its lik=
ely to be a one sided combat (everything else being about equal). </FONT><F=
ONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial co=
lor=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=
>Any solution to quickness I think should push towards REALLY shortening th=
e duration rather than a radical change to a&nbsp;TMR/IV bonus. Something l=
ike "quickness effects up to rank/2&nbsp; targets and lasts 1 pulse plus on=
e per 10 full ranks" (i.e. rank 20 =3D 3 pulses for 10 characters/NPC). Wil=
l NOT stack or Queue. That way its a very short burst. Still absolutely wor=
th casting (which shows how tough it is even in this diminished version). I=
'd even think about adding in another restriction that someone who has had =
quickness cast on them cannot have it cast on them again for X minutes, mak=
ing it a once per combat burst of speed. The timing of when you use it then=
 becomes very tactical and your E&amp;E can do other stuff the rest of the =
time. Makes the GM's job easier in that there only a couple of pulses where=
 quickness is in effect.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#00=
00ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Personal=
ly I'd like to see Greater's go away before quickness, as again any medium =
to&nbsp;high party is going to be expected to have Greaters and to expect t=
o run across baddies with the same bonuses. Greaters then just become a mon=
ey drain for PC's, and I absolutely hate money being used as any sort of ba=
lancing mechanism in the game given how inconsistently its gets handed out =
and how much of it is out there.&nbsp;Character A with 12 adventures might =
struggle to scrap together the cash to buy a new spell from his/her college=
 while player B in the same party with the same number of adventures has 50=
,000 a quarter investment income from "trade ventures"&nbsp;from another GM=
 from a previous adventure ... </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial colo=
r=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>J=
ust my 2c</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nb=
sp;</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff>Mark</DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT=
 face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT>=0A<DIV><BR><BR><BR=
>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A href=3D"mail=
to:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow ymailto=3D"mailto:=
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>] On Behalf Of Steph=
en Martin<BR>Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:32 AM<BR>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<B=
R>Subject: Re: [dq] E&amp;E Quickness &amp; Slowness<BR><BR>Dean Ellis wrot=
e:<BR>&gt; In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of both side=
s,<BR>&gt; which means you basically run 2.5 second pulses<BR><BR>I believe=
 that this highlights one of the issues. Quickness is such a significant ef=
fect for one side to have it and the other not changes the balance signific=
antly.<BR>Both sides get Quickness because it is easier for GMs to balance =
and run combats.<BR><BR>So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not d=
rop it so neither side has it?<BR><BR>Quoting Dean to answer the question..=
..<BR>&gt; .. though triggers and start/end of pulse
 activities (such as Mil Sci<BR>&gt; time out) are lowered in effectiveness=
, as they occur relatively less<BR>&gt; often.<BR><BR><BR>The current stand=
ard that we balance items and abilities to is that everyone will be quicken=
ed during combat.<BR>If we remove the doubled-actions part of quickness the=
n the most significant issues will be around unbalanced items and abilities=
 that now operate twice as fast or twice as much as the author intended.<BR=
><BR>This is not an argument against making the change, just pointing out t=
hat it is going to require buy-in from GMs and Players that it may result i=
n some of their existing items and abilities being adjusted to maintain bal=
ance.<BR><BR>As an example, we may also want to change triggering so that i=
t takes two actions/pulses.<BR><BR>Cheers, Stephen.<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubs=
cribe notify <A href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D_blank rel=
=3Dnofollow
 ymailto=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz<=
/A> --<BR></DIV></FONT></DIV><BR></DIV></div></body></html>
--0-1854937769-1210725131=:61488--


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

I must say I'm with Dean on this.
What are you trying to fix?
Wouldn't it be better for combat over all to help GMs and Players developed 
systems to better handle the over all complexity of combat than to depower 
the spells because they add to that complexity when availed.

You want to mess around with the IV and TMR of combatants based on rank 
which seems to me to be more complex than just a std effect. As GM or player 
you then have to keep track of variable losses/gains for x number of pulses 
rather than a std effect for X pulses.

As it stands when quickened  you get to add 10 to your IV if your not faster 
than the other guy to start and is he is not quickened this is usually 
enough to let you hit first, this is a big deal in the low to medium game 
levels as when if PC's get hit they usually stun.

Your proposal will pit rank against rank when both side have quickness 
seeing it ranked not for CC, duration or No. of targets but for IV effect, 
and dropping IV with slowness will mean that a slowed target will probably 
spend its entire time stunned, never getting to hit back as the other guy 
always go first. Where as currently if the slowed Monster or PC has the 
higher IV and is not stunned on their action they go first and at least has 
a chance.

Additional TMR is of little use in combat with all those sticky Melee zones.

What you propose will make Slowness a high level PC killer, I can't move to 
support or run away with only 2 TMR and with -20 on my IV minions all go 
first and chew away my Ft before I can even hit back, if I'm not stunned.

And Quickness becomes a travel spell, its useless for Melee combat... GMs 
Match party quickness now so you won't get IV over the big bad and if you do 
it just means they will definitely not stun and at medium + levels you have 
IV over the minions in any case... so what's its real point in combat unless 
you need to flee or charge.

Quickness gets used now many for that extra action, when your out numbered 
you need to hit twice as often just to keep up; when the bad thing has twice 
the armour and does twice the damage you do you need to hit twice as often 
just to keep up;
when magic is the only thing hurting it and your fighter screen won't last 
you need to pulse cast or your all dead meat;
As GMs we create the situations where the players feel they need to use 
quickness, we give out as loot or allow PCs to by invested Quickness, and 
then we complain when it makes extra book keeping for us or we need to give 
it to Our NPCs just to level the playing field with those high + PCs.

Come on Jono, its not Quickness or slowness that's broke.
Its it's availability to PCs that are not E&Es.

Helen

your in a sticky Melee Zone what good is
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Ellis" <deangellis@yahoo.com>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness


> Hi Jono,
>
> I would be interested in what you see as being the
> problem that you are trying to fix. What you are
> suggesting is a very large depowerment of both spells
> so I am interested in the justification.
>
> In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of
> both sides, which means you basically run 2.5 second
> pulses, though triggers and start/end of pulse
> activities (such as Mil Sci time out) are lowered in
> effectiveness, as they occur relatively less often.
> There is no question that agony and/or slowness in the
> same battle creates complexity. Add to that the out of
> college abilities to act faster, more often, free
> actions, power point actions, out of time actions,
> etc, and the task of tracking who is doing what next
> is made that much harder, especially at the top
> levels. In the end, I see it as being one of the
> challenges of being a GM running high level combats,
> but one that can be overcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dean


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

dunno if this is a stupid idea, but what if quickness gave you 1/rank extra actions (action points?).
you tick them off as you use them with unused actions evaporating at the end of the spell (the spell would have a duration that does not end once the last action point is used so queuing would not help restock you - although you could dissapate and recast.

initially i would thought to allow only one additional action per pulse, and then i thought perhaps a second additional action costs 2 action points, and a third 3 action points etc.
So you could do amazing things in one pulse and hope you got all the opposition (rank 15 is 5 actions).

Nah that is so stupid it almost amazes even me.


Ian

----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May, 2008 12:21:29 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness

Jonathan Bean wrote:
> Quickness:
> *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> The targets becomes faster when under the effect of this spell. They gain; 1
> +1 TMR per 3 full ranks. The target also gains 10 + 5 per 5 full ranks to
> their IV (ie either 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30). The targets TMR is will not
> exceed the rank in the spell.
>
> Example: So at rank 12 the 4 targets would get +4 TMR but not over a total
> of TMR 12. So Bash the Giant already on 9 TMR would only gain +3 TMR from
> the spell. Oscar the Dwarf on 3 TMR would gain the full +4 TMR leading to a
> new total of 7 TMR. Both would gain +20 IV.
>
> Slowness:
> *Same BC, Range, EM, Targets etc*
> The targets becomes slower when under the effect of this spell. They lose; 1
> +1 TMR per 4 full ranks. The targets also loses at ranks 5, 10, 15 and 20
> the same amount to their IV (ie either 5, 10, 15 or 20 to IV). The targets
> TMR will never go lower than 2 TMR.

btw I'm assuming you intended the slowing effect of agony to be the same as the equivalent rank of
Slowness.


I understand you want to keep the numbers simple and chunky for easier math on the fly, but I
dislike the 5/5 full ranks.  I would prefer 1 per rank so that every rank you increase has some
effect (other than range and BC).
Players will know what rank their E&E has and can work out their IV in advance.
For GMing, the NPC E&E has whatever rank is required to make their initiative simple to calculate
on the fly.

Why restrict the maximum TMR?
One of the benefits of being a giant or having high AG is the increased mobility of higher TMR.
By capping the increase you are penalising those who have chosen to be more mobile, presumably at
the expense of other options.

If two sides with equal PC meet, should the side with the MilSci or the side with the E&E go first?
Currently Quick adds 10 to IV making it equivalent to having a Rk5 MilSci for unengaged IV.
Making it add 10+Rk means that Rk 10 Quickness is equivalent to Rk10 MilSci.
I'd prefer it add Rk IV so that Rk10 spell is equivalent to Rk5 MS and Rk20 spell is equivalent to
Rk10 MilSci.


Other thoughts/options..
The extra action from Quickness is resolved immediately before or after the standard action.
+ simplifies the sequence of the pulse
- means mages can cast uninterrupted
- two attacks from a fighter before you get to respond or attack/evade
- withdraw and move is an automatic and safe withdrawal from melee

The extra action may only be a pass action and is resolved immediately before or after the std
action.
- means mages can cast uninterrupted

The extra action may only be a non-magical pass action and is resolved immediately before or after
the std action.
+ still a benefit to everyone for drinking potions, preparing items, small movement without being
as  significant to balance.

Quickness & Slowness cancel ranks in each other and the nett effect is applied.
E.g. Quickened at rk 12, then slowed:
* rk 10 results in rk 2 quickened for effect.
* rk 12 results in rk 0 quickened for effect.
* rk 14 results in rk 2 Slow for effect.
Also Agony and Slow have the same effect so do not stack, apply the higher of the two ranks.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C8B5DE.D6A7D6B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Personally I suspect the problem stems more from poor understanding of =
the rules and how to balance adversaries.

At low to medium levels quickness isn't and shouldn't be a 'must have' =
but rather a 'desirable' effect like most of the other common buff =
effects. Being able to lay a quickness on the party should be as =
rewarding a contribution as being able to strength of stone, armour or =
empathy a party.

Instantly and always successfully countering a players contribution by =
having mirror effects on the advesaries is bad GMing and leads to this =
perception. Most players of E+E's find their combat role very =
disapointing as all they do is bring the party up to speed and then the =
Big Bads always resist the slowness.

Of course the flip side is that the adversaries get there share of =
effects too, which can include quickness. But if you do supply it as an =
E+E on the field who can be counterspelled / hit over the head and (very =
important) potentially fail that cast like the players or have them in =
the form of looted (and also equally counterable / fallible) invested =
items.

The other main issue is to make every action less super critcal. The =
combat can be dangerous without every adversary having auto hit for =
insane damage. If each action becomes less critical then the pressure to =
have as many as possable lessens.

Lastly the combat system has limits itself. Encounters with vast hordes =
are not what it was designed for. Hordettes, maybe. Also brutal =
enforcing of the dither rule is what truly speeds up combat.

At high levels it is the same but only more so. but at high levels it =
shouldn't be too suprising if the adversaries do have an E+E.=20

In short I feel that proper understanding of the rules we have and how =
to balance encounters correctly will address percieved issues than =
altering them.

William
------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C8B5DE.D6A7D6B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3268" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Personally I suspect the problem stems =
more from=20
poor understanding of the rules and how to balance =
adversaries.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At low to medium levels quickness isn't =
and=20
shouldn't be a 'must have' but rather a 'desirable' effect like most of =
the=20
other common buff effects. Being able to lay a quickness on the party =
should be=20
as rewarding a contribution as being able to strength of stone, armour =
or=20
empathy a party.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Instantly and always successfully =
countering a=20
players contribution by having mirror effects on the advesaries is bad =
GMing and=20
leads to this perception. Most players of E+E's find their combat role =
very=20
disapointing as all they do is bring the party up to speed and then the =
Big Bads=20
always resist the slowness.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Of course the flip side is that=20
the&nbsp;adversaries get there share of effects too, which can include=20
quickness. But if you do supply it as an E+E on the field who can be=20
counterspelled / hit over the head and (very important) potentially fail =
that=20
cast like the players or have them in the form of&nbsp;looted (and also =
equally=20
counterable / fallible) invested&nbsp;items.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The other main issue is to make every =
action less=20
super critcal. The combat can be dangerous without every adversary =
having auto=20
hit for insane damage. If each action becomes less critical then the =
pressure to=20
have as many as possable lessens.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lastly the combat system has limits =
itself.=20
Encounters with vast hordes are not what it was designed for. Hordettes, =
maybe.=20
Also brutal enforcing of the dither rule is what truly speeds up=20
combat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At high levels it is the same but only =
more so. but=20
at high levels it shouldn't be too suprising if the adversaries do have =
an=20
E+E.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In short I feel that proper =
understanding of the=20
rules we have and how to balance encounters correctly will address =
percieved=20
issues than altering them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>William</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0071_01C8B5DE.D6A7D6B0--


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

------=_Part_10663_22782208.1210740795923
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Thank you William, now that I have read your post I understand that my poor
understanding of the rules and how to balance adversaries has consitantly
let me down over the years. I am pleased you have addressed all my issues
and problems and that they have been fixed.

Jono


2008/5/14 William Dymock-Johnson <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

>  Personally I suspect the problem stems more from poor understanding of
> the rules and how to balance adversaries.
>
> At low to medium levels quickness isn't and shouldn't be a 'must have' but
> rather a 'desirable' effect like most of the other common buff effects.
> Being able to lay a quickness on the party should be as rewarding a
> contribution as being able to strength of stone, armour or empathy a party.
>
> Instantly and always successfully countering a players contribution by
> having mirror effects on the advesaries is bad GMing and leads to this
> perception. Most players of E+E's find their combat role very disapointing
> as all they do is bring the party up to speed and then the Big Bads always
> resist the slowness.
>
> Of course the flip side is that the adversaries get there share of effects
> too, which can include quickness. But if you do supply it as an E+E on the
> field who can be counterspelled / hit over the head and (very important)
> potentially fail that cast like the players or have them in the form
> of looted (and also equally counterable / fallible) invested items.
>
> The other main issue is to make every action less super critcal. The
> combat can be dangerous without every adversary having auto hit for insane
> damage. If each action becomes less critical then the pressure to have as
> many as possable lessens.
>
> Lastly the combat system has limits itself. Encounters with vast hordes
> are not what it was designed for. Hordettes, maybe. Also brutal enforcing of
> the dither rule is what truly speeds up combat.
>
> At high levels it is the same but only more so. but at high levels it
> shouldn't be too suprising if the adversaries do have an E+E.
>
> In short I feel that proper understanding of the rules we have and how to
> balance encounters correctly will address percieved issues than altering
> them.
>
> William
>



-- 
Kind regards,

Jonathan Bean
H: +64 9 828 2959
M: +64 21 917 173
G: jonobean@gmail.com

------=_Part_10663_22782208.1210740795923
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Thank you William, now that I have read your post I understand that my poor understanding of the rules and how to balance adversaries has consitantly let me down over the years. I am pleased you have addressed all my issues and problems and that they have been fixed.<br>
<br>Jono<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/5/14 William Dymock-Johnson &lt;<a href="mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">






<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Personally I suspect the problem stems more from 
poor understanding of the rules and how to balance adversaries.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">At low to medium levels quickness isn&#39;t and 
shouldn&#39;t be a &#39;must have&#39; but rather a &#39;desirable&#39; effect like most of the 
other common buff effects. Being able to lay a quickness on the party should be 
as rewarding a contribution as being able to strength of stone, armour or 
empathy a party.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Instantly and always successfully countering a 
players contribution by having mirror effects on the advesaries is bad GMing and 
leads to this perception. Most players of E+E&#39;s find their combat role very 
disapointing as all they do is bring the party up to speed and then the Big Bads 
always resist the slowness.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Of course the flip side is that 
the&nbsp;adversaries get there share of effects too, which can include 
quickness. But if you do supply it as an E+E on the field who can be 
counterspelled / hit over the head and (very important) potentially fail that 
cast like the players or have them in the form of&nbsp;looted (and also equally 
counterable / fallible) invested&nbsp;items.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The other main issue is to make every action less 
super critcal. The combat can be dangerous without every adversary having auto 
hit for insane damage. If each action becomes less critical then the pressure to 
have as many as possable lessens.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Lastly the combat system has limits itself. 
Encounters with vast hordes are not what it was designed for. Hordettes, maybe. 
Also brutal enforcing of the dither rule is what truly speeds up 
combat.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">At high levels it is the same but only more so. but 
at high levels it shouldn&#39;t be too suprising if the adversaries do have an 
E+E.&nbsp;</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">In short I feel that proper understanding of the 
rules we have and how to balance encounters correctly will address percieved 
issues than altering them.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font>&nbsp;</div><font color="#888888">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">William</font></div></font></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kind regards,<br><br>Jonathan Bean<br>H: +64 9 828 2959<br>M: +64 21 917 173<br>G: <a href="mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">jonobean@gmail.com</a>

------=_Part_10663_22782208.1210740795923--


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

[As Posted on dqwiki by Mandos]


Overstrengthing

The proposal is to re-add an edited version of the old over-strengthing rules to add a negative to
the over-strengthing option.

That 2% per additional point of damage be added to the chance of fumbling with the weapon. Should
a fumble occur a 2%/point of additional damage penalty will apply to the characters initiative for
the purposes of calculating the effect of the fumble.

http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Proposed_Rule_Changes#Overstrengthing


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

 From memory didn't it used to be an increased chance to break the weapon?

I think adding that back in would be more appropiate as I never 
understood why it was dropped.  (If I am wrong plesse ignore)
The idea of hitting someone so hard that your weapon breaks is a common 
fantasy literature idea.

Scott Whitaker

Stephen Martin wrote:

>[As Posted on dqwiki by Mandos]
>
>
>Overstrengthing
>
>The proposal is to re-add an edited version of the old over-strengthing rules to add a negative to
>the over-strengthing option.
>
>That 2% per additional point of damage be added to the chance of fumbling with the weapon. Should
>a fumble occur a 2%/point of additional damage penalty will apply to the characters initiative for
>the purposes of calculating the effect of the fumble.
>
>http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Proposed_Rule_Changes#Overstrengthing
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-announce-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>  
>


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

------=_Part_3336_625393.1210757402402
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi all,

http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Thief_Varient

I would like to see Thief 2.03 move from playtest into the next issue of the
rules.

After using and seeing Theif 2.03 in play test for over a year, I see very
little wrong with it. I believe that Theif 2.03 is a far better fit with the
current updated Spy skill than the current version.

I wish to put the current playtest version of Theif 2.03 to a vote to accept
or decline for general play and the next issue of the rules.

Jono

------=_Part_3336_625393.1210757402402
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi all,<br><br><a href="http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Thief_Varient">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Thief_Varient</a><br><br>I would like to see Thief 2.03 move from playtest into the next issue of the rules. <br>
<br>After using and seeing Theif 2.03 in play test for over a year, I see very little wrong with it. I believe that Theif 2.03 is a far better fit with the current updated Spy skill than the current version. <br><br>I wish to put the current playtest version of Theif 2.03 to a vote to accept or decline for general play and the next issue of the rules.<br>
<br>Jono<br><br>

------=_Part_3336_625393.1210757402402--


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

------=_Part_3829_13854342.1210759337392
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Mark you may be correct that all of your listed spells are used by both
sides but:

Quickness is the only one which has a direct effect in changing the way we
as players and GMs conduct a combat. In my view it slows the game. All of
the other listed abilities do not.

Jono


2008/5/14 Mark Simpson <Mark.Simpson@hughescastell.co.nz>:

>  "So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither
> side has it?"
>
> Well the same could be said of  several game defining abilities namely:
>
>    - Greaters, and in particular Rank 20 "all areas" Greaters;
>    - High ranks Strength of Stone (+21 Endurance on one side but not
>    the other is like doubling the number of opponents if you are trying to deal
>    with them by damage spells and melee damage)
>    - Quickness
>
> If one side has any of the above, and the other doesn't, its likely to be
> a one sided combat (everything else being about equal).
>
> Any solution to quickness I think should push towards REALLY shortening
> the duration rather than a radical change to a TMR/IV bonus. Something like
> "quickness effects up to rank/2  targets and lasts 1 pulse plus one per 10
> full ranks" (i.e. rank 20 = 3 pulses for 10 characters/NPC). Will NOT stack
> or Queue. That way its a very short burst. Still absolutely worth casting
> (which shows how tough it is even in this diminished version). I'd even
> think about adding in another restriction that someone who has had quickness
> cast on them cannot have it cast on them again for X minutes, making it a
> once per combat burst of speed. The timing of when you use it then becomes
> very tactical and your E&E can do other stuff the rest of the time. Makes
> the GM's job easier in that there only a couple of pulses where quickness is
> in effect.
>
> Personally I'd like to see Greater's go away before quickness, as again
> any medium to high party is going to be expected to have Greaters and to
> expect to run across baddies with the same bonuses. Greaters then just
> become a money drain for PC's, and I absolutely hate money being used as any
> sort of balancing mechanism in the game given how inconsistently its gets
> handed out and how much of it is out there. Character A with 12 adventures
> might struggle to scrap together the cash to buy a new spell from his/her
> college while player B in the same party with the same number of adventures
> has 50,000 a quarter investment income from "trade ventures" from another GM
> from a previous adventure ...
>
> Just my 2c
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz<dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz>]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Martin
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:32 AM
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness
>
> Dean Ellis wrote:
> > In my experience, quickness is usually in the hands of both sides,
> > which means you basically run 2.5 second pulses
>
> I believe that this highlights one of the issues. Quickness is such a
> significant effect for one side to have it and the other not changes the
> balance significantly.
> Both sides get Quickness because it is easier for GMs to balance and run
> combats.
>
> So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so neither side
> has it?
>
> Quoting Dean to answer the question...
> > .. though triggers and start/end of pulse activities (such as Mil Sci
> > time out) are lowered in effectiveness, as they occur relatively less
> > often.
>
>
> The current standard that we balance items and abilities to is that
> everyone will be quickened during combat.
> If we remove the doubled-actions part of quickness then the most
> significant issues will be around unbalanced items and abilities that now
> operate twice as fast or twice as much as the author intended.
>
> This is not an argument against making the change, just pointing out that
> it is going to require buy-in from GMs and Players that it may result in
> some of their existing items and abilities being adjusted to maintain
> balance.
>
> As an example, we may also want to change triggering so that it takes two
> actions/pulses.
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz<dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz>--
>



-- 
Kind regards,

Jonathan Bean
H: +64 9 828 2959
M: +64 21 917 173
G: jonobean@gmail.com

------=_Part_3829_13854342.1210759337392
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Mark you may be correct that all of your listed spells are used by both sides but:<br><br>Quickness is the only one which has a direct effect in changing the way we as players and GMs conduct a combat. In my view it slows the game. All of the other listed abilities do not.<br>
<br>Jono<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/5/14 Mark Simpson &lt;<a href="mailto:Mark.Simpson@hughescastell.co.nz">Mark.Simpson@hughescastell.co.nz</a>&gt;:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">




<div>
<p><font size="2"><div class="Ih2E3d">&quot;So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why not drop it so 
neither side has it?&quot;<br><br></div>Well the same could be said of&nbsp; several game 
defining abilities namely:<br></font></p><font size="2">
<ul>
  <li>Greaters, and in particular Rank 20 &quot;all areas&quot; Greaters;</li>
  <li>High ranks Strength of Stone (+21 Endurance on one side but not the other 
  is like doubling the number of opponents if you are trying to deal with them 
  by damage spells and melee damage)</li>
  <li>Quickness </li></ul>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">If one side has any of the above, and the 
other doesn&#39;t, its likely to be a one sided combat (everything else being about 
equal). </font><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Any solution to quickness I think should 
push towards REALLY shortening the duration rather than a radical change to 
a&nbsp;TMR/IV bonus. Something like &quot;quickness effects up to rank/2&nbsp; 
targets and lasts 1 pulse plus one per 10 full ranks&quot; (i.e. rank 20 = 3 pulses 
for 10 characters/NPC). Will NOT stack or Queue. That way its a very short 
burst. Still absolutely worth casting (which shows how tough it is even in this 
diminished version). I&#39;d even think about adding in another restriction that 
someone who has had quickness cast on them cannot have it cast on them again for 
X minutes, making it a once per combat burst of speed. The timing of when you 
use it then becomes very tactical and your E&amp;E can do other stuff the rest 
of the time. Makes the GM&#39;s job easier in that there only a couple of pulses 
where quickness is in effect.</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Personally I&#39;d like to see Greater&#39;s go away 
before quickness, as again any medium to&nbsp;high party is going to be expected 
to have Greaters and to expect to run across baddies with the same bonuses. 
Greaters then just become a money drain for PC&#39;s, and I absolutely hate money 
being used as any sort of balancing mechanism in the game given how 
inconsistently its gets handed out and how much of it is out 
there.&nbsp;Character A with 12 adventures might struggle to scrap together the 
cash to buy a new spell from his/her college while player B in the same party 
with the same number of adventures has 50,000 a quarter investment income from 
&quot;trade ventures&quot;&nbsp;from another GM from a previous adventure ... 
</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Just my 2c</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font>&nbsp;</div><font color="#888888">
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Mark</font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font>&nbsp;</div></font></font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
<div><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a> [<a href="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>] On Behalf 
Of Stephen Martin<br>Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 2008 11:32 AM<br>To: 
<a href="mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br>Subject: Re: [dq] E&amp;E Quickness &amp; 
Slowness<br><br>Dean Ellis wrote:<br>&gt; In my experience, quickness is usually 
in the hands of both sides,<br>&gt; which means you basically run 2.5 second 
pulses<br><br>I believe that this highlights one of the issues. Quickness is 
such a significant effect for one side to have it and the other not changes the 
balance significantly.<br>Both sides get Quickness because it is easier for GMs 
to balance and run combats.<br><br>So if both sides have it 99% of the time, why 
not drop it so neither side has it?<br><br>Quoting Dean to answer the 
question...<br>&gt; .. though triggers and start/end of pulse activities (such 
as Mil Sci<br>&gt; time out) are lowered in effectiveness, as they occur 
relatively less<br>&gt; often.<br><br><br>The current standard that we balance 
items and abilities to is that everyone will be quickened during combat.<br>If 
we remove the doubled-actions part of quickness then the most significant issues 
will be around unbalanced items and abilities that now operate twice as fast or 
twice as much as the author intended.<br><br>This is not an argument against 
making the change, just pointing out that it is going to require buy-in from GMs 
and Players that it may result in some of their existing items and abilities 
being adjusted to maintain balance.<br><br>As an example, we may also want to 
change triggering so that it takes two actions/pulses.<br><br>Cheers, 
Stephen.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify <a href="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> 
--<br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kind regards,<br><br>Jonathan Bean<br>H: +64 9 828 2959<br>M: +64 21 917 173<br>G: <a href="mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">jonobean@gmail.com</a>

------=_Part_3829_13854342.1210759337392--


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

------=_Part_3924_32152419.1210760047781
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Helen Saggers <Helen@darksoft.co.nz>:
>I must say I'm with Dean on this.
>What are you trying to fix?

The clear issue in my mind that I feel could be addressed is:
   Quckness slows down combat.

>Wouldn't it be better for combat over all to help GMs and Players developed
systems to >better handle the over all complexity of combat than to depower
the spells because they
>add to that complexity when availed.

The current book version of quickness allows for characters to have two
actions. As it stands they should be actioned at the same time on the
characters IV. This has created issues of others not being able to act
between the two actions. So in short a Pre- and then Cast can happen in
effect at once. Movement is also an issue with characters in effect get to
teleport.

Some GMs have decided to split the two actions into two sections of the
pulse, to allow others to act between the two actions. A fix but one that
has led to the pulse slowing down, in my view.

I would like to see this change so that it is not so slow.

Jono







-- 
Kind regards,

Jonathan Bean
H: +64 9 828 2959
M: +64 21 917 173
G: jonobean@gmail.com

------=_Part_3924_32152419.1210760047781
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Helen Saggers &lt;<a href="mailto:Helen@darksoft.co.nz">Helen@darksoft.co.nz</a>&gt;:<br>&gt;I must say I&#39;m with Dean on this.<br>
&gt;What are you trying to fix?<br><br>The clear issue in my mind that I feel could be addressed is:<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; Quckness slows down combat.<br><br>
&gt;Wouldn&#39;t it be better for combat over all to help GMs and Players
developed systems to &gt;better handle the over all complexity of combat
than to depower the spells because they <br>&gt;add to that complexity when
availed.<br><br>The current book version of quickness allows for characters to have two actions. As it stands they should be actioned at the same time on the characters IV. This has created issues of others not being able to act between the two actions. So in short a Pre- and then Cast can happen in effect at once. Movement is also an issue with characters in effect get to teleport.<br>
<br>Some GMs have decided to split the two actions into two sections of the pulse, to allow others to act between the two actions. A fix but one that has led to the pulse slowing down, in my view.<br><br>I would like to see this change so that it is not so slow.<br>
<br>Jono<br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br>-- <br>Kind regards,<br><br>Jonathan Bean<br>H: +64 9 828 2959<br>M: +64 21 917 173<br>G: <a href="mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">jonobean@gmail.com</a>

------=_Part_3924_32152419.1210760047781--


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

If people want quickness to be somewhat depowered without changing its 
general flavour, you could make it optional to take the extra action, 
but it costs an endurance point if you do.

However, this doesn't address the complicating-combat issue that Jono 
sees as a problem.


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