Hi All,

One perception I do not understand is that quickness
slows down combat and 'has led to the pulse slowing
down'

While it is logically true that there are more actions
in a quickened pulse than a non quickened one, and
therefore a 'pulse' takes longer, the reality is that
actually quickness makes the overall combat move
faster. Before I get any screams of denial :-) please
look at the following:

Each combat has a length, which could be judged by
'number of actions by each adversary to reach an end',
not just 'game time'. Normally one pulse equals one
action, so the two are linked. Quickness obviously
changes this, making in game time equal half the
number of actions, but what I am getting at is the
fact that the combat takes just as many actions either
way. Given that those actions are taken at the same
speed in real life, therefore there should be no
impact to real life timings to complete the combat.
Yes, each individual 'pulse' is probably twice as long
to finish, but in the end there should be half as many
of them, so total real life time is the same.
Further to this, quickness means there are less Mil
Sci timeouts per action, so actually viewed overall,
the real life time for a combat should be less.
While Slowness and Agony make further changes to
timings, the same holds true regarding total number of
actions, and therefore, all things being equal, the
combat should take no longer.

I think the complexity (and therefore the time loss)
comes from working out who is acting next, especially
when large bad guy numbers (10+) plus some combination
of quickness/slowness/agony is in play. There is no
question that an administrative issue comes into being
then, and everyone, including the GM needs to be on
the ball as to order of actions, and being ready to
act when their turn comes up. IMHO, this is where
delays start to creep in.

I am not adverse to possible change here, but I think
we would be adjudicating vs a reasonably rare
scenario, which is 'party vs small to large horde with
most, if not all, of quickness/slowness/agony in
play'. I do not have alternate answers as to how to
handle the complexity of such a scenario, but I think
changing spells that otherwise are reasonably easy to
administer is not the right solution.

Regards,

Dean


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

> 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
>


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

Personally I think the bad boy here is not quickness or slowness but 
agony. Agony has a tendency to affect some targets but not others, and 
generally not PCs, because the PCs are not (usually) undead.  Thus the 
situation arises where both the PCs and the (undead) bad guys have 
quickness, then bad guys slap them with agony, and so the PCs are acting 
once per pulse and the bad guys twice - which is problematic for the GM 
(who deserves it for doing that) and frustrating for the PCs. It's also 
not an enchantment but a necromantic effect, so why is it having a 
similar effect to slowness?

The solution for that is to consider the nature of agony = pain... Now, 
pain does slow you down, but can be overcome by sheer willpower. So, my 
logic is that rather than simply slowing everyone down, agony should 
impose a willpower check to each action - which should be easy if you 
resist, and harder if you don't.

This makes the whole agony thing less binary, and therefore more 
interesting - and yes, high-level Mind Mages do get to pretty well 
ignore agony all together, and why shouldn't they? It also removes an 
entire layer of complexity from the quickness/slowness thing.

Jacqui
> I think the complexity (and therefore the time loss)
> comes from working out who is acting next, especially
> when large bad guy numbers (10+) plus some combination
> of quickness/slowness/agony is in play. There is no
> question that an administrative issue comes into being
> then, and everyone, including the GM needs to be on
> the ball as to order of actions, and being ready to
> act when their turn comes up. IMHO, this is where
> delays start to creep in.
>


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

I would never again GM a Necromancer or anyone with Agony items.

Rolling before every action for 10 NPCs each with a different chance of acting while under Agony -
that is the definition of pain!
I think it would be worse than the Undetectability who-can-see-who rolls and reference matrices.

Interesting idea, but no thank you!


Jacqui Smith wrote:
> The solution for that is to consider the nature of agony = pain... Now,
> pain does slow you down, but can be overcome by sheer willpower. So, my
> logic is that rather than simply slowing everyone down, agony should
> impose a willpower check to each action - which should be easy if you
> resist, and harder if you don't.
>
> This makes the whole agony thing less binary, and therefore more
> interesting - and yes, high-level Mind Mages do get to pretty well
> ignore agony all together, and why shouldn't they? It also removes an
> entire layer of complexity from the quickness/slowness thing.
>
> Jacqui


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

Indeed.

Though combining a little of Jacqui's idea with a little of Jono's
Quickness / Slowness I get the following:


Agony reduces each entity's Initiative and Strike Chance by 10 + 2 /
Rank (halved if they resist) and also reduces their TMR by 1 per 2
full Ranks (also halved if they resist). If they fail to resist they
may only perform Pass, Recover from Stun, Move, Withdraw and Melee
Attack actions. They may not attempt any Special Attacks.


Also the Resist Pain talent  will reduce these reductions to IV and SC
by the Rank of the Talent and reduce the reduction in TMR by 1 per 4
full Ranks of the Talent.


These numbers are easily determined once, applied in much the same way
as the current spell effect and have a similar but a little simpler
final effect.

TTFN, Struan.

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote:
> I would never again GM a Necromancer or anyone with Agony items.
>
> Rolling before every action for 10 NPCs each with a different chance of acting while under Agony -
> that is the definition of pain!
> I think it would be worse than the Undetectability who-can-see-who rolls and reference matrices.
>
> Interesting idea, but no thank you!
>
>
> Jacqui Smith wrote:
>> The solution for that is to consider the nature of agony  pain... Now,
>> pain does slow you down, but can be overcome by sheer willpower. So, my
>> logic is that rather than simply slowing everyone down, agony should
>> impose a willpower check to each action - which should be easy if you
>> resist, and harder if you don't.
>>
>> This makes the whole agony thing less binary, and therefore more
>> interesting - and yes, high-level Mind Mages do get to pretty well
>> ignore agony all together, and why shouldn't they? It also removes an
>> entire layer of complexity from the quickness/slowness thing.
>>
>> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C8B697.94F76FA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jono

Running Combat in any game system is slow.=20
The Game system of some games is efficient in resolving combat involving =
multiple actions, in others it not. DQ is one of those where its not.
Efficient game systems work the extra actions into the standard system =
of managing a combat pulse. The DQ system only has rules for dealing =
with AG 26+ actions not for quickness actions, which has left us to find =
our own method. Further the DQ system splits engaged and unengaged =
figures into two separate groups so that ranged attacks and movement =
always follow the resolution of engaged figures actions and are not part =
of the flow of the combat. When each figure on the tac map has more than =
one action this division means the method most of us have adopted to =
deal with the extra action gained from quickness is to run a double =
lenght pulse, but that doesn't mean that it takes twice as long to run a =
pulse or that a combat will last as many pulses as it would if quickness =
not been used.

Generally the order of actions in a Quickened Pulse should run like two =
standard pulse less end of pulse stun recovery and Milsci timeout that =
you get running two full pulses. As Dean says in theory Quickness =
doesn't slow combat down it speeds it up by removing the 30 - 120 sec =
timeout from between ever other action. Not only that but any un =
quickened entities are not acting in that second half action so that's =
anything up to a dozen or more actions the GM doesn't need to resolve as =
they would have to if the quickened entities actions were spread over =
two pulses.
Why do I and probably others think of Combat in terms of actions rather =
than pulses, because I think of the monsters in terms of how many times =
I have to hit it to kill it. With a single sword Thorn usually has to =
hit your general annoying minion 4 times to take it out (twice for ft, =
twice for En). Weather those 4 strikes are made over 4 pulses or 2 =
quickened pulses is immaterial, it takes 4 actions.=20
Why we like to use the quickness is because unquickened minions don't =
get those extra two pulse in which to hit back.

So if in theory Quickness removes several minutes worth of timeouts from =
a combat plus the need to resolve a number of actions, how can its use =
slow the combat down. The truth is it doesn't it just exposes the =
effects of poor item write ups, and the extent of (to borrow William's =
term) dither in the players.=20
Changing the effects of the spell will not help Players and GMs be more =
organized, or to stay focused and concentrated on the combat and the =
point in the pulse you are at. Lapse in concentration are what cause =
people to loose their place in what's going on in the combat, and =
needing to look up effects, calculate numbers, or other distractions =
don't help either the players or the GMs maintain that focus.
I've noticed this loss of focus will happen with players regardless of =
weather we are running one or two action pluses, as a GM running =
quickened and unquickened PCs and/or NPCs can put a little more pressure =
on you, and if the players are dithering or your just having a bad =
day.... it may seem that quickness is actually slowing combat down.
Its not the spell that needs fixing, its that we need to help (some) =
Players (and some GM's) to form better habits during combat sessions.=20


Helen


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Jonathan Bean=20
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slowness


  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=20
  >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

  @gmail.com 
------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C8B697.94F76FA0
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 6.00.6000.16640" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Jono</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Running Combat in any game system is =
slow.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The Game system of some games is =
efficient in=20
resolving combat involving multiple actions,&nbsp;in others it not. DQ =
is one of=20
those where its not.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Efficient game systems work the extra =
actions into=20
the standard system of managing a combat pulse. The DQ&nbsp;system =
only&nbsp;has=20
rules for dealing with AG 26+ actions not for quickness actions, which =
has left=20
us to find our own method. Further the DQ system splits engaged and =
unengaged=20
figures into two separate groups so that ranged attacks and movement =
always=20
follow the resolution of engaged figures actions and are not part of the =
flow of=20
the combat. When&nbsp;each figure on the tac map has&nbsp;more =
than&nbsp;one=20
action this&nbsp;division&nbsp;means&nbsp;the method&nbsp;most of us =
have=20
adopted to deal with the extra action gained from quickness is to run a =
double=20
lenght pulse, but that doesn't mean that it takes twice as long to run a =
pulse=20
or that a combat will last as many pulses as it would if quickness not =
been=20
used.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Generally the order of actions =
in&nbsp;a Quickened=20
Pulse&nbsp;should run&nbsp;like two standard pulse less end of pulse =
stun=20
recovery and Milsci timeout&nbsp;that you get running two full pulses. =
As Dean=20
says in theory </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Quickness doesn't=20
slow&nbsp;combat&nbsp;down it speeds it up by removing the 30 - 120 sec =
timeout=20
from between ever other action. Not only that but any un quickened =
entities are=20
not acting in that second half action so that's anything up to a dozen =
or more=20
actions the GM doesn't need to resolve&nbsp;as they would have to if the =

quickened entities actions were spread over two pulses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why do I and probably others think of =
Combat in=20
terms of actions rather than pulses, because&nbsp;I think of the =
monsters in=20
terms of how many times&nbsp;I have to hit it to kill it. With a single =
sword=20
Thorn usually has to hit your general annoying minion 4 times to take it =
out=20
(twice for ft, twice for En). Weather those 4 strikes are made over 4 =
pulses or=20
2 quickened pulses is immaterial, it takes 4 actions. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why we like to use the quickness is =
because=20
unquickened minions don't get those extra two pulse in which&nbsp;to hit =

back.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So&nbsp;if in theory Quickness removes =
several=20
minutes worth of timeouts from a combat plus the need to resolve a =
number of=20
actions,&nbsp;how can&nbsp;its use slow the&nbsp;combat down. The truth =
is it=20
doesn't it just exposes the effects of poor item write ups, and the =
extent=20
of&nbsp;(to borrow&nbsp;William's term) dither in the players. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Changing the effects of the spell will =
not help=20
Players and GMs be more organized,&nbsp;or to&nbsp;stay focused and =
concentrated=20
on the combat and the point in the pulse you are at. Lapse in =
concentration are=20
what cause&nbsp;people to loose their place in what's going on in the =
combat,=20
and needing to look up effects, calculate numbers, or other distractions =
don't=20
help either the players or the GMs maintain that focus.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've noticed this loss of focus will =
happen with=20
players regardless of weather we are running one or two action pluses, =
as a GM=20
running quickened and unquickened PCs and/or NPCs can put a little more =
pressure=20
on you, and if the players are dithering or your just having a bad =
day.... it=20
may seem that quickness is actually slowing combat down.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Its not the spell that needs fixing, =
its that we=20
need to help (some) Players (and some GM's)&nbsp;to form better habits =
during=20
combat sessions. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Helen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=3Djonobean@gmail.com =
href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">Jonathan Bean</A>=20
  </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Ddq@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 14, 2008 =
10:14=20
  PM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] E&amp;E =
Quickness &amp;=20
  Slowness</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV>Helen Saggers &lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:Helen@darksoft.co.nz">Helen@darksoft.co.nz</A>&gt;:<BR>&gt=
;I must=20
  say I'm with Dean on this.<BR>&gt;What are you trying to =
fix?<BR><BR>The clear=20
  issue in my mind that I feel could be addressed is:<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; =
Quckness=20
  slows down combat.<BR><BR>&gt;Wouldn't it be better for combat over =
all to=20
  help GMs and Players developed systems to &gt;better handle the over =
all=20
  complexity of combat than to depower the spells because they =
<BR>&gt;add to=20
  that complexity when availed.<BR><BR>The current book version of =
quickness=20
  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=20
  others not being able to act between the two actions. So in short a =
Pre- and=20
  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=20
  the two actions into two sections of the pulse, to allow others to act =
between=20
  the two actions. A fix but one that has led to the pulse slowing down, =
in my=20
  view.<BR><BR>I would like to see this change so that it is not so=20
  slow.<BR><BR>Jono<BR><BR><A =
href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">@gmail.com</A>=20
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C8B697.94F76FA0--


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

> Its not the spell that needs fixing, its that we need to help (some)
> Players (and some GM's) to form better habits during combat sessions. 

Guilty as charged m'lord .... er m'lady *g*

Since the subject of IV came up, and just as an aside, wasn't there a
proposal muted a while back to have a magical cast IV, based on half the
rank of the spell, which works similar to the engaged IV based on weapon
rank?

Keith


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

phaeton@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
> Since the subject of IV came up, and just as an aside, wasn't there a
> proposal muted a while back to have a magical cast IV, based on half the
> rank of the spell, which works similar to the engaged IV based on weapon
> rank?
>
> Keith

It has been discussed several times to no common conclusion.
A few people have tried play-testing various options with varied degrees of success and failure
(or simply death from inertia).

One simple option was to have Unengaged and Magical IV based on Unarmed IV
- Simple to implement
- Makes fighter-mages faster that pure mages at casting magic which is not a widely desired outcome
- Makes Unarmed a must have for all mages
- An engaged warrior can cast a spell faster than an unengaged mage
- Magic is slightly faster than weapons because unarmed goes to Rk 10 and most weapons stop at 7/8.
IMO its negatives outweigh the benefits over our current system.


Integrated IV based on your action choice has issues with equivalence and depends on opinion as to
whether a master pure mage should be faster than a master pure fighter.
Looking at the components which could contribute to IV:

PC - easy, is a measure of 'field experience' in dq, applies equally to all actions

Mil Sci - can apply to all actions of the group led by the Mil Sci

Magic - Quickness or whatever you have, generally applies to all actions or specified
circumstances as per the writeup.

Stat - AG for engaged is established.  Using Ag for ranged weapons is also reasonable.  As is Ag
for  most other unengaged actions.  If it is used for magic then fighter-mages will generally be
faster than pure mages.  Using MA means that magic will generally be faster then non-magic (MA
goes up with purification, AG goes down with armour and encumbrance).  An average of MA & AG is a
compromise that reduces the negatives of either on its own but not elegant.

Skill is where it gets messy - Warrior & Weapon Rank for engaged.  Warrior and Weapon Rk often max
out about 14 (No master Rk in Warrior and Max Rk in H1/2 and other popular weapons is 7).
Is using Warrior reasonable for ranged attacks?  What do you use for other unengaged actions
?(e.g. Move, drink potion, etc.)
Using rank of spell for magic mostly works up to rk 15.  At the top level it is generally easier
to get to max rank in a spell than it is to get 20IV from Weapon & Warrior which makes mages
faster.

Using half magic rank and nothing for other unengaged actions means engaged will generally happen
first, but sometimes a fast unengaged person can cut in.

Or we could say that Mil Sci does not apply to engaged but does apply to unengaged, this means a
group led by a master Mil Sci will generally have unengaged before engaged but without a top Mil
Sci engaged will usually happen first.

Random factor - the D10 only applies to Unengaged atm, but in a unified IV system it runs faster
without a random factor.  Downside is if you're slower by just one point you'll always be acting
second.


One key feature (positive or negative is a matter of opinion) of a unified IV system is that PCs
and NPCs will often have their actions interspersed.
E.g.
PC1 on 80IV strikes with their rapier
NPC1 on 76 throws their javelin
PC2 on 75 casts their spell
NPC2 on 74 moves
PC3 on 65 ...

Also because your intended action dictates your IV, declaration of actions becomes more important
and rules/guidelines for changing from declared actions are required.

And where do second actions (from quickness/high ag/...) come in?  A second run through the IV
sequence, at half your standard IV?

Unified IV feels nicer, is more interactive, but it is not necessarily faster.


If the GM and players on a game are keen then it is probably worth pursuing further playtests to
see which of the options actually works better than what we have now.
I'd be interested in any play test feedback.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

I found the following in 'Poor Brendan's Almanac' - a DQ supplement
produced by Roger Thorm - when I was looking around to see how other
campaigns were dealing with the same issues that we were.

Is something like this worth looking into as a possibility for
spellcasters? Of course Namers casting Counterspells would be an exception.

Keith

--------------

106. QUICKCASTING
Once an Adept has become skilled in the application of a spell, he may
learn to Prepare and Fire the spell in the same
Pulse. This procedure is called Quickcasting.

[106.1] An Adept may attempt to Prepare and Fire a spell in the same pulse
by using Quickcasting. The Fatigue cost to Quickcast a spell is double the
standard cost of casting the spell. The Adept’s Cast Chance is reduced by
15 for using Quickcasting. If the Adept’s player rolls a number more than
20 higher than the Cast Chance while attempting to Quickcast a spell, the
spell backfires. Certain spells which state a requirement for a longer
period of time to cast cannot be Quickcast. Rituals can never be Quickcast.
An Adept may not Quickcast a spell in a “mana poor” location. A spell
cast by Quickcasting may still receive double or triple effects [see
DragonQuest 28.2].

[106.2] The Adept must have achieved at least Rank 6 with a spell he wishes
to learn to Quickcast. The Experience Point cost to learn to Quickcast a
spell is equal to the Experience Modifier for that spell. It takes one week
to learn to Quickcast a General Knowledge spell and two weeks to learn to
Quickcast a Special Knowledge spell.

[106.3] The Adept’s Initiative Value when Quickcasting a spell is reduced
by 25. The Adept may Quickcast a spell, even if his Initiative Value has
been reduced to a negative number. He will simply act after all other
figures with higher Initiative Values.

[106.4] The presence of cold iron makes it very difficult to Quickcast a
spell. The GM’s interpretations as to the
amount of cold iron which may be in contact with an Adept attempting to
Quickcast a spell should be much more
severe than for those for normal spell casting. If an Adept has neutralized
items of cold iron which he carries with precious metals, the following
modifiers should be used when the Adept attempts to Quickcast a spell. If
the item is neutralized with silver, the Adept’s base Chance is reduced
by 20. The Cast Chance for the Adept with items
neutralized by gold is reduced by 10. Even if the item is neutralized with
truesilver, the Cast Chance is reduced by 5.


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

--_b1c91b63-6403-404e-aaf5-11cc1501ea0a_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> unbalanced items and abilities that now operate twice as fast or twice as=
 much as the author> intended.
This is a failure of the GM who created the item/ability to think in advanc=
e about how thier creation can be used in our rules system, not in the spel=
l.
> 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 bala=
nce.> > As an example, we may also want to change triggering so that it tak=
es two actions/pulses.
=20
Triggering takes a pulse (ie 5 secs) reguardless of how many actions per pu=
lse a PC has effectively returning them to 'normal time' while using an inv=
ested. The only differance quickness makes is you can start triggering half=
 way through one pulse and finish half way through the next.
=20
E.G.
MilSci - 1st 1/2 action - Trig - end pulse - Milsci - ger - 2nd 1/2 action =
- end pulse.
=20
TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Buy, rent, invest property online today.
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eallrealestate%2Eco%=
2Enz%2Freview%2Fhome%2Dbuying%2Dinfo%2Ehtml%3Frsf%3Dmsnnz%5Ftextlink&_t=3D2=
6000&_r=3DREA_NZ_tagline&_m=3DEXT=

--_b1c91b63-6403-404e-aaf5-11cc1501ea0a_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
<BR><BR><BR>&gt; unbalanced items and abilities that now operate twice as f=
ast or twice as much as the author<BR>&gt; intended.<BR><BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>This is a failure of the GM who created the item/abil=
ity to think in advance about how thier creation can be used in our rules s=
ystem, not in the spell.</FONT><BR>
<BR>&gt; This is not an argument against making the change, just pointing o=
ut that it is going to require<BR>&gt; buy-in from GMs and Players that it =
may result in some of their existing items and abilities being<BR>&gt; adju=
sted to maintain balance.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; As an example, we may also want =
to change triggering so that it takes two actions/pulses.<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>Triggering takes a pulse (ie 5 secs) reguardless of h=
ow many actions per pulse a PC has effectively returning them to 'normal ti=
me' while using an invested. The only differance quickness makes is you can=
 start triggering half way through&nbsp;one pulse and finish half way throu=
gh the next.</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;<BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>E.G.</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>MilSci - 1st 1/2 action - <FONT color=3D#ff0000>Trig<=
/FONT> - end pulse - Milsci - <FONT color=3D#ff0000>ger</FONT> - 2nd 1/2 ac=
tion - end pulse.</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;<BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>TTFN</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>Michael</FONT><BR>
<BR><BR><br /><hr />Click here <a href=3D'http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?UR=
L=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eallrealestate%2Eco%2Enz%2Freview%2Fhome%2Dbuying%2Di=
nfo%2Ehtml%3Frsf%3Dmsnnz%5Ftextlink&_t=3D26000&_r=3DREA_NZ_tagline&_m=3DEXT=
' target=3D'_new'>Buy, rent, invest property online today.</a></body>
</html>=

--_b1c91b63-6403-404e-aaf5-11cc1501ea0a_--


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

--_4b59cf2d-3e67-429c-9674-712ccf228855_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


In my experiance as a player in both small (5v5) and large combats (15v50) =
what slows combats is unprepared players inefficent MilSci's and GMs who ca=
n't or won't control  the action.
=20
If everyone knows what they are doing and listens to thier GM and MilSci co=
mbats are smooth and quick and the only slowing should be from the quantity=
 of combatants not the number of actions.
=20
TTFN
Michael=20


Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 22:14:07 +1200Subject: Re: [dq] E&E Quickness & Slow=
nessFrom: jonobean@gmail.comTo: dq@dq.sf.org.nzHelen Saggers <Helen@darksof=
t.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 Play=
ers developed systems to >better handle the over all complexity of combat t=
han to depower the spells because they >add to that complexity when availed=
.The current book version of quickness allows for characters to have two ac=
tions. As it stands they should be actioned at the same time on the charact=
ers 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, t=
o allow others to act between the two actions. A fix but one that has led t=
o the pulse slowing down, in my view.I would like to see this change so tha=
t it is not so slow.Jono-- Kind regards,Jonathan BeanH: +64 9 828 2959M: +6=
4 21 917 173G: jonobean@gmail.com=20
_________________________________________________________________
Free Windows Live software. Chat, search, share pics and more
http://get.live.com/=

--_4b59cf2d-3e67-429c-9674-712ccf228855_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>In my experiance as a player in both small (5v5) and =
large combats (15v50) what slows combats is unprepared players inefficent M=
ilSci's and GMs who&nbsp;can't or won't control&nbsp; the action.</FONT><BR=
>
&nbsp;<BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>If everyone knows what they are doing and listens to =
thier GM and MilSci combats are smooth and quick and the only slowing shoul=
d be from the quantity of combatants not the number of actions.</FONT><BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>TTFN</FONT><BR>
<FONT color=3D#0000ff>Michael</FONT>&nbsp;<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 22:14:07 +1200<BR>Subject: Re: [dq] E&amp;E Quicknes=
s &amp; Slowness<BR>From: jonobean@gmail.com<BR>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><BR>=
Helen Saggers &lt;<A href=3D"mailto:Helen@darksoft.co.nz">Helen@darksoft.co=
.nz</A>&gt;:<BR>&gt;I must say I'm with Dean on this.<BR>&gt;What are you t=
rying to fix?<BR><BR>The clear issue in my mind that I feel could be addres=
sed is:<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Quckness slows down combat.<BR><BR>&gt;Wouldn'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 spe=
lls because they <BR>&gt;add to that complexity when availed.<BR><BR>The cu=
rrent 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 ac=
tions. So in short a Pre- and then Cast can happen in effect at once. Movem=
ent 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 chan=
ge 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 9=
17 173<BR>G: <A href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">jonobean@gmail.com</A> <=
/BLOCKQUOTE><br /><hr />Download today! <a href=3D'http://get.live.com/' ta=
rget=3D'_new'>Free Windows Live software. Chat, search, share pics and more=
.</a></body>
</html>=

--_4b59cf2d-3e67-429c-9674-712ccf228855_--


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

------=_Part_2919_15775195.1210842775213
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

"If everyone knows what they are doing and listens to thier GM and MilSci
combats are smooth and quick and the only slowing should be from the
quantity of combatants not the number of actions."

...because there isn't ever a relationship between those two things, right?
You might want to restate that one, if you feel like ladling out the advice
to the unprepared, inefficient, and out of control folks hereabouts.

-

The odd thing that quickness does is that it make anyone double what they
already are; twice the killmeister, twice the snivelling poltroon, or twice
the ditherer between the two.

And if combats in a game are scaled at all, either due to the GM trying to
give the party a bit of a challenge, the NPCs reacting to a higher threat,
or even just by the PC's Quickened courage to take on more foes, they will
find themselves facing either tougher, deeper, or Quickened ranks of
foemen.  Hence the fights will generally balance out and Quickness seems to
become moot.

What effect does it have on the players? Well, general observation regarding
how people deal with which pulse number it is, whether they were preparing
or casting last pulse, or what their defence is; I'd say it makes people
twice as confused.

Even if twice comes to a tiny amount - is the trade off worthwhile?



(Me, I live on scrap paper and lists and leave the eidetics to the Mentats
out there - mechanical memory WTF)



ben


On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>  In my experiance as a player in both small (5v5) and large combats
> (15v50) what slows combats is unprepared players inefficent MilSci's and GMs
> who can't or won't control  the action.
>
> If everyone knows what they are doing and listens to thier GM and MilSci
> combats are smooth and quick and the only slowing should be from the
> quantity of combatants not the number of actions.
>
> TTFN
> Michael
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>

------=_Part_2919_15775195.1210842775213
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><font color="#0000ff">&quot;If everyone knows what they are doing and listens
to thier GM and MilSci combats are smooth and quick and the only
slowing should be from the quantity of combatants not the number of
actions.&quot;<br><br>...because there isn&#39;t ever a relationship between those two things, right?&nbsp; You might want to restate that one, if you feel like ladling out the advice to the unprepared, inefficient, and out of control folks hereabouts.<br>
<br>-<br><br>The odd thing that quickness does is that it make anyone double what they already are; twice the killmeister, twice the snivelling poltroon, or twice the ditherer between the two.<br><br>And if combats in a game are scaled at all, either due to the GM trying to give the party a bit of a challenge, the NPCs reacting to a higher threat, or </font><font color="#0000ff">even just by the PC&#39;s Quickened courage to take on more foes</font><font color="#0000ff">, they will find themselves facing either tougher, deeper, or Quickened ranks of foemen.&nbsp; Hence the fights will generally balance out and Quickness seems to become moot.<br>
<br>What effect does it have on the players? Well, general observation regarding how people deal with which pulse number it is, whether they were preparing or casting last pulse, or what their defence is; I&#39;d say it makes people twice as confused.<br>
<br>Even if twice comes to a tiny amount - is the trade off worthwhile?<br><br><br><br>(Me, I live on scrap paper and lists and leave the eidetics to the Mentats out there - mechanical memory WTF)<br><br><br><br>ben<br></font><br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Michael Scott &lt;<a href="mailto:big_mac_kd@hotmail.com">big_mac_kd@hotmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">




<div>
<font color="#0000ff">In my experiance as a player in both small (5v5) and large combats (15v50) what slows combats is unprepared players inefficent MilSci&#39;s and GMs who&nbsp;can&#39;t or won&#39;t control&nbsp; the action.</font><br>

&nbsp;<br>
<font color="#0000ff">If everyone knows what they are doing and listens to thier GM and MilSci combats are smooth and quick and the only slowing should be from the quantity of combatants not the number of actions.</font><br>

&nbsp;<br>
<font color="#0000ff">TTFN</font><br>
<font color="#0000ff">Michael</font>&nbsp;<br><br><br>
<blockquote>
<hr><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>

------=_Part_2919_15775195.1210842775213--


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