Messages for 16 June 2010

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:20:39 +1200
--0016363b87d422cc9b048910a26b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option). My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares? On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. > To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are > relevant. > Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage > from another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast with > reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary > difference is cast chances at time of day. > They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less > than other colleges in the game. > They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual. > Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. > > So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges > that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a > result. > > On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of several > other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her Radiance > version of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The various rune > versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled to the > latest). Mind has at least one variation I know of also. > > So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as > it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets significantly > changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two > proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. > > > From Bernard Hoggins > nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk > > --0016363b87d422cc9b048910a26b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">The reason for a Celestial branch of coun= terspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. = The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental cou= nterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were tha= t the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies = or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisati= on for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't= have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgrou= ps are. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">These colleges are not real. There is no = evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of = the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely di= fferent orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Persona= lly, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star = college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like= this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unw= arranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might = choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we currently= have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) an= d 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</font>= </div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">My suggestion is that we leave them prett= y much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thu= s, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities.= Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on=A0a give= n=A0rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares?</font><br> </div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</= a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign=3D"top">What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing.<= br>To pull out some numbers.=A0 Since this is a rules change and numbers ar= e relevant.<br>Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any c= elestial mage from another branch has.=A0 Though certain of the other spell= s are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.= =A0 Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<br> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.=A0 = Less than other colleges in the game.<br>They have a total between all the = branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.=A0 Again, far less than a great man= y of the other colleges have.<br> <br>So even allowing for all the different branches there are other college= s that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a res= ult.<br><br>On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is tru= e of several other colleges as well, or related colleges.=A0 Flamis with he= r Radiance version of fire for a start.=A0 Sooty with his Ash Version.=A0 T= he various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settl= ed to the latest).=A0 Mind has at least one variation I know of also.<br> <br>So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Cele= stial as it is written & played now as a separate branch.=A0 If this ge= ts significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but = mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also.=20 <div class=3D"im"><br><br>From Bernard Hoggins<br><a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0a= d@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><br></div></td></t= r></tbody></table><br>=A0</blockquote></div><br> --0016363b87d422cc9b048910a26b-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Dean Ellis
Date	Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
--0-1593625902-1276633839=:65383 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All,=0A=0AI Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to have sent corr= ectly, so apologies if it has indeed been seen already.....=0A=0AI am going= to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and comment on suc= h from my perspective.=0A=0A1. Are there are too many Counterspells?=0A2. I= s the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?=0A3.=A0Would it be good to allo= w some ranking of counterspells by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil= the Namers role?=0A=0A1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather oner= ous. 16 colleges in the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropp= ing up all the time. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but i= n some ways it is part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all = of them, all at least partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, = like Sabrina, have a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their k= nowledge. A lowering of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers= , and create less of a differentiation between the types. While I favour th= e concept, and like the idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to= be tackled.=0A=0A2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Mo= st people can only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which = one to have on. The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known = combats, and often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put = on. The current bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, = so is this the nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of incr= eased MR covering a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one bi= g hit vs one college? Both have their pros and cons=0A=0A3. It is one of th= e weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cspells to non namers, bu= t not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I think is to not rain on th= e Namers parade by taking away one of their strengths. Even if we opened it= up, Namers still have all of these differentations to their credit:=0AQuic= k Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat=0AGeneral Knowledge - = Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can get a discount. Also = the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA.=0AAssociated Abilities - The conte= xt of a Cspell for a namer is better given spells like banishment and dispe= l magic making the cspell more powerful overall=0A=0AI personally would not= mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see a further differentia= tion between namer and non namer. Extended duration, slightly more power, e= tc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever scope is defined in th= e number and type of cspells discussion=0A=0AMy 2 cents worth, hopefully it= was better than loose change :-)=0A=0ADean=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_________________= _______________=0AFrom: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com>=0ATo: dq@dq.sf.org.= nz=0ASent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM=0ASubject: Re: [dq] Counterspell = proposal=0A=0A=0AThe reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has not= hing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a = Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not= gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then = Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It i= s a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my o= wn being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simp= ly say that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. =0AThese coll= eges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sen= sibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or sp= ecies or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is just a game,= for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I = would like to see the Star college quite different to the way it is now. I = made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have= , since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 1= 6 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four different subgroups. = As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementa= ls (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning = is not a pc option).=0AMy suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the = way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Tha= umaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, le= t us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on=A0a given=A0rationa= lisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares?=0A=0AOn 15 June 2010 22:3= 1, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:=0A=0AWhat I'm not getting = is this whole Celestial thing.=0A>To pull out some numbers.=A0 Since this i= s a rules change and numbers are relevant.=0A>Every Celestial Mage can lear= n all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage from another branch has.=A0 Th= ough certain of the other spells are cast with reversed light/dark aspects,= they are still the same spell.=A0 Primary difference is cast chances at ti= me of day.=0A>They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 R= itual.=A0 Less than other colleges in the game.=0A>They have a total betwee= n all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.=A0 Again, far less than a= great many of the other colleges have.=0A>=0A>So even allowing for all the= different branches there are other colleges that are far larger, and allow= for more variation between adepts as a result.=0A>=0A>On people creating o= ther branches of Celestial, the same is true of several other colleges as w= ell, or related colleges.=A0 Flamis with her Radiance version of fire for a= start.=A0 Sooty with his Ash Version.=A0 The various rune versions floatin= g about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest).=A0 Mind has a= t least one variation I know of also.=0A>=0A>So all up, I'm just not seeing= any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as it is written & played now as= a separate branch.=A0 If this gets significantly changed in the future, th= at's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is going to create= a lot of confusion also. =0A>=0A>=0A>From Bernard Hoggins=0A>nevyn0ad@yaho= o.co.uk=0A> =0A>=A0=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1593625902-1276633839=:65383 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 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"><DIV>Hi All,</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>I Emailed thi= s earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, so apologies if it = has indeed been seen already.....</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV>= I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and comm= ent on such from my perspective.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>1. Are th= ere are too many Counterspells?</DIV>=0A<DIV>2. Is the bonus from a counter= spell too high?</DIV>=0A<DIV>3. Would it be good to allow some ra= nking of counterspells by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Name= rs role?</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>1. I do find the number of Counte= rspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in the book, plus at least a dozen extr= as, with more cropping up all the time. It is a lot to keep track of, and a= lot to rank, but in some ways it is part and parcel of being a namer. The = good ones have all of them, all at least partially ranked, some highly so. = The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and h= ave gaps in their knowledge. A lowering of the number would tend to favour = the mediocre namers, and create less of a differentiation between the types= . While I favour the concept, and like the idea of 'branch' cspells, such i= ssues would need to be tackled.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>2. The bon= us is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can only have one,= and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. The duration= is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and often then ther= e is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The current bonus puts m= ost people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the nature of the= problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR covering a larger a= rea of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one college? Both h= ave their pros and cons</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>3. It is one of th= e weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cspells to non namers, bu= t not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I think is to not rain on th= e Namers parade by taking away one of their strengths. Even if we opened it= up, Namers still have all of these differentations to their credit:</DIV>= =0A<DIV>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat</DIV>=0A<D= IV><SPAN id=3Dlw_1276634229_0 class=3Dyshortcuts>General Knowledge</SPAN> -= Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can get a discount. Also= the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA.</DIV>=0A<DIV>Associated Abilities= - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given spells like banishme= nt and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful overall</DIV>=0A<DIV>&n= bsp;</DIV>=0A<DIV>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but= would like to see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. E= xtended duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could = fit with whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discus= sion</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was be= tter than loose change :-)</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Dean</DIV><BR><= /DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif;= FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new yo= rk, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=3D2 face=3DTahoma>=0A<HR SIZE= =3D1>=0A<B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Jim Arona &lt= ;jim.arona@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN>= </B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></= B> Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">S= ubject:</SPAN></B> Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal<BR></FONT><BR>=0A<DIV><FO= NT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells = has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason= for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells= do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case= , then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entitie= s. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for thi= s, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We c= an simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. </FONT= ></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>These colleges are not real. Ther= e is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxo= nomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of ent= irely different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Per= sonally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the S= tar college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat = like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired= unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we mi= ght choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we curre= ntly have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial= ) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</F= ONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>My suggestion is that we leave= them pretty much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a c= ollege. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 i= n Entities. Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect = on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who care= s?</FONT><BR></DIV>=0A<DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>On 15 June 2010 22:31, Berna= rd Hoggins <SPAN dir=3Dltr><<A href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" rel= =3Dnofollow target=3D_blank ymailto=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0a= d@yahoo.co.uk</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>=0A<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT:= #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3Dgmai= l_quote>=0A<TABLE border=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0>=0A<TBODY>=0A<= TR>=0A<TD vAlign=3Dtop>What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing.<= BR>To pull out some numbers.  Since this is a rules change and numbers= are relevant.<BR>Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells an= y celestial mage from another branch has.  Though certain of the other= spells are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same = spell.  Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<BR>They hav= e a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.  Less = than other colleges in the game.<BR>They have a total between all the branc= hes of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.  Again, far less than a great many = of the other colleges have.<BR><BR>So even allowing for all the different b= ranches there are other colleges that are far larger, and allow for more va= riation between adepts as a result.<BR><BR>On people creating other branche= s of Celestial, the same is true of several other colleges as well, or related colleges.  Flamis with her Radiance version of fire for a sta= rt.  Sooty with his Ash Version.  The various rune versions float= ing about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest).  Mind = has at least one variation I know of also.<BR><BR>So all up, I'm just not s= eeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as it is written & play= ed now as a separate branch.  If this gets significantly changed in th= e future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is goi= ng to create a lot of confusion also. =0A<DIV class=3Dim><BR><BR>From Berna= rd Hoggins<BR><A href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" rel=3Dnofollow target= =3D_blank ymailto=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</A><= BR></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><= /DIV></div><br>=0A=0A </body></html> --0-1593625902-1276633839=:65383-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Hamish Brown
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 08:59:37 +1200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CB0D32.3F7095E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jim I take your point that in a sense the rationalisation doesn't really matter so long as the game works. The thing is that what Bernard is saying is true - the celestials are miles away from being 4 separate collages - if fact at high levels the celestial spells all put together still need a unique spell or two to make them equivalent to say a good fire mage. Does this matter? Well it will affect the need to rank this branch, the enemy will have less ranks in celestial as will the party Namer - actually I recon if you made Hell Fire in a branch of its own this would have a lot more balance than celestial. Party member "what's your highest branch?" Party Namer "Hell Fire?" Party member "good, The other thing is that celestials are elementalists. This matters if we create a division like this it does not seem like they are elementalists so much - I recon the game hangs together as much on these sorts of meaningless groupings than it does on specific rules. Whats wrong with having 3 branches and raising the EP? Hamish _____ From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jim Arona Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:21 AM To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option). My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares? On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are relevant. Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage from another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary difference is cast chances at time of day. They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less than other colleges in the game. They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual. Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a result. On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of several other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her Radiance version of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest). Mind has at least one variation I know of also. So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. From Bernard Hoggins nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CB0D32.3F7095E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = name=3D"PersonName"/> <!--[if !mso]> <style> st1\:{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--> <style> <!-- / Font Definitions / @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Georgia; panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;} / Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue> <div class=3DSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi Jim<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I take your point that in a sense = the rationalisation doesn’t really matter so long as the game = works.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The thing is that what Bernard is = saying is true – the celestials are miles away from being 4 separate = collages – if fact at high levels the celestial spells all put together still need = a unique spell or two to make them equivalent to say a good fire = mage.  Does this matter?  Well it will affect the need to rank this branch, the = enemy will have less ranks in celestial as will the party Namer – actually I recon = if you made Hell Fire in a branch of its own this would have a lot more balance = than celestial.  <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Party member “what’s = your highest branch?”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Party Namer “Hell = Fire?”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Party member “good, = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The other thing is that celestials = are elementalists.  This matters if we create a division like this it = does not seem like they are elementalists so much – I recon the game hangs = together as much on these sorts of meaningless groupings than it does on specific = rules.  <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Whats wrong with having 3 branches = and raising the EP?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hamish<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1> </span></font></div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font = size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <b><span = style=3D'font-weight: bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Jim Arona<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, June 16, = 2010 12:21 AM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName = w:st=3D"on">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</st1:PersonName><br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] = Counterspell proposal</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DGeorgia><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Georgia'>The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells = has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason = for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do = not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case, = then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. = It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my = own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say = that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. = </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DGeorgia><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Georgia'>These colleges are not real. There is no = evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the = colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely different = orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like = to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different = to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and = perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of = the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four = different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, = 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DGeorgia><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Georgia'>My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the = way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. = Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who = cares?</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>> = wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <table class=3DMsoNormalTable border=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 = cellpadding=3D0> <tr> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>What I'm not getting is this whole = Celestial thing.<br> To pull out some numbers.  Since this is a rules change and = numbers are relevant.<br> Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial = mage from another branch has.  Though certain of the other spells are = cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.  Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<br> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 = Ritual.  Less than other colleges in the game.<br> They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 = Ritual.  Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have.<br> <br> So even allowing for all the different branches there are other = colleges that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a = result.<br> <br> On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of = several other colleges as well, or related colleges.  Flamis with her = Radiance version of fire for a start.  Sooty with his Ash Version.  = The various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all = settled to the latest).  Mind has at least one variation I know of also.<br> <br> So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat = Celestial as it is written & played now as a separate branch.  If this = gets significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but = mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br> <br> From Bernard Hoggins<br> <a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" = target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> </td> </tr> </table> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><br>  <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01CB0D32.3F7095E0-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Hamish Brown
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:24:48 +1200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CB0D3E.260757E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi there Dean I liked your post - its good you sent it again: 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? Yes but only for Namers - also agree with you re shift which benifits mediocre namers, 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? The opposite to 1 above -at low levels its fine at high levels even 30% takes most party members above 100% (so this is a change that supports our reality that this is a long term game with more and more high level PC's), so this change would make mediocre namers worse. I don't mind either way 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? Yes it would be good - they have em at 0 anyway (again this is adjusting balance in our long term game IMV) will it spoil Namers role - NO WAY, as a high level PC I have far to many things to do to ever waste 2 actions casting a counter spell in combat (unless I had to and the party leader made me). Giving Namers more differentiation is done by creating branches (or whatever), not a major to me they have such funky SK spells - come on turn all magic off. Namers are gods. H _____ From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Dean Ellis Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:31 AM To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal Hi All, I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, so apologies if it has indeed been seen already..... I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and comment on such from my perspective. 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? 1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the time. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at least partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like the idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackled. 2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The current bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR covering a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one college? Both have their pros and cons 3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cspells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I think is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strengths. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations to their credit: Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA. Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful overall I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-) Dean _____ From: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option). My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares? On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are relevant. Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage from another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary difference is cast chances at time of day. They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less than other colleges in the game. They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual. Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a result. On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of several other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her Radiance version of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest). Mind has at least one variation I know of also. So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. From Bernard Hoggins nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CB0D3E.260757E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = name=3D"PersonName"/> <!--[if !mso]> <style> st1\:{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--> <style> <!-- / Font Definitions / @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Georgia; panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;} / Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue> <div class=3DSection1> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi there = Dean<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I liked your post – its good = you sent it again:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>1. Are there are too many = Counterspells?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'><o:p> </o:p></span></font><= /p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'>Yes but only for Namers – = also agree with you re shift which benifits mediocre = namers,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'><o:p> </o:p></span></font><= /p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too = high?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'><o:p> </o:p></span></font><= /p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'>The opposite to 1 above = –at low levels its fine at high levels even 30% takes most party members above 100%  (so this is a change that supports our reality that this is a = long term game with more and more high level PC’s), so this change = would make mediocre namers worse.  I don’t mind either = way<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'><o:p> </o:p></span></font><= /p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells = by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers = role?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3D"#003366" face=3D"Times New = Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:#003366'><o:p> </o:p></span></font><= /p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#003366" face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'>Yes it would = be good – they have em at 0 anyway (again this is adjusting balance in our long = term game IMV)  will it spoil Namers role – NO WAY, as a high level PC = I have far to many things to do to ever waste 2 actions casting a counter spell = in combat (unless I had to and the party leader made me).  Giving = Namers more differentiation is done by creating branches (or whatever), not a major = to me they have such funky SK spells – come on turn all magic off.  = Namers are gods.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#003366" face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'><o:p> </o= :p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#003366" face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#003366'>H = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1> </span></font></div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font = size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <b><span = style=3D'font-weight: bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Dean Ellis<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, June 16, = 2010 8:31 AM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName = w:st=3D"on">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</st1:PersonName><br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] = Counterspell proposal</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Hi All,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>I <st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Email</st1:PersonName>ed this = earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, so apologies if it has indeed = been seen already.....<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of = contention, and comment on such from my perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>1. Are there are too many = Counterspells?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too = high?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells = by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers = role?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 = colleges in the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the = time. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is = part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at least = partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a few at = low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering of the = number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a = differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like the idea of = 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be = tackled.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most = people can only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have = on. The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and = often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The current bonus = puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the nature of = the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR covering a larger = area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one college? Both = have their pros and cons<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of = Rank 0 Cspells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning = I think is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their = strengths. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations to = their credit:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in = combat<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div><span id=3D"lw_1276634229_0"> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3Dyshortcuts><font size=3D3 = face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>General Knowledge</span></span></font></span> = - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can get a discount. Also = the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA.<o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is = better given spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more = powerful overall<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would = like to see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended = duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with = whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells = discussion<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change = :-)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Dean<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> <hr size=3D1 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter> </span></font></div> <p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><font size=3D2 = face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</spa= n></font></b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com><br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName = w:st=3D"on">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</st1:PersonName><br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wed, June 16, 2010 = 12:20:39 AM<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] = Counterspell proposal</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DGeorgia><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Georgia'>The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells = has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason = for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do = not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the case, = then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. = It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my = own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say = that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. = </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DGeorgia><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Georgia'>These colleges are not real. There is no = evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the = colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely different = orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like = to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different = to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and = perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of = the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four = different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, = 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3DGeorgia><span = style=3D'font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Georgia'>My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the = way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. = Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who = cares?</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank" ymailto=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>> = wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <table class=3DMsoNormalTable border=3D0 cellspacing=3D0 = cellpadding=3D0> <tr> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>What I'm not getting is this whole = Celestial thing.<br> To pull out some numbers.  Since this is a rules change and = numbers are relevant.<br> Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial = mage from another branch has.  Though certain of the other spells are = cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.  Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<br> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 = Ritual.  Less than other colleges in the game.<br> They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 = Ritual.  Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have.<br> <br> So even allowing for all the different branches there are other = colleges that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a = result.<br> <br> On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of = several other colleges as well, or related colleges.  Flamis with her = Radiance version of fire for a start.  Sooty with his Ash Version.  = The various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all = settled to the latest).  Mind has at least one variation I know of also.<br> <br> So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat = Celestial as it is written & played now as a separate branch.  If this = gets significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but = mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br> <br> From Bernard Hoggins<br> <a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank" = ymailto=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><o:p></o:= p></span></font></p> </div> </td> </tr> </table> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><br>  <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> </div> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CB0D3E.260757E0-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:16:09 +1200
--00c09f89939bf404ac04891aa03c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On reading your post, Hamish, I'm not sure you understand my point, Hamish. The in-game rationalisation is irrelevant. You can sit there all day insisting that Celestials are Elementals but this is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. It might be releveant if you were a living, breathing Alusian magical research sage offering a lecture to students of magical theory. By my recollection, you are not, unless you have stopped taking your medication. That being the case, I agree with everything you say and I'm calling the hospital. The reason, again, that I am treating the Celestial subgroup as a branch is so that there is a sensible reason to advance each of the 'branch' counterspells vaguely equally. There is a difference, with such a change. I= f a Celestial branch counterspell is put down, then it will protect against only one of the celestial subgroups. So, a Namer could put a Solar Celestia= l SK counterspell in the same place that Gok is standing. Gok gains a MR bonu= s to Solar Celestial magic, but can cast Shadow Celestial magic. On 16 June 2010 08:59, Hamish Brown <perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > Hi Jim > > > > I take your point that in a sense the rationalisation doesn=92t really ma= tter > so long as the game works. > > > > The thing is that what Bernard is saying is true =96 the celestials are m= iles > away from being 4 separate collages =96 if fact at high levels the celest= ial > spells all put together still need a unique spell or two to make them > equivalent to say a good fire mage. Does this matter? Well it will affe= ct > the need to rank this branch, the enemy will have less ranks in celestial= as > will the party Namer =96 actually I recon if you made Hell Fire in a bran= ch of > its own this would have a lot more balance than celestial. > > > > Party member =93what=92s your highest branch?=94 > > > > Party Namer =93Hell Fire?=94 > > > > Party member =93good, > > > > > > The other thing is that celestials are elementalists. This matters if we > create a division like this it does not seem like they are elementalists = so > much =96 I recon the game hangs together as much on these sorts of meanin= gless > groupings than it does on specific rules. > > > > Whats wrong with having 3 branches and raising the EP? > > > > Hamish > > > > > ------------------------------ > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf O= f > Jim Arona > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:21 AM > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal > > > > The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do with > the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial bran= ch > counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more > significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers wi= ll > choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balanc= e > reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being t= hat > they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that = for > all of their similarity, these subgroups are. > > These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, an= d > no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are > breeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this i= s > just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar > college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the = way > it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps > should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of t= he > day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four > different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in > Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entitie= s > (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option). > > My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but wit= h > Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in > Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on t= he > effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In a= n > imaginary world, who cares? > > On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. > To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are > relevant. > Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage > from another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast wit= h > reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary > difference is cast chances at time of day. > They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less > than other colleges in the game. > They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual. > Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. > > So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges > that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a > result. > > On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of sever= al > other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her Radiance > version of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The various ru= ne > versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled to the > latest). Mind has at least one variation I know of also. > > So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial = as > it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets significan= tly > changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two > proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. > > > > From Bernard Hoggins > nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk > > > > > > --00c09f89939bf404ac04891aa03c Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">On reading your post, Hamish, I'm not= sure you understand my point, Hamish. The in-game rationalisation is irrel= evant. You can sit there all day insisting that Celestials are Elementals b= ut this is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. It might be releveant i= f you were a living, breathing=A0Alusian magical research sage offering a l= ecture to students of magical theory.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">By my recollection, you are not, unless y= ou have stopped taking your medication.=A0That being the=A0case, I agree wi= th everything you say and I'm calling the hospital.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">The reason, again,=A0that I am treating t= he Celestial subgroup as a branch is so that there is a sensible reason to = advance each of the 'branch' counterspells vaguely equally. There i= s a difference, with such a change. If a Celestial branch counterspell is p= ut down, then it will protect against only one of the celestial subgroups. = So, a Namer could put a Solar Celestial SK counterspell in the same place t= hat Gok is standing. Gok gains a MR bonus to Solar Celestial magic, but can= cast Shadow Celestial magic.</font></div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 08:59, Hamish Brown <span dir=3D= "ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz">perfect_brown@xtra.co= .nz</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div lang=3D"EN-US" vlink=3D"blue" link=3D"blue"> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi Jim</span></= font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I take your poi= nt that in a sense the rationalisation doesn=92t really matter so long as t= he game works.</span></font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The thing is th= at what Bernard is saying is true =96 the celestials are miles away from be= ing 4 separate collages =96 if fact at high levels the celestial spells all= put together still need a unique spell or two to make them equivalent to s= ay a good fire mage.=A0 Does this matter? =A0Well it will affect the need t= o rank this branch, the enemy will have less ranks in celestial as will the= party Namer =96 actually I recon if you made Hell Fire in a branch of its = own this would have a lot more balance than celestial. =A0</span></font></p= > <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Party member = =93what=92s your highest branch?=94</span></font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Party Namer =93= Hell Fire?=94</span></font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Party member = =93good, </span></font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The other thing= is that celestials are elementalists.=A0 This matters if we create a divis= ion like this it does not seem like they are elementalists so much =96 I re= con the game hangs together as much on these sorts of meaningless groupings= than it does on specific rules.=A0 </span></font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Whats wrong wit= h having 3 branches and raising the EP?</span></font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hamish</span></= font></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font color=3D"navy" size=3D"2" face=3D"Arial"><span= style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">=A0</span></fon= t></p> <div> <div style=3D"TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center"><fon= t size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <hr align=3D"center" size=3D"2" width=3D"100%"> </span></font></div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Tahoma"><span style=3D"F= ONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></font>= </b><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Tahoma"><span style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; FO= NT-SIZE: 10pt"> <a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">= dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" = target=3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>] <b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT:= bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>Jim Arona<br> <b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, June 16, 2= 010 12:21 AM=20 <div class=3D"im"><br><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <= a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br>= </div> <div class=3D"im"><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> = Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal</div></span></font> <p></p></p></div> <div class=3D"im"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span styl= e=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">=A0</span></font></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Georgia"><span style=3D"FON= T-FAMILY: Georgia; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The reason for a Celestial branch of co= unterspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups= . The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental c= ounterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were t= hat the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgie= s or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisa= tion for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don&#39= ;t have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgr= oups are. </span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Georgia"><span style=3D"FON= T-FAMILY: Georgia; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">These colleges are not real. There is n= o evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy o= f the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely = different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Perso= nally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Sta= r college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat li= ke this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired u= nwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we migh= t choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we current= ly have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) = and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</spa= n></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Georgia"><span style=3D"FON= T-FAMILY: Georgia; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">My suggestion is that we leave them pre= tty much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. T= hus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entitie= s. Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on=A0a gi= ven=A0rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares?</span></font= ></p> </div> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span styl= e=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <<a href=3D= "mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>&gt= ; wrote:</span></font></p> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style=3D"PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; PA= DDING-TOP: 0in" valign=3D"top"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span styl= e=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thin= g.<br>To pull out some numbers.=A0 Since this is a rules change and numbers= are relevant.<br> Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage f= rom another branch has.=A0 Though certain of the other spells are cast with= reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.=A0 Primary dif= ference is cast chances at time of day.<br> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.=A0 = Less than other colleges in the game.<br>They have a total between all the = branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.=A0 Again, far less than a great man= y of the other colleges have.<br> <br>So even allowing for all the different branches there are other college= s that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a res= ult.<br><br>On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is tru= e of several other colleges as well, or related colleges.=A0 Flamis with he= r Radiance version of fire for a start.=A0 Sooty with his Ash Version.=A0 T= he various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settl= ed to the latest).=A0 Mind has at least one variation I know of also.<br> <br>So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Cele= stial as it is written & played now as a separate branch.=A0 If this ge= ts significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but = mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. </s= pan></font></p> <div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span styl= e=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><br><br>From Bernard Hoggins<br><a href=3D"mailto:nev= yn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a></span></font>= </p></div> </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span styl= e=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><br>=A0</span></font></p></div> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"3" face=3D"Times New Roman"><span styl= e=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt">=A0</span></font></p></div></div></div></blockquote><= /div><br> --00c09f89939bf404ac04891aa03c-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:34:43 +1200
--00c09f89973f6378cd04891ae3d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I did read it, Dean. I am in agreement with Hamish that the bonus is just too high, for all that it only covers a narrow range of magic. A sensible evil Necromancer will not use Hand of Death, because it is entirely resistable, unless they have a version of the spell which has some resistance-defeating wrinkle. This spell never gets used for all of its colour, and the reason is that with a counterspell, even at low level, a pc has a respectable chance of ignoring the effects entirely. Given a cast chance of 70%, and a MR of 15(+30 from Necro SK counterspell), the chance of the spell failing or being avoided is 69%. It may be that Necromancers don't sully themselves with arithmetic, but they'll have some undead thing bound to perform these functions for them. On 16 June 2010 08:30, Dean Ellis <deangellis@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, so > apologies if it has indeed been seen already..... > > I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and > comment on such from my perspective. > > 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? > 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? > 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, > but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? > > 1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in the > book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the time. It > is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is part > and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at least > partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a > few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering > of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a > differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like the > idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackled. > > 2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can only > have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. The > duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and often > then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The current > bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the > nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR > covering a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs > one college? Both have their pros and cons > > 3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cspells > to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I think is > to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strengths. Even > if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations to their > credit: > Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat > General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can > get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA. > Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given > spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful > overall > > I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see > a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended duration, > slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever > scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion > > My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-) > > Dean > > > ------------------------------ > From: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal > > The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do with > the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial branch > counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more > significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers will > choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance > reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that > they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for > all of their similarity, these subgroups are. > These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and > no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are > breeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is > just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar > college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the way > it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps > should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the > day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four > different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in > Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities > (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option). > My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but with > Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in > Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the > effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an > imaginary world, who cares? > On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. >> To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are >> relevant. >> Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage >> from another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast with >> reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary >> difference is cast chances at time of day. >> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less >> than other colleges in the game. >> They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual. >> Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. >> >> So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges >> that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a >> result. >> >> On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of >> several other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her >> Radiance version of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The >> various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled >> to the latest). Mind has at least one variation I know of also. >> >> So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial >> as it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets >> significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing >> up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. >> >> >> From Bernard Hoggins >> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk >> >> > > > > --00c09f89973f6378cd04891ae3d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I did read it, Dean. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">I am in agreement with Hamish that the bonus is= just too high, for all that it only covers a narrow range of magic. A sens= ible evil Necromancer will not use Hand of Death, because it is entirely re= sistable, unless they have=A0a version of the spell which has some resistan= ce-defeating wrinkle. This spell never gets used for all of its colour, and= the reason is that with a counterspell, even at low level, a pc has a resp= ectable chance of ignoring the effects entirely. Given a cast chance of 70%= , and a MR of 15(+30 from Necro SK counterspell), the chance of the spell f= ailing or being avoided is 69%. It may be that Necromancers don't sully= themselves with arithmetic, but they'll have some undead thing bound t= o perform these functions for them.</font></div> <div>=A0</div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 08:30, Dean Ellis <span dir=3D"l= tr"><<a href=3D"mailto:deangellis@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank">deangelli= s@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div> <div style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SI= ZE: 12pt"> <div>Hi All,</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, s= o apologies if it has indeed been seen already.....</div> <div> <div>=A0</div> <div> <div>I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and= comment on such from my perspective.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>1. Are there are too many Counterspells?</div> <div>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?</div> <div>3.=A0Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non na= mers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges i= n the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the tim= e. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is = part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at le= ast partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have= a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A loweri= ng of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less = of a differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and lik= e the idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackle= d.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can= only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have o= n. The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and = often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The curre= nt bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this th= e nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR cove= ring a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one = college? Both have their pros and cons</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cs= pells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I thi= nk is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strength= s. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations = to their credit:</div> <div>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat</div> <div><span>General Knowledge</span> - Only good for decent MA namers, but a= t least they can get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against = MA.</div> <div>Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better g= iven spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerfu= l overall</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like t= o see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended durat= ion, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with what= ever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-)</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>Dean</div><br></div></div> <div style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SI= ZE: 12pt"><br> <div style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SI= ZE: 12pt"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Tahoma"> <div> <hr size=3D"1"> <b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Jim Arona <<a href= =3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&g= t;<br></div> <div><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <a href=3D"mailto:= dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br></div><b><span st= yle=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM= =20 <div><br><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] = Counterspell proposal<br></div></font> <div> <div></div> <div><br> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">The reason for a Celestial branch of coun= terspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. = The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental cou= nterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were tha= t the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies = or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisati= on for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't= have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgrou= ps are. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">These colleges are not real. There is no = evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of = the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely di= fferent orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Persona= lly, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star = college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like= this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unw= arranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might = choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we currently= have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) an= d 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</font>= </div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">My suggestion is that we leave them prett= y much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thu= s, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities.= Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on=A0a give= n=A0rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares?</font><br> </div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" rel=3D"nofollow" targe= t=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign=3D"top">What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing.<= br>To pull out some numbers.=A0 Since this is a rules change and numbers ar= e relevant.<br>Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any c= elestial mage from another branch has.=A0 Though certain of the other spell= s are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.= =A0 Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<br> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.=A0 = Less than other colleges in the game.<br>They have a total between all the = branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.=A0 Again, far less than a great man= y of the other colleges have.<br> <br>So even allowing for all the different branches there are other college= s that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a res= ult.<br><br>On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is tru= e of several other colleges as well, or related colleges.=A0 Flamis with he= r Radiance version of fire for a start.=A0 Sooty with his Ash Version.=A0 T= he various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settl= ed to the latest).=A0 Mind has at least one variation I know of also.<br> <br>So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Cele= stial as it is written & played now as a separate branch.=A0 If this ge= ts significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but = mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also.=20 <div><br><br>From Bernard Hoggins<br><a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk= " rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><br></div></td= ></tr></tbody></table><br>=A0</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div= ></div> <br></div></blockquote></div><br> --00c09f89973f6378cd04891ae3d4-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jonathan Bean
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:54:33 +1200
--00163630ecd34acca504891b2a93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 If adepts other than Namers get to rank counter spells, then I think that it would be useful for them to have a range of touch. Rosemary said that Namers that put EP into counter spells often end up getting out a sword early in a combat. I think this is more that GMs do not put encounters into play with mages which will challenge a party. I think they should as Namers have counter spell, allowing the Namer to place the counter under the enemy mage - stopping them casting. Without reducing the range of counter spells for non-Namers it will give away a large section of the playable of Namer in combat. Jono --00163630ecd34acca504891b2a93 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If adepts other than Namers get to rank counter spells, then I think that i= t would be useful for them to have a range of touch.<div><br></div><div>Ros= emary said that Namers that put EP into counter spells often end up getting= out a sword early in a combat. I think this is more that GMs do not put en= counters into play with mages which will challenge a party. I think they sh= ould as Namers have counter spell, allowing the Namer to place the counter = under the=A0enemy=A0mage - stopping them casting.</div> <div><br></div><div>Without reducing the range of counter spells for non-Na= mers it will give away a large section of the=A0playable=A0of Namer in comb= at.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Jono</div><div><br></div> --00163630ecd34acca504891b2a93-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:41:50 +1200
--_000_2904DD08020FAE41B0F0B24E37334BC804B37AC74FUXCHANGE71UoA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? I thinks so. Most Namers do not like to acquire counterspells the way Sabr= ina buys for shoes (lots & lots in all sorts of style & colours ... but onl= y a few pairs being regularly used). As Jim & others have pointed out, with the SK spells, being a Namer is no l= onger all about the counterspells. Despite the years that have passed sinc= e the introduction of the new SK, Namers of equivalent levels do NOT have a= ll the same SK spells & ranks. 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? Maybe ... but it is still easy enough for NPCs to hit targets that could no= t be actively resisting (and why, as GM, I am very fussy about what actions= may be combined with active resistance, regardless of a character's items)= . However one of the innate advantages of guild parties is that they ought= to have a range of colleges ... minimising the effectiveness of NPC counte= rspells. 3[A]. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers= , Absolutely! As GMs I have occasionally given high-level characters the abi= lity to rank counterspells of one specific college. There are lots of in-c= haracter reasons why individual characters have particular animosity toward= s (or fear of) particular colleges. 3[B]. ... but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? Even if open access were granted to all mages to rank any of the extant c= ounterspells they wanted, they would not diminish the need for Namers - for= reasons already stated by other writers ... although I would be happy to r= espond to any points any reader thinks have not yet been countered (as it w= ere). Also, as Dean points out, there are other ways of weighting any perc= eived imbalance. Branch counterspells & the like I have no strong feeling whether or not the Elemental colleges should be sp= lit (on a technicality) into mundane & celestial w.r.t. counterspells. Even if Entities had only two colleges (Black & Necro) and Elementals had 1= 0 or more, I know many characters would rather spend ep on the anti-Entity = rather than the Anti-Elemental. I would prefer that all Branch counterspells (or whatever is adopted) hav= e the same EP cost - and if splitting the elemental branch is considered th= e necessary price, then so be it. If so, might I suggest ... Cardinal: Air, Earth, Fire Water Oblique or Ordinal or Ancillary or ... : Ice, Celestial, ... ( including Li= fe, Time, or any of the other "elementals" that have been thrown at parties= ). Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858) m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Dea= n Ellis Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:31 AM To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal Hi All, I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, so apo= logies if it has indeed been seen already..... I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and comm= ent on such from my perspective. 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, b= ut in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? [...] I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see= a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended duration, = slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever = scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion --_000_2904DD08020FAE41B0F0B24E37334BC804B37AC74FUXCHANGE71UoA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-m= icrosoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office= :access" xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s=3D"= uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-microsof= t-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-co= m:office:publisher" xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadshee= t" xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns= :odc=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-micro= soft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" = xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc=3D"http://m= icrosoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:" xmlns:Repl=3D"http://= schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/share= point/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel= /2003/xml" xmlns:ppda=3D"http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois= =3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir=3D"http://= schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3= .org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint= /dsp" xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd=3D"http= ://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sha= repoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#"= xmlns:sp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps=3D"http://= schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001= /XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/so= ap" xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udc= p2p=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf=3D"http:/= /schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss=3D"http://sche= mas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi=3D"http://schemas.mi= crosoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformat= s.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlf= ormats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.c= om/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/pa= ckage/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp=3D"http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/web= partpages" xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/20= 06/types" xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/200= 6/messages" xmlns:pptsl=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/Sli= deLibrary/" xmlns:spsl=3D"http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortal= Server/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:= st=3D"" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions / @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} @font-face {font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} / Style Definitions / p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} span.yshortcuts {mso-style-name:yshortcuts;} span.EmailStyle18 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; color:windowtext; font-weight:normal; font-style:normal; text-decoration:none none;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=3DEN-NZ link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DWordSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'color:red'>1. Are there are too many Counterspells?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>I thinks so.  Most Namers do not like to acquire counterspells the way Sabrina buys for shoes (lots & lots in all sorts = of style & colours … but only a few pairs being regularly used).<spa= n style=3D'color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>As Jim & others have pointed out, with the SK spel= ls, being a Namer is no longer all about the counterspells.  Despite the y= ears that have passed since the introduction of the new SK, Namers of equivalent levels do NOT have all the same SK spells & ranks.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'color:red'>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>Maybe … but it is still easy enough for NPCs to = hit targets that could not be actively resisting (and why, as GM, I am very fus= sy about what actions may be combined with active resistance, regardless of a character's items).  However one of the innate advantages of guild par= ties is that they ought to have a range of colleges … minimising the effectiveness of NPC counterspells.<span style=3D'color:black'><o:p></o:p><= /span></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'color:red'>3[A]. Would it be go= od to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers,<o:p></o:p></span></b></p= > <p class=3DMsoNormal>Absolutely!  As GMs I have occasionally given high-level characters the ability to rank counterspells of one <b>specific<= /b> college.  There are lots of in-character reasons why individual charac= ters have particular animosity towards (or fear of) particular colleges.<span style=3D'color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'color:red'>3[B].  … but i= n doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>  Even if open access were granted to all mages t= o rank any of the extant counterspells they wanted, they would not diminish the ne= ed for Namers — for reasons already stated by other writers … alth= ough I would be happy to respond to any points any reader thinks have not yet be= en countered (as it were).  Also, as Dean points out, there are other way= s of weighting any perceived imbalance.<span style=3D'color:black'><o:p></o:p></= span></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b>Branch counterspells & the like<o:p></o:p></b><= /p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>I have no strong feeling whether or not the Elemental colleges should be split (on a technicality) into mundane & celestial w.r.t. counterspells.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>Even if Entities had only two colleges (Black & Ne= cro) and Elementals had 10 or more, I know many characters would rather spend ep= on the anti-Entity rather than the Anti-Elemental.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>I would prefer* that all Branch counterspells (or wha= tever is adopted) have the same EP cost — and if splitting the elemental br= anch is considered the necessary price, then so be it.  If so, might I sugg= est … <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b>Cardinal</b>: Air, Earth, Fire Water<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b>Oblique</b> or <b>Ordinal </b>or <b>Ancillary </b>o= r <b>… </b>: Ice, Celestial, … ( including Life, Time, or any of the other "elementals" that have been thrown at parties).<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal>Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)<o:p></o:p></= p> <p class=3DMsoNormal>m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz<br> Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian<br> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D<span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <div> <div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm = 0cm 0cm'> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-family:"Tahoma","s= ans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> dq-owner@dq.sf.or= g.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dean Ellis<br> <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:31 AM<br> <b>To:</b> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p> <div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>Hi All,<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to have sent correctly, so apolo= gies if it has indeed been seen already.....<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and commen= t on such from my perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>1. Are there are too many Counterspells?<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high?<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, but in doi= ng so, do we spoil the Namers role?<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'> […]<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New= Roman","serif"'>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion<o:p></o:p></s= pan></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html> --_000_2904DD08020FAE41B0F0B24E37334BC804B37AC74FUXCHANGE71UoA_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:45:16 +1200
--001485ebeb3ea6702504891bdf69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 If by this you mean that if the range of counterspells is not set to touch or at the least foreshortened, then it will remove some of the uniqueness of the college, then yes, of course it would. I don't think this is a bad thing. It IS a bad thing if Namers become essential to adventure with. As it stands, even assuming counterspells were Rankable, I do not envision any lessening of the standard roles of Namers. Gok would much prefer not to cast a Fire SK counterspell to stop a mage casting Dragonflames. He has another role, and would want to execute it. The players of non-Namer Adepts will probably not care about the range issue, because they are mostly going to use them to raise their MR resistance, and perhaps those of their allies. On 16 June 2010 12:54, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote: > > Without reducing the range of counter spells for non-Namers it will give > away a large section of the playable of Namer in combat. > On 16 June 2010 12:54, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote: > If adepts other than Namers get to rank counter spells, then I think that > it would be useful for them to have a range of touch. > > Rosemary said that Namers that put EP into counter spells often end up > getting out a sword early in a combat. I think this is more that GMs do not > put encounters into play with mages which will challenge a party. I think > they should as Namers have counter spell, allowing the Namer to place the > counter under the enemy mage - stopping them casting. > > Without reducing the range of counter spells for non-Namers it will give > away a large section of the playable of Namer in combat. > > Jono > > --001485ebeb3ea6702504891bdf69 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">If by this you mean that if the range of = counterspells is not set to touch or at the least foreshortened, then it wi= ll remove some of the uniqueness of the college, then yes, of course it wou= ld. I don't think this is a bad thing. It IS a bad thing if Namers beco= me essential to adventure with. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">As it stands, even assuming counterspells were = Rankable, I do not envision any lessening of the standard roles of Namers. = Gok would much prefer not to cast=A0a Fire SK=A0counterspell to stop a=A0ma= ge casting Dragonflames. He has another role, and would want to execute it.= </font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">The players of non-Namer Adepts will probably n= ot care about the range issue, because they are mostly going to use them to= raise their MR resistance, and perhaps those of their allies. </font></div= > <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">On 16 June 2010 12:54, Jonathan Bean <spa= n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">j= onobean@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></font></div> <div> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div>=A0</div> <div>Without reducing the range of counter spells for non-Namers it will gi= ve away a large section of the=A0playable=A0of Namer in combat.<br></div></= blockquote><br></div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 12:54, Jonathan Bean <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jonobe= an@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">If adepts other than Namers get = to rank counter spells, then I think that it would be useful for them to ha= ve a range of touch.=20 <div><br></div> <div>Rosemary said that Namers that put EP into counter spells often end up= getting out a sword early in a combat. I think this is more that GMs do no= t put encounters into play with mages which will challenge a party. I think= they should as Namers have counter spell, allowing the Namer to place the = counter under the=A0enemy=A0mage - stopping them casting.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Without reducing the range of counter spells for non-Namers it will gi= ve away a large section of the=A0playable=A0of Namer in combat.=A0</div> <div><br></div> <div>Jono</div> <div><br></div></blockquote></div><br> --001485ebeb3ea6702504891bdf69-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Michael Scott
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:47:30 +1200
--_e158d87b-19f4-4b8e-9550-07a20ef388e0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would go for the non namers only being able to cast rankable out of colle= ge counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for namers in parties= . This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefeild and suppressing= enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive. =20 TTFN Michael =20 Date: Tue=2C 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200 Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues=2C was Counterspell proposal From: psyclone@darksoft.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz I am not of the opinion that the namer is loosing anything in particular=2C= other than there specific niche in the game. The limitation (wether good = or bad) on other Adepts ranking counters except there own=2C is what gives = the namer a place in the rank of Adepts. =20 Since you can just cast a counter (wether or not your a namer) to suppresse= d a ward. Every could in theory rank the counters and do the namer out of = this.. may not be a completely bad thing=2C but then what is the namers rea= son for being there in the first place... oh So they can hit things with t= here 2 handed weapon right......... =20 Taking away the uniqueness of the namer being the only one to have counters= above 0=2C needs to be replaced with something else the namer can do that = other cant. =20 Cant seems to word this the way I want=2C but maybe you can at least get th= e gist of what im saying =20 =20 _________________________________________________________________ Want to be a Space Travel Agent? If it exists=2C you'll find it on SEEK http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639089/direct/01/= --_e158d87b-19f4-4b8e-9550-07a20ef388e0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style><!-- .hmmessage P { margin:0px=3B padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt=3B font-family:Verdana } --></style> </head> <body class=3D'hmmessage'> I would&nbsp=3Bgo for the non namers only&nbsp=3Bbeing able to cast rankabl= e out of college counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for nam= ers in parties. This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefeild a= nd suppressing enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive.<BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> TTFN<BR> Michael<BR>&nbsp=3B<BR> <HR id=3DstopSpelling> Date: Tue=2C 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200<BR>Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues= =2C was Counterspell proposal<BR>From: psyclone@darksoft.co.nz<BR>To: dq@dq= .sf.org.nz<BR><BR> <STYLE> .ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal=2C .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal=2C .Externa= lClass div.ecxMsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt=3Bfont-size:12.0pt=3Bfont-family:'Times New Roman'= =2C'serif'=3B} .ExternalClass a:link=2C .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink {color:blue=3Btext-decoration:underline=3B} .ExternalClass a:visited=2C .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple=3Btext-decoration:underline=3B} .ExternalClass span.ecxEmailStyle17 {font-family:'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif'=3Bcolor:#1F497D=3B} .ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault {=3B} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt=3B} .ExternalClass div.ecxWordSection1 {page:WordSection1=3B} </STYLE> <DIV class=3DecxWordSection1> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">I am not of the opinion that the na= mer is loosing anything in particular=2C other than there specific niche in= the game.&nbsp=3B The limitation (wether good or bad) on other Adepts rank= ing counters except there own=2C is what gives the namer a place in the ran= k of Adepts.</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">&nbsp=3B</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Since you can just cast a counter (= wether or not your a namer) to suppressed a ward.&nbsp=3B Every could in th= eory rank the counters and do the namer out of this.. may not be a complete= ly bad thing=2C but then what is the namers reason for being there in the f= irst place...&nbsp=3B oh So they can hit things with there 2 handed weapon = right.........</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">&nbsp=3B</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Taking away the uniqueness of the n= amer being the only one to have counters above 0=2C needs to be replaced wi= th something else the namer can do that other cant.</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">&nbsp=3B</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Cant seems to word this the way I w= ant=2C but maybe you can at least get the gist of what im saying</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">&nbsp=3B</SPAN></P> <P class=3DecxMsoNormal><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'=2C'sans-serif= '=3B COLOR: #1f497d=3B FONT-SIZE: 11pt">&nbsp=3B</SPAN></P></DIV> = <br /><hr />If it exists=2C you'll find it on SEEK <a href=3D'http://clk.= atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639089/direct/01/' target=3D'_new'>Want to be a Space T= ravel Agent?</a></body> </html>= --_e158d87b-19f4-4b8e-9550-07a20ef388e0_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Struan Judd
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:53:28 +1200
I second this idea. It also moves the "Ward Supression" option to being a Namer / Own college option. TTFN, Struan On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 13:47, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com> wrote: > I would�go for the non namers only�being able to cast rankable out of > college counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for namers in > parties. This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefeild and > suppressing enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive. > > TTFN > Michael > > ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200 > Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal > From: psyclone@darksoft.co.nz > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > I am not of the opinion that the namer is loosing anything in particular, > other than there specific niche in the game.� The limitation (wether good or > bad) on other Adepts ranking counters except there own, is what gives the > namer a place in the rank of Adepts. > > > > Since you can just cast a counter (wether or not your a namer) to suppressed > a ward.� Every could in theory rank the counters and do the namer out of > this.. may not be a completely bad thing, but then what is the namers reason > for being there in the first place...� oh So they can hit things with there > 2 handed weapon right......... > > > > Taking away the uniqueness of the namer being the only one to have counters > above 0, needs to be replaced with something else the namer can do that > other cant. > > > > Cant seems to word this the way I want, but maybe you can at least get the > gist of what im saying > > > > > > ________________________________ > If it exists, you'll find it on SEEK Want to be a Space Travel Agent? -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:07:44 +1200
--00c09f89973f0672a404891c3076 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Namers will not lose their role just because non-Namer Adepts would have greater range than they had before. This is primarily a combat option, and the fact that a Namer will be firing off a counterspell whenever they have an action means a non-Namer Adept would have to be desperate to attempt it. I prefer that the range component be unmodified. It means that the Namer isn't required to suppress wards or to deny enemy casters, but they are much the best choice. Removing or reducing the range component simply means that there is no choice, Namers MUST do this. I don't see how that can be good for the game. On 16 June 2010 13:53, Struan Judd <struan@scifi.geek.nz> wrote: > I second this idea. > > It also moves the "Ward Supression" option to being a Namer / Own > college option. > > TTFN, Struan > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 13:47, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > I would go for the non namers only being able to cast rankable out of > > college counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for namers in > > parties. This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefeild and > > suppressing enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive. > > > > TTFN > > Michael > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200 > > Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal > > From: psyclone@darksoft.co.nz > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > > > I am not of the opinion that the namer is loosing anything in particular, > > other than there specific niche in the game. The limitation (wether good > or > > bad) on other Adepts ranking counters except there own, is what gives the > > namer a place in the rank of Adepts. > > > > > > > > Since you can just cast a counter (wether or not your a namer) to > suppressed > > a ward. Every could in theory rank the counters and do the namer out of > > this.. may not be a completely bad thing, but then what is the namers > reason > > for being there in the first place... oh So they can hit things with > there > > 2 handed weapon right......... > > > > > > > > Taking away the uniqueness of the namer being the only one to have > counters > > above 0, needs to be replaced with something else the namer can do that > > other cant. > > > > > > > > Cant seems to word this the way I want, but maybe you can at least get > the > > gist of what im saying > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > If it exists, you'll find it on SEEK Want to be a Space Travel Agent? > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > --00c09f89973f0672a404891c3076 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Namers will not lose their role just beca= use non-Namer Adepts would have greater range than they had before. This is= primarily a combat option, and the fact that a Namer will be firing off a = counterspell whenever they have an action means a non-Namer Adept would hav= e to be desperate to attempt it.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I prefer that the range component be unmo= dified. It means that the Namer isn't required to suppress wards or to = deny enemy casters, but they are much the best choice. Removing or reducing= the range component simply means that there is no choice, Namers MUST do t= his. I don't see how that can be good for the game.</font><br> </div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 13:53, Struan Judd <span dir=3D"= ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:struan@scifi.geek.nz">struan@scifi.geek.nz</a>&g= t;</span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">I second this idea.<br><br>It al= so moves the "Ward Supression" option to being a Namer / Own<br> college option.<br><br>TTFN, Struan<br> <div> <div></div> <div class=3D"h5"><br>On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 13:47, Michael Scott <<a h= ref=3D"mailto:big_mac_kd@hotmail.com">big_mac_kd@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:= <br>> I would=A0go for the non namers only=A0being able to cast rankable= out of<br> > college counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for namers = in<br>> parties. This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefei= ld and<br>> suppressing enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive.= <br> ><br>> TTFN<br>> Michael<br>><br>> _________________________= _______<br>> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200<br>> Subject: Re: = [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal<br>> From: <a href=3D"mai= lto:psyclone@darksoft.co.nz">psyclone@darksoft.co.nz</a><br> > To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br>><br>= > I am not of the opinion that the namer is loosing anything in particul= ar,<br>> other than there specific niche in the game.=A0 The limitation = (wether good or<br> > bad) on other Adepts ranking counters except there own, is what gives = the<br>> namer a place in the rank of Adepts.<br>><br>><br>><br= >> Since you can just cast a counter (wether or not your a namer) to sup= pressed<br> > a ward.=A0 Every could in theory rank the counters and do the namer ou= t of<br>> this.. may not be a completely bad thing, but then what is the= namers reason<br>> for being there in the first place...=A0 oh So they = can hit things with there<br> > 2 handed weapon right.........<br>><br>><br>><br>> Taking = away the uniqueness of the namer being the only one to have counters<br>&gt= ; above 0, needs to be replaced with something else the namer can do that<b= r> > other cant.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Cant seems to word this th= e way I want, but maybe you can at least get the<br>> gist of what im sa= ying<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ______________________= __________<br> > If it exists, you'll find it on SEEK Want to be a Space Travel Age= nt?<br><br><br></div></div> <div> <div></div> <div class=3D"h5">-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-requ= est@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></div></div></blockquot= e></div><br> --00c09f89973f0672a404891c3076-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Michael Scott
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:08:43 +1200
--_cf91de31-469a-429d-b884-806e92c9ca2c_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This would only let him cast 2 spells as all the others are flavourless cel= estial. =20 Also how would having 3 branches cause an unbalance? While elemental has so= me of the nastier blast/combat magics there are spells in the other 2 branc= hes that will fuck over a party just as surely. =20 TTFN Michael =20 Date: Wed=2C 16 Jun 2010 12:16:09 +1200 Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal From: jim.arona@gmail.com To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz On reading your post=2C Hamish=2C I'm not sure you understand my point=2C H= amish. The in-game rationalisation is irrelevant. You can sit there all day= insisting that Celestials are Elementals but this is not pertinent to the = discussion at hand. It might be releveant if you were a living=2C breathing= Alusian magical research sage offering a lecture to students of magical th= eory. By my recollection=2C you are not=2C unless you have stopped taking your me= dication. That being the case=2C I agree with everything you say and I'm ca= lling the hospital. The reason=2C again=2C that I am treating the Celestial subgroup as a branc= h is so that there is a sensible reason to advance each of the 'branch' cou= nterspells vaguely equally. There is a difference=2C with such a change. If= a Celestial branch counterspell is put down=2C then it will protect agains= t only one of the celestial subgroups. So=2C a Namer could put a Solar Cele= stial SK counterspell in the same place that Gok is standing. Gok gains a M= R bonus to Solar Celestial magic=2C but can cast Shadow Celestial magic. On 16 June 2010 08:59=2C Hamish Brown <perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz> wrote: =20 _________________________________________________________________ Feeling the financial pinch? Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand http://money.msn.co.nz= --_cf91de31-469a-429d-b884-806e92c9ca2c_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style><!-- .hmmessage P { margin:0px=3B padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt=3B font-family:Verdana } --></style> </head> <body class=3D'hmmessage'> This would&nbsp=3Bonly let him cast 2 spells as all the others are flavourl= ess celestial.<BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> Also how would having 3 branches cause an unbalance? While elemental has so= me of the nastier blast/combat magics there are spells in the other 2 branc= hes that will fuck over a party just as surely.<BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> TTFN<BR> Michael<BR>&nbsp=3B<BR> <HR id=3DstopSpelling> Date: Wed=2C 16 Jun 2010 12:16:09 +1200<BR>Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell p= roposal<BR>From: jim.arona@gmail.com<BR>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><BR> <DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia=2Cserif>On reading your post=2C Hamish=2C I'm not= sure you understand my point=2C Hamish. The in-game rationalisation is irr= elevant. You can sit there all day insisting that Celestials are Elementals= but this is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. It might be releveant= if you were a living=2C breathing&nbsp=3BAlusian magical research sage off= ering a lecture to students of magical theory.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia=2Cserif>By my recollection=2C you are not=2C unle= ss you have stopped taking your medication.&nbsp=3BThat being the&nbsp=3Bca= se=2C I agree with everything you say and I'm calling the hospital.</FONT><= /DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia=2Cserif>The reason=2C again=2C&nbsp=3Bthat I am t= reating the Celestial subgroup as a branch is so that there is a sensible r= eason to advance each of the 'branch' counterspells vaguely equally. There = is a difference=2C with such a change. If a Celestial branch counterspell i= s put down=2C then it will protect against only one of the celestial subgro= ups. So=2C a Namer could put a Solar Celestial SK counterspell in the same = place that Gok is standing. Gok gains a MR bonus to Solar Celestial magic= =2C but can cast Shadow Celestial magic.</FONT></DIV> <DIV class=3Decxgmail_quote>On 16 June 2010 08:59=2C Hamish Brown <SPAN dir= =3Dltr>&lt=3B<A href=3D"mailto:perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz">perfect_brown@xtra= .co.nz</A>&gt=3B</SPAN> wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid=3B PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" clas= s=3Decxgmail_quote> <DIV lang=3DEN-US> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000080 face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp=3B</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQ= UOTE></DIV> <br /><hr />Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand <a href= =3D'http://money.msn.co.nz' target=3D'_new'>Feeling the financial pinch?</a= ></body> </html>= --_cf91de31-469a-429d-b884-806e92c9ca2c_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:12:13 +1200
--0016363b7e0414a74e04891c4046 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, but a counterspell applies to a small range. It is not the devastation in the colleges at issue but the spectrum that you can affect. The wider the spectrum, the more you effect. On 16 June 2010 14:08, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com> wrote: > This would only let him cast 2 spells as all the others are flavourless > celestial. > > Also how would having 3 branches cause an unbalance? While elemental has > some of the nastier blast/combat magics there are spells in the other 2 > branches that will fuck over a party just as surely. > > TTFN > Michael > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:16:09 +1200 > > Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal > From: jim.arona@gmail.com > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > On reading your post, Hamish, I'm not sure you understand my point, > Hamish. The in-game rationalisation is irrelevant. You can sit there all day > insisting that Celestials are Elementals but this is not pertinent to the > discussion at hand. It might be releveant if you were a living, > breathing Alusian magical research sage offering a lecture to students of > magical theory. > By my recollection, you are not, unless you have stopped taking your > medication. That being the case, I agree with everything you say and I'm > calling the hospital. > The reason, again, that I am treating the Celestial subgroup as a branch is > so that there is a sensible reason to advance each of the 'branch' > counterspells vaguely equally. There is a difference, with such a change. If > a Celestial branch counterspell is put down, then it will protect against > only one of the celestial subgroups. So, a Namer could put a Solar Celestial > SK counterspell in the same place that Gok is standing. Gok gains a MR bonus > to Solar Celestial magic, but can cast Shadow Celestial magic. > On 16 June 2010 08:59, Hamish Brown <perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > ------------------------------ > Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand Feeling the financial pinch?<http://money.msn.co.nz/> > --0016363b7e0414a74e04891c4046 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <font face=3D"georgia,serif">Yes, but a counterspell applies to a small ran= ge. It is not the devastation in the colleges at issue but the spectrum tha= t you can affect. The wider the spectrum, the more you effect. <br></font><= br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 14:08, Michael Scott <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:big_mac_kd@hotmail.com">big_mac_kd@hotmail.c= om</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div>This would=A0only let him cast 2 spells as all the others are flavourl= ess celestial.<br>=A0<br>Also how would having 3 branches cause an unbalanc= e? While elemental has some of the nastier blast/combat magics there are sp= ells in the other 2 branches that will fuck over a party just as surely.<br= > =A0<br>TTFN<br>Michael<br>=A0<br> <hr> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:16:09 +1200=20 <div class=3D"im"><br>Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal<br></div>From= : <a href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.= com</a>=20 <div class=3D"im"><br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_bla= nk">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br><br></div> <div class=3D"im"> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">On reading your post, Hamish, I'm not= sure you understand my point, Hamish. The in-game rationalisation is irrel= evant. You can sit there all day insisting that Celestials are Elementals b= ut this is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. It might be releveant i= f you were a living, breathing=A0Alusian magical research sage offering a l= ecture to students of magical theory.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">By my recollection, you are not, unless y= ou have stopped taking your medication.=A0That being the=A0case, I agree wi= th everything you say and I'm calling the hospital.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">The reason, again,=A0that I am treating t= he Celestial subgroup as a branch is so that there is a sensible reason to = advance each of the 'branch' counterspells vaguely equally. There i= s a difference, with such a change. If a Celestial branch counterspell is p= ut down, then it will protect against only one of the celestial subgroups. = So, a Namer could put a Solar Celestial SK counterspell in the same place t= hat Gok is standing. Gok gains a MR bonus to Solar Celestial magic, but can= cast Shadow Celestial magic.</font></div> <div>On 16 June 2010 08:59, Hamish Brown <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m= ailto:perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz" target=3D"_blank">perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz<= /a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"> <div lang=3D"EN-US"> <div><font color=3D"#000080" face=3D"Arial"></font>=A0</div></div></blockqu= ote></div><br></div> <div class=3D"hm"> <hr> Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand <a href=3D"http://money.msn.co.nz/" target= =3D"_blank">Feeling the financial pinch?</a></div></div></blockquote></div>= <br> --0016363b7e0414a74e04891c4046-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Andrew Withy
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:18:27 +1200
Counterspells are currently used by non-Namers to stop Phantasm, Spectral Warrior, and Nightmare. Limiting non-Namers to entity targets only would remove this feature, which is a reason why people have these CSs. This seems like a down-side to consider. We appear to be creating two distinct classes of counterspell here. The more we split them, the more we should consider non-Namers having a different spell, not the same spell with different effects. Regards Andrew -----Original Message----- I second this idea. It also moves the "Ward Supression" option to being a Namer / Own college option. TTFN, Struan On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 13:47, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com> wrote: > I would�go for the non namers only�being able to cast rankable out of > college counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for namers in > parties. This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefeild and > suppressing enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive. > > TTFN > Michael > > ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200 > Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal > From: psyclone@darksoft.co.nz > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > I am not of the opinion that the namer is loosing anything in particular, > other than there specific niche in the game.� The limitation (wether good or > bad) on other Adepts ranking counters except there own, is what gives the > namer a place in the rank of Adepts. > > > > Since you can just cast a counter (wether or not your a namer) to suppressed > a ward.� Every could in theory rank the counters and do the namer out of > this.. may not be a completely bad thing, but then what is the namers reason > for being there in the first place...� oh So they can hit things with there > 2 handed weapon right......... > > > > Taking away the uniqueness of the namer being the only one to have counters > above 0, needs to be replaced with something else the namer can do that > other cant. > > > > Cant seems to word this the way I want, but maybe you can at least get the > gist of what im saying > > > > > > ________________________________ > If it exists, you'll find it on SEEK Want to be a Space Travel Agent? -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Struan Judd
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:23:49 +1200
Doh! Between this and Jim's reasoned arguments, I now realise this is a bad idea. "Area target for everyone" TTFN, Struan On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 14:18, Andrew Withy <awithy@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > Counterspells are currently used by non-Namers to stop Phantasm, Spectral > Warrior, and Nightmare. Limiting non-Namers to entity targets only would > remove this feature, which is a reason why people have these CSs. This seems > like a down-side to consider. We appear to be creating two distinct classes > of counterspell here. The more we split them, the more we should consider > non-Namers having a different spell, not the same spell with different > effects. > > Regards > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > I second this idea. > > It also moves the "Ward Supression" option to being a Namer / Own > college option. > > TTFN, Struan > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 13:47, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I would�go for the non namers only�being able to cast rankable out of >> college counters on people not areas thus ensuring a place for namers in >> parties. This lets namers focus more on controling the battlefeild and >> suppressing enemy mages than trying to keep the chaff alive. >> >> TTFN >> Michael >> >> ________________________________ >> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:38:31 +1200 >> Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal >> From: psyclone@darksoft.co.nz >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> >> I am not of the opinion that the namer is loosing anything in particular, >> other than there specific niche in the game.� The limitation (wether good > or >> bad) on other Adepts ranking counters except there own, is what gives the >> namer a place in the rank of Adepts. >> >> >> >> Since you can just cast a counter (wether or not your a namer) to > suppressed >> a ward.� Every could in theory rank the counters and do the namer out of >> this.. may not be a completely bad thing, but then what is the namers > reason >> for being there in the first place...� oh So they can hit things with > there >> 2 handed weapon right......... >> >> >> >> Taking away the uniqueness of the namer being the only one to have > counters >> above 0, needs to be replaced with something else the namer can do that >> other cant. >> >> >> >> Cant seems to word this the way I want, but maybe you can at least get the >> gist of what im saying >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> If it exists, you'll find it on SEEK Want to be a Space Travel Agent? > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:25:40 +1200
--001636c9329830799b04891c7051 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Why not use lower MR for non namers. This is kind of building on remove curse which namers are better at than everyone else. This isn't weakening everyone else. We're giving them a new ability its just not as good as namers are. For example something like give them half the range and 10% lower base chance to cast them (possibly only if they're not from the same branch of magic) and make them 20 + 2 per rank instead of the normal MR. These numbers are just examples and people who know more about balance should adjust them as they see fit. With the proposal for making them by branch doesn't that mean since all standard PC mages are from a branch that they can rank that whole branch like a namer in any case? People say we need to be objective here but I would like to hear a little more from people who play namers on how they think any of the proposed changes will effect them. Might give us fresh insites. Dylan --001636c9329830799b04891c7051 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><br>Why not use lower MR for non namers. This is kind of building on r= emove curse which namers are better at than everyone else. This isn't w= eakening everyone else. We're giving them a new ability its just not as= good as namers are. For example something like give them half the range an= d 10% lower base chance to cast them (possibly only if they're not from= the same branch of magic) and make them 20 + 2 per rank instead of the nor= mal MR. These numbers are just examples and people who know more about bala= nce should adjust them as they see fit.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>With the proposal for making them by branch doesn't that mean sinc= e all standard PC mages are from a branch that they can rank that whole bra= nch like a namer in any case?</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>People say we need to be objective here but I would like to hear a lit= tle more from people who play namers on how they think any of the proposed = changes will effect them. Might give us fresh insites.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>Dylan</div> --001636c9329830799b04891c7051-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:58:05 +1200
--001636c927a11f80dc04891ce49d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I have about 20 colleges generals and specials at 6. This has taken me 20 days times 21 which is 420 days. While people might debate if rank 6 is low or the very bottom end of medium I doubt anyone would say its high. To get them all to ten would be 1100 days. Thats over 3 years. One per school might be better but two per branch might be too few. With two per branch and only 4 branches thats 105 days per branch with my current ranking which means I'd have rank 14 in each already. My range and duration would be huge. I'd probably rank dispel and banish to 20 and pretty much cast counterspells every round for every combat. It would change not only what I could do as a namer but what people would want from a namer. If they're too focused then people will only want that from them and they'll become too generic or else seen as failures. On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Dean Ellis <deangellis@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and > comment on such from my perspective. > > 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? > 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? > 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, > but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? > > 1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in the > book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the time. It > is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is part > and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at least > partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a > few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering > of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a > differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like the > idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackled. > > 2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can only > have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. The > duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and often > then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The current > bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the > nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR > covering a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs > one college? Both have their pros and cons > > 3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cspells > to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I think is > to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strengths. Even > if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations to their > credit: > Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat > General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can > get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA. > Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given > spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful > overall > > I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see > a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended duration, > slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever > scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion > > My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-) > > Dean > > > > > ------------------------------ > From: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Sent: Tue, June 15, 2010 11:29:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal > > I think most of the Namers have been standing well clear, actually. > Rosemary asked (basically) what was broken that it needed to be fixed, and > my position is this. > A counterspell can be learnt by any Adept. When it is used, it increases > Magic Resistance by at least 30 against one college and one body of > knowledge. This is a huge bonus. My proposal is to reduce the nett Magic > Resistance offered by a counterspell to 10 + 1/Rank but to allow Adepts to > Rank counterspells by college and body of knowledge. > To mitigate against this, Namers Rank counterspells by branch and body of > knowledge, a branch defined as being Thaumaturgy, Elemental, Celestial and > Entity magic. For example, they cast their Elemental Special Knowledge > counterspell and Name the college to be affected as Fire (this is my > revision of Jono's notion, which I like). > So, to recapitulate the revised proposal: > > For non-Namers, there are two differences. > > 1. Out of college counterspells are rankable as if they were Special > Knowledge spells > 2. The bonus to Magic Resistance with respect to the College and body > of knowledge is 10 +1/Rank. > > For Namers, the differences are > > 1. They no longer have college counterspells, instead they have > counterspells that affect branches, i.e.Thaumaturgy, Elemental, Celestial, > and Entity. This means that they will have 8 counterspells. > 2. The college to be affected by the branch counterspell is identified > on casting by the Namer. > 3. The bonus to Magic Resistance with respect to the Branch and body of > knowledge is 10+1/Rank. > > With regard to non-standard colleges, like William's Dimensional Weaving, > then either we use the current mechanic or we come up with something new. I > don't see that there is a problem with this, although I might be missing > something. > > > On 15 June 2010 09:06, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Have angry over-worked Namers been spamming the list? :) (I'm still >> trying to understand the business requirement for this, if you'll pardon the >> term). >> >> If we did want to reduce the CS load on Namers, but retain college >> specificity, and still offer them a bonus over non-Namers then collapsing >> the 2xCS per College to 1 CS per would do it. >> >> (Especially since in many cases the GK counter is pretty pointless... and >> where it isn't the SK may be). >> >> Namers: 1 CS per with a decent bonus (and Quick-casting), and current >> rules for acquiring at effective Rk 0. >> Everyone else: 2 CS per with smaller bonus, and normal learning and >> ranking rules. >> >> Implementation details left as an exercise to the developers... I'm a >> business analyst). :) >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> > > > --001636c927a11f80dc04891ce49d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div>I have about 20 colleges generals and specials at 6. This has taken me= 20 days times 21 which is 420 days. While people might debate if rank 6 is= low or the very bottom end of medium I doubt anyone would say its high. To= get them all to ten would be 1100 days. Thats over 3 years. One per school= might be better but two per branch might be too few. With=A0two per branch= and only 4 branches thats 105 days per branch with my current ranking whic= h means I'd have rank 14 in each already. My range and duration would b= e huge. I'd probably rank dispel and banish to 20 and pretty much cast = counterspells every round for every combat. It would change not only what I= could do as a namer but what people would want from a namer. If they'r= e too focused then people will only want that from them and they'll bec= ome too generic or else seen as failures.<br> </div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Dean Ellis <spa= n dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:deangellis@yahoo.com">deangellis@yahoo.= com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <div> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, time= s, serif"> <div>I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contention, and= comment on such from my perspective.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>1. Are there are too many Counterspells?</div> <div>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?</div> <div>3.=A0Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non na= mers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges i= n the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the tim= e. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is = part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at le= ast partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have= a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A loweri= ng of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less = of a differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and lik= e the idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackle= d.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can= only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have o= n. The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and = often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The curre= nt bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this th= e nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR cove= ring a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one = college? Both have their pros and cons</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cs= pells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I thi= nk is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strength= s. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations = to their credit:</div> <div>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat</div> <div>General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they = can get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA.</div> <div>Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better g= iven spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerfu= l overall</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like t= o see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended durat= ion, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with what= ever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-)</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>Dean</div> <div><br>=A0</div> <div>=A0</div> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, time= s, serif"><br> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, time= s, serif"><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"> <hr size=3D"1"> <b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Jim Arona <<a href= =3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&g= t;=20 <div class=3D"im"><br><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <= a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br>= </div><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Tue, June 15, 2= 010 11:29:37 AM=20 <div class=3D"im"><br><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span><= /b> Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal<br></div></font> <div class=3D"im"><br> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I think most of the Namers have been stan= ding well clear, actually.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Rosemary asked (basically) what was broke= n that it needed to be fixed, and my position is this.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">A counterspell can be learnt by any Adept= . When it is used, it increases Magic Resistance by at least 30 against one= college and one body of knowledge. This is a huge bonus. My proposal is to= reduce the nett Magic Resistance offered by a counterspell to 10 + 1/Rank = but to allow Adepts to Rank counterspells by college and body of knowledge.= </font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">To mitigate against this, Namers Rank cou= nterspells by branch and body of knowledge, a branch defined as being Thaum= aturgy, Elemental, Celestial and Entity magic. For example,=A0they cast the= ir Elemental Special Knowledge counterspell and=A0Name the college to be af= fected as Fire (this is my revision of Jono's notion, which I like). </= font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">So, to recapitulate the revised proposal:= </font></div> <div>=A0</div> <div>For non-Namers, there are two differences. </div> <ol> <li>Out of college counterspells are rankable as if they were Special Knowl= edge spells</li> <li>The bonus to Magic Resistance with respect to the College and body of k= nowledge is 10 +1/Rank.</li></ol> <div>For Namers, the differences are</div> <ol> <li>They no longer have college counterspells, instead they have counterspe= lls that affect branches, i.e.Thaumaturgy, Elemental, Celestial, and Entity= . This means that they will have 8=A0 counterspells. </li> <li>The college to be affected by the branch counterspell is=A0identified o= n casting by the Namer.</li> <li>The bonus to Magic Resistance with respect to the Branch and body of kn= owledge is 10+1/Rank.</li></ol> <p>With regard to non-standard colleges, like William's Dimensional Wea= ving, then either we use the current mechanic or we come up with something = new. I don't see that there is a problem with this, although I might be= missing something.</p> <div>=A0</div> <div>=A0</div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 15 June 2010 09:06, Martin Dickson <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" = rel=3D"nofollow">martin.dickson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Have angry over-worked Namers be= en spamming the list?=A0 :)=A0 (I'm still trying to understand the busi= ness requirement for this, if you'll pardon the term).<br> <br>If we did want to reduce the CS load on Namers, but retain college spec= ificity, and still offer them a bonus over non-Namers then collapsing the 2= xCS per College to 1 CS per would do it.<br><br>(Especially since in many c= ases the GK counter is pretty pointless... and where it isn't the SK ma= y be).<br> <br>Namers: 1 CS per with a decent bonus (and Quick-casting), and current r= ules for acquiring at effective Rk 0. <br>Everyone else: 2 CS per with smal= ler bonus, and normal learning and ranking rules.<br><br>Implementation det= ails left as an exercise to the developers... I'm a business analyst). = :)<br> <br>Cheers,<br><font color=3D"#888888">Martin<br></font></blockquote></div>= <br></div></div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br> --001636c927a11f80dc04891ce49d-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Greg Graydon
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 03:13:49 +0000
--_000_3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66738353BEAGVW1154EXBame_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Coming at it the other way... Counter spells used on a character add to ma= gic resistance, but do nothing to counter the effects of incoming spells. 2. Roger the barbarian has no counterspell on, but he resists the rank 20 drag= on flames takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue Bob the illusionist has a rank 0 counterspell on and he also resists, takes= 32 damage and wipes his fatigue Simon the namer has a rank 20 counterspell on and also resists, takes 32 da= mage and wipes his fatigue What benefit the rank 20? Still took 32 damage. If the spell had been dou= ble damage they may all have died. 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, b= ut in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? 1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in the= book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the time. It= is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is part = and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at least p= artially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a fe= w at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering of= the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a = differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like the= idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackled. 2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can only= have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. Th= e duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and often= then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The current bo= nus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the nat= ure of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR covering = a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one colle= ge? Both have their pros and cons 3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cspells= to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I think is= to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strengths. Ev= en if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations to th= eir credit: Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can g= et a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA. Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given = spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful ove= rall I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to see= a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended duration, = slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with whatever = scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-) Dean ________________________________ From: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com<mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz> Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do with t= he degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial branch = counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more signif= icance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers will choos= e to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance reaso= n. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that the= y are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for a= ll of their similarity, these subgroups are. These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and = no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are br= eeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is ju= st a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar colle= ge, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the way it = is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps shoul= d not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the day,= we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four different s= ubgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 i= n Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater = Summoning is not a pc option). My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but with = Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elemen= tals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the effec= t on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an imagi= nary world, who cares? On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:nevyn0a= d@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote: What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are rel= evant. Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage f= rom another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast with r= eversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary differe= nce is cast chances at time of day. They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less t= han other colleges in the game. They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual. = Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges th= at are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a result. On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of several= other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her Radiance ver= sion of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The various rune ve= rsions floating about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest).= Mind has at least one variation I know of also. So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as= it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets significant= ly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two = proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. From Bernard Hoggins nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk<mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> --_000_3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66738353BEAGVW1154EXBame_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" 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=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.17023" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010>Coming at it the other way...  Counter spel= ls used=20 on a character add to magic resistance, but do nothing to counter the effec= ts of=20 incoming spells.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010>2.  </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010>Roger the barbarian has no counterspell on,= but he=20 resists the rank 20 dragon flames takes 32 damage and wipes his=20 fatigue</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010>Bob the illusionist has a rank 0 counterspell on= and he=20 also resists, takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010>Simon the namer has a rank 20 counterspell on an= d also=20 resists, takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010>What benefit the rank 20?  Still took 32=20 damage.  If the spell had been double damage they may all have=20 died.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SP= AN=20 class=3D127455602-16062010></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote> <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc = 1px solid"> <DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times= , serif"> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV>1. Are there are too many Counterspells?</DIV> <DIV>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high?</DIV> <DIV>3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by= non=20 namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleg= es in=20 the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the t= ime.=20 It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is= part=20 and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at lea= st=20 partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have= a=20 few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lower= ing=20 of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less= of a=20 differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like= the=20 idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackled.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people= can=20 only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to hav= e on.=20 The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and= =20 often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The=20 current bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so i= s=20 this the nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increa= sed=20 MR covering a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big = hit=20 vs one college? Both have their pros and cons</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank = 0=20 Cspells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning= I=20 think is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their=20 strengths. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these=20 differentations to their credit:</DIV> <DIV>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat</DIV> <DIV><SPAN>General Knowledge</SPAN> - Only good for decent MA namers, b= ut at=20 least they can get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count agains= t=20 MA.</DIV> <DIV>Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is bett= er=20 given spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more=20 powerful overall</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would li= ke to=20 see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended=20 duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit = with=20 whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion<= /DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-)</D= IV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dean</DIV><BR></DIV></DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times= , serif"><BR> <DIV=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times= , serif"><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma size=3D2> <DIV> <HR SIZE=3D1> <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Jim Arona <<A= =20 href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com"=20 target=3D_blank>jim.arona@gmail.com</A>><BR></DIV> <DIV><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> <A=20 href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz"=20 target=3D_blank>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A><BR></DIV><B><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:3= 9 AM=20 <DIV><BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [= dq]=20 Counterspell proposal<BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR> <DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>The reason for a Celestial branch of=20 counterspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its=20 subgroups. The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that th= e=20 elemental counterspells do not gain more significance than the others.= =20 Because, were that the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branc= h=20 over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append a= n=20 in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that they are a separate= =20 branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for all of their=20 similarity, these subgroups are. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>These colleges are not real. There is n= o=20 evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy= of=20 the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirel= y=20 different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake.=20 Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to se= e the=20 Star college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments some= what=20 like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acqu= ired=20 unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we= =20 might choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we= =20 currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including= =20 Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a p= c=20 option).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>My suggestion is that we leave them pre= tty=20 much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. T= hus,=20 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities= .=20 Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on = a=20 given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who=20 cares?</FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <SPAN=20 dir=3Dltr><<A href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D_blank=20 rel=3Dnofollow>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #cc= c 1px solid"> <TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 border=3D0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD vAlign=3Dtop>What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial=20 thing.<BR>To pull out some numbers.  Since this is a rules= =20 change and numbers are relevant.<BR>Every Celestial Mage can le= arn=20 all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage from another branch= =20 has.  Though certain of the other spells are cast with rev= ersed=20 light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.  Primar= y=20 difference is cast chances at time of day.<BR>They have a total= =20 between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.  Les= s=20 than other colleges in the game.<BR>They have a total between a= ll=20 the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.  Again, far le= ss=20 than a great many of the other colleges have.<BR><BR>So even=20 allowing for all the different branches there are other college= s=20 that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adept= s as=20 a result.<BR><BR>On people creating other branches of Celestial= , the=20 same is true of several other colleges as well, or related=20 colleges.  Flamis with her Radiance version of fire for a= =20 start.  Sooty with his Ash Version.  The various rune= =20 versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled t= o the=20 latest).  Mind has at least one variation I know of=20 also.<BR><BR>So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reas= ons=20 to treat Celestial as it is written & played now as a separ= ate=20 branch.  If this gets significantly changed in the future,= =20 that's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is g= oing=20 to create a lot of confusion also.=20 <DIV><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<BR><A=20 href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D_blank=20 rel=3Dnofollow>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</A><BR></DIV></TD></TR></TB= ODY></TABLE><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>= <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> --_000_3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66738353BEAGVW1154EXBame_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:19:03 +1200
--001636c927a114620d04891d2fba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 While it might not make my party happy I'd rank the Thaumaturgies counterspell before the elemental one. I was mind controlled 6 adventures in 2 years and ended up returning home from one adventure hanging from the mast tied to the top wrapped in metal wire. The elemental mages have never scared me as much as the mind college. In fact just that one spell could have its own counterspell and it'd still be my highest. --001636c927a114620d04891d2fba Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <br>While it might not make my party happy I'd rank the Thaumaturgies c= ounterspell before the elemental one. I was mind controlled 6 adventures in= 2 years and ended up returning home from one adventure hanging from the ma= st tied to the top wrapped in metal wire. The elemental mages have never sc= ared me as much as the mind college. In fact just that one spell could have= its own counterspell and it'd still be my highest. --001636c927a114620d04891d2fba-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:23:53 +1200
--0016e68fcde755d41a04891d401e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 A wish I had let me make a second resistance if I made the first. It completely negated spells that had an effect if I saved. I used it at the winter games a few times and people generaly prefered my counterspells to those of higher rank. Maybe some variation of this could be looked at. Maybe it could be gained once you're a certain level as a free action with the counter spell. A little like summon elemental lets you immedietly cast control elemental. It could be a special knowledge for namers. On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Graydon <greg.graydon@hp.com> wrote: > Coming at it the other way... Counter spells used on a character add to > magic resistance, but do nothing to counter the effects of incoming spells. > 2. > Roger the barbarian has no counterspell on, but he resists the rank 20 > dragon flames takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue > Bob the illusionist has a rank 0 counterspell on and he also resists, takes > 32 damage and wipes his fatigue > Simon the namer has a rank 20 counterspell on and also resists, takes 32 > damage and wipes his fatigue > > What benefit the rank 20? Still took 32 damage. If the spell had been > double damage they may all have died. > > > > > > > 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? >> 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? >> 3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, >> but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? >> >> 1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in >> the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the time. >> It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is part >> and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at least >> partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a >> few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering >> of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a >> differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and like the >> idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackled. >> >> 2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can >> only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. >> The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and >> often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The >> current bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is >> this the nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased >> MR covering a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit >> vs one college? Both have their pros and cons >> >> 3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 >> Cspells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I >> think is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their >> strengths. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these >> differentations to their credit: >> Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat >> General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can >> get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA. >> Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given >> spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful >> overall >> >> I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like to >> see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended >> duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with >> whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion >> >> My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-) >> >> Dean >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal >> >> The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to do >> with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestial >> branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain more >> significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers will >> choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a balance >> reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being that >> they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say that for >> all of their similarity, these subgroups are. >> These colleges are not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and >> no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are >> breeds or species or members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is >> just a game, for Heaven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar >> college, and I would like to see the Star college quite different to the way >> it is now. I made comments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps >> should not have, since it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the >> day, we have 16 colleges, which we might choose to divide into four >> different subgroups. As it happens, we currently have 6 colleges in >> Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) and 4 in the entities >> (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option). >> My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way they are, but with >> Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in >> Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the >> effect on the game, not the effect on a given rationalisation of it. In an >> imaginary world, who cares? >> On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing. >>> To pull out some numbers. Since this is a rules change and numbers are >>> relevant. >>> Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage >>> from another branch has. Though certain of the other spells are cast with >>> reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell. Primary >>> difference is cast chances at time of day. >>> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual. Less >>> than other colleges in the game. >>> They have a total between all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 >>> Ritual. Again, far less than a great many of the other colleges have. >>> >>> So even allowing for all the different branches there are other colleges >>> that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a >>> result. >>> >>> On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is true of >>> several other colleges as well, or related colleges. Flamis with her >>> Radiance version of fire for a start. Sooty with his Ash Version. The >>> various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settled >>> to the latest). Mind has at least one variation I know of also. >>> >>> So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial >>> as it is written & played now as a separate branch. If this gets >>> significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but mixing >>> up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also. >>> >>> >>> From Bernard Hoggins >>> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > --0016e68fcde755d41a04891d401e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A wish I had let me make a second resistance if I made the first. It comple= tely negated spells that had an effect if I saved. I used it at the winter = games a few times and people generaly prefered my counterspells to those of= higher rank. Maybe some variation of this could be looked at. Maybe it cou= ld be gained once you're a certain level as a free action with the coun= ter spell. A little like summon elemental lets you immedietly cast control = elemental. It could be a special knowledge for namers.<br> <br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Greg Graydon <s= pan dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:greg.graydon@hp.com">greg.graydon@hp.= com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span>Coming at it the other way...=A0 Counter spells used on a char= acter add to magic resistance, but do nothing to counter the effects of inc= oming spells.</span></font></div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span>2.=A0 </span></font></div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span>Roger the barbarian has=A0no counterspell on, but he resists t= he rank 20 dragon flames takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue</span></font= ></div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span>Bob the illusionist has a rank 0 counterspell on and he also r= esists, takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue</span></font></div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span>Simon the namer has a rank 20 counterspell on and also resists= , takes 32 damage and wipes his fatigue</span></font></div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span></span></font>=A0</div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span>What benefit the rank 20?=A0 Still took 32 damage.=A0 If the s= pell had been double damage they may all have died.</span></font></div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span></span></font>=A0</div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span></span></font>=A0</div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span></span></font>=A0</div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span></span></font>=A0</div> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size= =3D"2"><span></span></font>=A0</div> <blockquote style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <div class=3D"gmail_quote"> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <div> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, time= s, serif"> <div class=3D"im"> <div> <div> <div>1. Are there are too many Counterspells?</div> <div>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?</div> <div>3.=A0Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non na= mers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges i= n the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all the tim= e. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is = part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, all at le= ast partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have= a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A loweri= ng of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and create less = of a differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept, and lik= e the idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackle= d.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>2. The bonus is quite large, but reasonably warranted. Most people can= only have one, and often there is a lot of doubt as to which one to have o= n. The duration is short, making it a pre buff only for known combats, and = often then there is still guesswork as to the best one to put on. The curre= nt bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for that one college, so is this th= e nature of the problem? Do we want smaller increments of increased MR cove= ring a larger area of colleges vs the current system of one big hit vs one = college? Both have their pros and cons</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of Rank 0 Cs= pells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reasoning I thi= nk is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of their strength= s. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differentations = to their credit:</div> <div>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more useful in combat</div> <div><span>General Knowledge</span> - Only good for decent MA namers, but a= t least they can get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against = MA.</div> <div>Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better g= iven spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerfu= l overall</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but would like t= o see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Extended durat= ion, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fit with what= ever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussion</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-)</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>Dean</div><br></div></div></div> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, time= s, serif"><br> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, time= s, serif"><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2"> <div class=3D"im"> <div> <hr size=3D"1"> <b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</span></b> Jim Arona <<a href= =3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&g= t;<br></div> <div><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</span></b> <a href=3D"mailto:= dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br></div></div><b><s= pan style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</span></b> Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:3= 9 AM=20 <div class=3D"im"> <div><br><b><span style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] = Counterspell proposal<br></div></div></font> <div> <div></div> <div><br> <div class=3D"im"> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">The reason for a Celestial branch of coun= terspells has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. = The reason for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental cou= nterspells do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were tha= t the case, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies = or Entities. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisati= on for this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't= have to. We can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgrou= ps are. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">These colleges are not real. There is no = evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a taxonomy of = the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of entirely di= fferent orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. Persona= lly, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see the Star = college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewhat like= this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acquired unw= arranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we might = choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we currently= have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celestial) an= d 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).</font>= </div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">My suggestion is that we leave them prett= y much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thu= s, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities.= Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effect on=A0a give= n=A0rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who cares?</font><br> </div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 15 June 2010 22:31, Bernard Hoggins <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank" rel= =3D"nofollow">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign=3D"top">What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thing.<= br>To pull out some numbers.=A0 Since this is a rules change and numbers ar= e relevant.<br>Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spells any c= elestial mage from another branch has.=A0 Though certain of the other spell= s are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the same spell.= =A0 Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<br> They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.=A0 = Less than other colleges in the game.<br>They have a total between all the = branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.=A0 Again, far less than a great man= y of the other colleges have.<br> <br>So even allowing for all the different branches there are other college= s that are far larger, and allow for more variation between adepts as a res= ult.<br><br>On people creating other branches of Celestial, the same is tru= e of several other colleges as well, or related colleges.=A0 Flamis with he= r Radiance version of fire for a start.=A0 Sooty with his Ash Version.=A0 T= he various rune versions floating about in play (unless they have all settl= ed to the latest).=A0 Mind has at least one variation I know of also.<br> <br>So all up, I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to treat Cele= stial as it is written & played now as a separate branch.=A0 If this ge= ts significantly changed in the future, that's a different matter, but = mixing up the two proposals is going to create a lot of confusion also.=20 <div><br><br>From Bernard Hoggins<br><a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk= " target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</a><br></div></td= ></tr></tbody></table><br>=A0</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div= ></div> </div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></di= v><br> --0016e68fcde755d41a04891d401e-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Dean Ellis
Date	Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
--0-187713177-1276658870=:41256 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know there is more behind your proposal than the below, but in answer to = this response, I believe it raises yet another area of contention. There ar= e some wonderfully flavoursome spells out there that just never get used, f= or both the reasons listed below, and the fact that often there are just pl= ain far better options available. While lowering MR would indeed make the m= ath better for use of these 'lost' spells, unfortunately it has the flow on= effect of making the already more powerful option, well, more powerful :-)= This area of contention is probably only ever fixed if we 'equalise' the s= pells in some manner to create a 'tool box' effect, rather than the current= 'one trick pony, but boy it hurts'. This is obviously completely outside t= his discussion, but it is interesting in regard to the flow on effect you a= re after.=0A=0ADean=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jim= Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com>=0ATo: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=0ASent: Wed, June 16, 20= 10 12:34:43 PM=0ASubject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal=0A=0A=0AI did read= it, Dean. =0AI am in agreement with Hamish that the bonus is just too high= , for all that it only covers a narrow range of magic. A sensible evil Necr= omancer will not use Hand of Death, because it is entirely resistable, unle= ss they have=A0a version of the spell which has some resistance-defeating w= rinkle. This spell never gets used for all of its colour, and the reason is= that with a counterspell, even at low level, a pc has a respectable chance= of ignoring the effects entirely. Given a cast chance of 70%, and a MR of = 15(+30 from Necro SK counterspell), the chance of the spell failing or bein= g avoided is 69%. It may be that Necromancers don't sully themselves with a= rithmetic, but they'll have some undead thing bound to perform these functi= ons for them.=0A=0AOn 16 June 2010 08:30, Dean Ellis <deangellis@yahoo.com>= wrote:=0A=0AHi All,=0A>=0A>I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to= have sent correctly, so apologies if it has indeed been seen already.....= =0A>=0A>=0A>I am going to try and boil this down to three areas of contenti= on, and comment on such from my perspective.=0A>=0A>1. Are there are too ma= ny Counterspells?=0A>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?=0A>3.= =A0Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, b= ut in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?=0A>=0A>1. I do find the number= of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 colleges in the book, plus at least a = dozen extras, with more cropping up all the time. It is a lot to keep track= of, and a lot to rank, but in some ways it is part and parcel of being a n= amer. The good ones have all of them, all at least partially ranked, some h= ighly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabrina, have a few at low ranks, a lot a= t 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. A lowering of the number would tend = to favour the mediocre namers, and create less of a differentiation between= the types. While I favour the concept, and like the idea of 'branch' cspel= ls, such issues would need to be tackled.=0A>=0A>2. The bonus is quite larg= e, but reasonably warranted. Most people can only have one, and often there= is a lot of doubt as to which one to have on. The duration is short, makin= g it a pre buff only for known combats, and often then there is still guess= work as to the best one to put on. The current bonus puts most people over = 100% MR, for that one college, so is this the nature of the problem? Do we = want smaller increments of increased MR covering a larger area of colleges = vs the current system of one big hit vs one college? Both have their pros a= nd cons=0A>=0A>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow the learning of= Rank 0 Cspells to non namers, but not allow the ranking thereof. The reaso= ning I think is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking away one of thei= r strengths. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of these differ= entations to their credit:=0A>Quick Cast - 1 action faster, much more usefu= l in combat=0A>General Knowledge - Only good for decent MA namers, but at l= east they can get a discount. Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA.= =0A>Associated Abilities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better gi= ven spells like banishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful= overall=0A>=0A>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking, but w= ould like to see a further differentiation between namer and non namer. Ext= ended duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which could fi= t with whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells discussi= on=0A>=0A>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it was better than loose change :-)= =0A>=0A>Dean=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jim= Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com>=0A>=0A>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=0A>Sent: Wed, June = 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM =0A>=0A>Subject: Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal=0A>=0A= >=0A>=0A>The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspells has nothing to = do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The reason for a Celestia= l branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspells do not gain mo= re significance than the others. Because, were that the case, then Namers w= ill choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Entities. It is a bala= nce reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for this, my own being= that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. We can simply say t= hat for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. =0A>These colleges ar= e not real. There is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly e= ngages in a taxonomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or species o= r members of entirely different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for He= aven's sake. Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would l= ike to see the Star college quite different to the way it is now. I made co= mments somewhat like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since= it has acquired unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colle= ges, which we might choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it h= appens, we currently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (inc= luding Celestial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not = a pc option).=0A>My suggestion is that we leave them pretty much the way th= ey are, but with Celestial as a branch, not a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumatur= gies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and 4 in Entities. Please, let us f= ocus on the effect on the game, not the effect on=A0a given=A0rationalisati= on of it. In an imaginary world, who cares?=0A>=0A>On 15 June 2010 22:31, B= ernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:=0A>=0A>What I'm not getting is= this whole Celestial thing.=0A>>To pull out some numbers.=A0 Since this is= a rules change and numbers are relevant.=0A>>Every Celestial Mage can lear= n all but 2 of the spells any celestial mage from another branch has.=A0 Th= ough certain of the other spells are cast with reversed light/dark aspects,= they are still the same spell.=A0 Primary difference is cast chances at ti= me of day.=0A>>They have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 = Ritual.=A0 Less than other colleges in the game.=0A>>They have a total betw= een all the branches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.=A0 Again, far less than= a great many of the other colleges have.=0A>>=0A>>So even allowing for all= the different branches there are other colleges that are far larger, and a= llow for more variation between adepts as a result.=0A>>=0A>>On people crea= ting other branches of Celestial, the same is true of several other college= s as well, or related colleges.=A0 Flamis with her Radiance version of fire= for a start.=A0 Sooty with his Ash Version.=A0 The various rune versions f= loating about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest).=A0 Mind= has at least one variation I know of also.=0A>>=0A>>So all up, I'm just no= t seeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as it is written & playe= d now as a separate branch.=A0 If this gets significantly changed in the fu= ture, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is going t= o create a lot of confusion also. =0A>>=0A>>=0A>>From Bernard Hoggins=0A>>n= evyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk=0A>> =0A>>=A0=0A>=0A>=0A=0A=0A=0A --0-187713177-1276658870=:41256 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 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"><DIV>I know there is more behind your proposal than the bel= ow, but in answer to this response, I believe it raises yet another area of= contention. There are some wonderfully flavoursome spells out there that j= ust never get used, for both the reasons listed below, and the fact that of= ten there are just plain far better options available. While lowering MR wo= uld indeed make the math better for use of these 'lost' spells, unfortunate= ly it has the flow on effect of making the already more powerful option, we= ll, more powerful :-) This area of contention is probably only ever fixed i= f we 'equalise' the spells in some manner to create a 'tool box' effect, ra= ther than the current 'one trick pony, but boy it hurts'. This is obviously= completely outside this discussion, but it is interesting in regard to the flow on effect you are after.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Dean</D= IV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york= , times, serif"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times ne= w roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>=0A<HR SIZE= =3D1>=0A<B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Jim Arona &lt= ;jim.arona@gmail.com><BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN>= </B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></= B> Wed, June 16, 2010 12:34:43 PM<BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">S= ubject:</SPAN></B> Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal<BR></FONT><BR>=0A<DIV><FO= NT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>I did read it, Dean. </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT fac= e=3DGeorgia>I am in agreement with Hamish that the bonus is just too high, = for all that it only covers a narrow range of magic. A sensible evil Necrom= ancer will not use Hand of Death, because it is entirely resistable, unless= they have a version of the spell which has some resistance-defeating = wrinkle. This spell never gets used for all of its colour, and the reason i= s that with a counterspell, even at low level, a pc has a respectable chanc= e of ignoring the effects entirely. Given a cast chance of 70%, and a MR of= 15(+30 from Necro SK counterspell), the chance of the spell failing or bei= ng avoided is 69%. It may be that Necromancers don't sully themselves with = arithmetic, but they'll have some undead thing bound to perform these funct= ions for them.</FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>= On 16 June 2010 08:30, Dean Ellis <SPAN dir=3Dltr><<A href=3D"mailto:dea= ngellis@yahoo.com" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow ymailto=3D"mailto:deangel= lis@yahoo.com">deangellis@yahoo.com</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>=0A<BLOCKQUOTE= class=3Dgmail_quote style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;= BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FON= T-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">=0A<DIV>Hi All,</DIV>=0A= <DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>I Emailed this earlier, but it does not seem to ha= ve sent correctly, so apologies if it has indeed been seen already.....</DI= V>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV>I am going to try and boil th= is down to three areas of contention, and comment on such from my perspecti= ve.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>1. Are there are too many Counterspell= s?</DIV>=0A<DIV>2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high?</DIV>=0A= <DIV>3. Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non= namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role?</DIV>=0A<DIV> <= /DIV>=0A<DIV>1. I do find the number of Counterspells rather onerous. 16 co= lleges in the book, plus at least a dozen extras, with more cropping up all= the time. It is a lot to keep track of, and a lot to rank, but in some way= s it is part and parcel of being a namer. The good ones have all of them, a= ll at least partially ranked, some highly so. The mediocre ones, like Sabri= na, have a few at low ranks, a lot at 0, and have gaps in their knowledge. = A lowering of the number would tend to favour the mediocre namers, and crea= te less of a differentiation between the types. While I favour the concept,= and like the idea of 'branch' cspells, such issues would need to be tackle= d.</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>2. The bonus is quite large, but reason= ably warranted. Most people can only have one, and often there is a lot of = doubt as to which one to have on. The duration is short, making it a pre bu= ff only for known combats, and often then there is still guesswork as to th= e best one to put on. The current bonus puts most people over 100% MR, for = that one college, so is this the nature of the problem? Do we want smaller = increments of increased MR covering a larger area of colleges vs the curren= t system of one big hit vs one college? Both have their pros and cons</DIV>= =0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>3. It is one of the weird anomalies to allow th= e learning of Rank 0 Cspells to non namers, but not allow the ranking there= of. The reasoning I think is to not rain on the Namers parade by taking awa= y one of their strengths. Even if we opened it up, Namers still have all of= these differentations to their credit:</DIV>=0A<DIV>Quick Cast - 1 action = faster, much more useful in combat</DIV>=0A<DIV><SPAN>General Knowledge</SP= AN> - Only good for decent MA namers, but at least they can get a discount.= Also the Rank 0 ones do not count against MA.</DIV>=0A<DIV>Associated Abil= ities - The context of a Cspell for a namer is better given spells like ban= ishment and dispel magic making the cspell more powerful overall</DIV>=0A<D= IV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>I personally would not mind the allowance of ranking= , but would like to see a further differentiation between namer and non nam= er. Extended duration, slightly more power, etc, could be explored, which c= ould fit with whatever scope is defined in the number and type of cspells d= iscussion</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>My 2 cents worth, hopefully it w= as better than loose change :-)</DIV>=0A<DIV> </DIV>=0A<DIV>Dean</DIV>= <BR></DIV></DIV>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new ro= man, new york, times, serif"><BR>=0A<DIV style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAM= ILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>= =0A<DIV>=0A<HR SIZE=3D1>=0A<B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN= ></B> Jim Arona <<A href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D_blank = rel=3Dnofollow ymailto=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com">jim.arona@gmail.com</= A>><BR></DIV>=0A<DIV><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B>= <A href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow ymailto= =3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A><BR></DIV><B><SPAN style=3D"= FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Wed, June 16, 2010 12:20:39 AM =0A<DIV>= <BR><B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [dq] Count= erspell proposal<BR></DIV></FONT>=0A<DIV>=0A<DIV></DIV>=0A<DIV><BR>=0A<DIV>= <FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>The reason for a Celestial branch of counterspel= ls has nothing to do with the degree of variation in its subgroups. The rea= son for a Celestial branch counterspell is so that the elemental counterspe= lls do not gain more significance than the others. Because, were that the c= ase, then Namers will choose to Rank that branch over Thaumaturgies or Enti= ties. It is a balance reason. We can append an in-game rationalisation for = this, my own being that they are a separate branch, but we don't have to. W= e can simply say that for all of their similarity, these subgroups are. </F= ONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>These colleges are not real. T= here is no evidentiary support for them, and no one sensibly engages in a t= axonomy of the colleges to see if they are breeds or species or members of = entirely different orders. I mean, this is just a game, for Heaven's sake. = Personally, I would like to see a Lunar college, and I would like to see th= e Star college quite different to the way it is now. I made comments somewh= at like this on the thread, and perhaps should not have, since it has acqui= red unwarranted focus. At the end of the day, we have 16 colleges, which we= might choose to divide into four different subgroups. As it happens, we cu= rrently have 6 colleges in Thaumaturgies, 6 in Elementals (including Celest= ial) and 4 in the entities (although Greater Summoning is not a pc option).= </FONT></DIV>=0A<DIV><FONT face=3Dgeorgia,serif>My suggestion is that we le= ave them pretty much the way they are, but with Celestial as a branch, not = a college. Thus, 6 in Thaumaturgies, 5 in Elementals, 4 in Celestials, and = 4 in Entities. Please, let us focus on the effect on the game, not the effe= ct on a given rationalisation of it. In an imaginary world, who c= ares?</FONT><BR></DIV>=0A<DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>On 15 June 2010 22:31, Be= rnard Hoggins <SPAN dir=3Dltr><<A href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" t= arget=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow ymailto=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn= 0ad@yahoo.co.uk</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>=0A<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote= style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1= px solid">=0A<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 border=3D0>=0A<TBODY>= =0A<TR>=0A<TD vAlign=3Dtop>What I'm not getting is this whole Celestial thi= ng.<BR>To pull out some numbers.  Since this is a rules change and num= bers are relevant.<BR>Every Celestial Mage can learn all but 2 of the spell= s any celestial mage from another branch has.  Though certain of the o= ther spells are cast with reversed light/dark aspects, they are still the s= ame spell.  Primary difference is cast chances at time of day.<BR>They= have a total between all branches of 12 GK Spells. & 2 Ritual.  L= ess than other colleges in the game.<BR>They have a total between all the b= ranches of 13 SK Spells, and 1 Ritual.  Again, far less than a great m= any of the other colleges have.<BR><BR>So even allowing for all the differe= nt branches there are other colleges that are far larger, and allow for mor= e variation between adepts as a result.<BR><BR>On people creating other bra= nches of Celestial, the same is true of several other colleges as well, or related colleges.  Flamis with her Radiance version of fire for a sta= rt.  Sooty with his Ash Version.  The various rune versions float= ing about in play (unless they have all settled to the latest).  Mind = has at least one variation I know of also.<BR><BR>So all up, I'm just not s= eeing any compelling reasons to treat Celestial as it is written & play= ed now as a separate branch.  If this gets significantly changed in th= e future, that's a different matter, but mixing up the two proposals is goi= ng to create a lot of confusion also. =0A<DIV><BR><BR>From Bernard Hoggins<= BR><A href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow y= mailto=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk</A><BR></DIV></= TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>= </DIV></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></div><br>=0A=0A = </body></html> --0-187713177-1276658870=:41256-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Jacqui Smith
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:55:37 +1200
Jim Arona wrote: > I'm not keen on the one per college variant because it means one spell > entirely turns off an Adept. Thinking about this, I realised that I've rarely seen anyone cast a general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spell they have running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells are special knowledge (with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that there isn't a heck of a lot of point in having separate general knowledge and special knowledge counters, because the special knowledge counter is damn good at turning off mages. And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental magic....? WAY too powerful. If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pick an existing counterspell for their invention, maybe? Jacqui -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:29:56 +1200
> 1. Are there are too many Counterspells? Only if there is an expectation that all Namers should have all of them ranked. But as they are the foundation of the college, I think it is reasonable to say yes, there is an expectation. Reducing it to 6 is too few. All Namers would have them at decent rank very quickly, even the MA crippled Fighter-Namers. Increasing the EM would bring Namers more in-line with the XP sucking Mind & E&E, meaning it would take longer before they were considered magically competent. I see no benefit to the game from this. I prefer Martin's one CS per college solution. If we are going down this path then I suggest we apply this to all colleges, not just Namer. I like the GM approach of making most new/odd NPC colleges close enough to existing colleges to be affected by their CS. It means the player-Namer abilities and ranks can still be applicable even if at educed effect and there is not an expectation that player-Namers must learn the new xx CS which is only of use on one GM's game/area. But if a player-Namer does want to spend the xp and time to do so, they can choose to be more effective in that GM's game/area. > 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell�too high? No, not when it only applies to one college for 10-20 minutes. It means in some situations when the college of the opposition mage is known and there is time to put appropriate counterspells on that you are mostly protected from that college. A benefit to a party the researches and prepares for encounters - this is good for the game. It becomes more problematic when GM granted items and abilities mean that a character has multiple counterspells on or has them on all the time. Then you get to be protected from the nastiest colleges all the time. But I have only seen this happen at the high-extreme end of the game where most of the reasonable rules get broken. If CS were to apply to a whole branch then absolutely 30+3/rk is too high. If MR from CS were to apply to a whole college then I think that 10+1/rk is reasonable. I would like for Namers to be able to provide the option for either, so that players must choose between lots of protection against one college and lesser but broader protection. But I think this is better done as another Namer-only way of casting CS on entities to give them broad protection. I think that Area affecting branch counterspells are bad for the game. > 3.�Would it be good to allow some ranking of counterspells by non namers, but in doing so, do we spoil the Namers role? I'm in favour of other colleges being able to learn and rank CS of other colleges. I don't think they need to be changed to protect Namers role. No Prepare action, only costing 1FT, MA discount on ranking - these are all benefit enough. > 4. Should Celestial be in its own branch (or pseudo-branch). Hell No! I have read all of the arguments in favour of this idea, and am more swayed by the flatulence of a grasshopper. --------- A counter-proposal to represent the sum of my opinions would be something like: a) Remove General Knowledge Counterspells. Special CS becomes college CS. b) New Namer-only ability to cast a counterspell on an entity to give them 10+rk MR vs the whole branch. c) Non-Namers can rank other-college counterspells as Special Knowledge spells. My 8c (2c after cash rounding, gst, and rounding again - I hate financials) Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Michael Scott
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:34:55 +1200
--_0badd672-fbc5-4e98-b150-541bc5fa22a1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or instead of making the fourth branch celestial we make it funky GM/God sh= ite. =20 If it ain't covered by the first three then it's in this branch =20 TTFN Michael =20 > Date: Wed=2C 16 Jun 2010 15:55:37 +1200 > Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues=2C was Counterspell proposal > From: flamis@ihug.co.nz > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >=20 > Jim Arona wrote: > > I'm not keen on the one per college variant because it means one spell= =20 > > entirely turns off an Adept. > Thinking about this=2C I realised that I've rarely seen anyone cast a=20 > general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spell they have=20 > running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells are special knowledge=20 > (with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter=20 > turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that there isn't a heck=20 > of a lot of point in having separate general knowledge and special=20 > knowledge counters=2C because the special knowledge counter is damn good= =20 > at turning off mages. >=20 > And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental=20 > magic....? WAY too powerful. >=20 > If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges -=20 > maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pick=20 > an existing counterspell for their invention=2C maybe? >=20 > Jacqui >=20 >=20 > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- =20 _________________________________________________________________ Feeling the financial pinch? Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand http://money.msn.co.nz= --_0badd672-fbc5-4e98-b150-541bc5fa22a1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style><!-- .hmmessage P { margin:0px=3B padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt=3B font-family:Verdana } --></style> </head> <body class=3D'hmmessage'> Or instead of making&nbsp=3Bthe fourth branch celestial we make it funky GM= /God shite.<IMG alt=3D"" src=3D"http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr01/ltr/em= oticons/smile_regular.gif" width=3D19 height=3D19><BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> If it&nbsp=3Bain't covered by the first three then it's in this branch<BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> TTFN<BR> Michael<BR>&nbsp=3B<BR>&gt=3B Date: Wed=2C 16 Jun 2010 15:55:37 +1200<BR>&g= t=3B Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues=2C was Counterspell proposal<BR>&gt= =3B From: flamis@ihug.co.nz<BR>&gt=3B To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt= =3B Jim Arona wrote:<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B I'm not keen on the one per college v= ariant because it means one spell <BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B entirely turns off an A= dept.<BR>&gt=3B Thinking about this=2C I realised that I've rarely seen any= one cast a <BR>&gt=3B general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spel= l they have <BR>&gt=3B running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells ar= e special knowledge <BR>&gt=3B (with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a s= pecial knowledge counter <BR>&gt=3B turns them off. Basically I'm beginning= to see that there isn't a heck <BR>&gt=3B of a lot of point in having sepa= rate general knowledge and special <BR>&gt=3B knowledge counters=2C because= the special knowledge counter is damn good <BR>&gt=3B at turning off mages= .<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL ant= agonistic elemental <BR>&gt=3B magic....? WAY too powerful.<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&= gt=3B If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges = - <BR>&gt=3B maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that t= hey pick <BR>&gt=3B an existing counterspell for their invention=2C maybe?<= BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B Jacqui<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B -- to unsubscri= be notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<BR> <br /><hr />Chec= k on MSN NZ Money for a hand <a href=3D'http://money.msn.co.nz' target=3D'_= new'>Feeling the financial pinch?</a></body> </html>= --_0badd672-fbc5-4e98-b150-541bc5fa22a1_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Michael Scott
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:42:39 +1200
--_6eea35b5-9c87-46b6-af2e-99a5712a08db_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Giving namers the ability to target multiple entities at higher ranks like = say quickness or maybe greater enchantment would keep up the demand for the= m.=20 =20 Or the ability to lower enemy entities MR. namer deuls hehe. =20 Just a thought. =20 TTFN Michael =20 _________________________________________________________________ Feeling the financial pinch? Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand http://money.msn.co.nz= --_6eea35b5-9c87-46b6-af2e-99a5712a08db_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style><!-- .hmmessage P { margin:0px=3B padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt=3B font-family:Verdana } --></style> </head> <body class=3D'hmmessage'> Giving namers the ability to target multiple entities at higher ranks like = say quickness or maybe greater enchantment would keep up the demand for the= m. <BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> Or the ability to lower enemy entities MR. namer deuls hehe.<BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> Just a thought.<BR> &nbsp=3B<BR> TTFN<BR> Michael<BR> <br /><hr />Check on MSN NZ Money for a hand <a href= =3D'http://money.msn.co.nz' target=3D'_new'>Feeling the financial pinch?</a= ></body> </html>= --_6eea35b5-9c87-46b6-af2e-99a5712a08db_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:36:18 +1200
As an example, here are WordSmith's CS Ranks (MA 20) 3 Air GK 6 Air SK 3 Bardic GK 4 Bardic SK 3 Binder GK 4 Binder SK 4 Celestial GK 6 Celestial SK 7 E&E GK 6 E&E SK 0 Earth GK 7 Earth SK 7 Fire GK 6 Fire SK 6 Greater Summoning GK 6 Greater Summoning SK 0 Ice GK 6 Ice SK 3 Illusion GK 6 Illusion SK 6 Mind GK 7 Mind SK 4 Namer GK 6 Namer SK 6 Necro GK 7 Necro SK 0 Rune GK 3 Rune SK 0 Water GK 6 Water SK 7 Witchcraft GK 6 Witchcraft SK For context, specials are 11 Bane 8 Forbidding 12 Dispel Magic 6 Banishment -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jacqui Smith Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 3:56 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal Jim Arona wrote: > I'm not keen on the one per college variant because it means one spell > entirely turns off an Adept. Thinking about this, I realised that I've rarely seen anyone cast a general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spell they have running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells are special knowledge (with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that there isn't a heck of a lot of point in having separate general knowledge and special knowledge counters, because the special knowledge counter is damn good at turning off mages. And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental magic....? WAY too powerful. If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pick an existing counterspell for their invention, maybe? Jacqui -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:39:31 +1200
--00c09f89978b66169d04891f25c1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 16 June 2010 15:55, Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental > magic....? WAY too powerful. > You've missed some of the exchange, Jacqui. Under my proposal (amended with Jono's suggestion, when a namer casts a branch counterspell, GK or SK, they identify the college within that branch. Thus, a Namer casts an elemental branch SK counterspell on the ground and names it Fire College. A Fire mage in the area of effect cannot cast SK counterspells, and everyone inside it gains a bonus to resist Fire College SK magic. I have seen GK counterspells used, actually quite often. It is not AS dangerous a body of knowledge, generally speaking, but then the Exp. Mult. reflects that. I'm not seeing any pressing reason to consider it. On 16 June 2010 15:55, Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - > maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pick an > existing counterspell for their invention, maybe? > I am not aware that it is a problem, but even if it were, good luck with enforcing it. I am not even sure anything useful would come out of it, aside from engendering resentment in the creative. --00c09f89978b66169d04891f25c1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">On 16 June 2010 15:55, Jacqui Smith <span= dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">flamis@ihug.co.nz</a>= ></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>And ONE spell to effectively= turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental magic....? WAY too powerful.<br= > </blockquote></font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">You've missed some of the exchange, J= acqui.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Under my proposal (amended with Jono'= s suggestion, when=A0a namer casts a branch counterspell, GK or SK, they id= entify the college within that branch. Thus, a Namer casts an elemental bra= nch SK =A0counterspell=A0on the ground=A0and names it Fire College. A Fire = mage in the area of effect cannot cast SK counterspells, and everyone insid= e it gains a bonus to resist Fire College SK magic.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">I have seen GK counterspells used, actually qui= te often. It is not AS dangerous a body of knowledge, generally speaking, b= ut then the Exp. Mult. reflects that. I'm not seeing any pressing reaso= n to consider it.</font></div> <p><font face=3D"Georgia">On 16 June 2010 15:55, Jacqui Smith <span dir=3D"= ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">flamis@ihug.co.nz</a>></sp= an> wrote:<br></font></p> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>If the problem is actually t= he proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - maybe there's a better way t= o deal with that. Insisting that they pick an existing counterspell for the= ir invention, maybe?<br> </blockquote> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">I am not aware that it is a problem, but even i= f it were, good luck with enforcing it. I am not even sure anything useful = would come out of it, aside from=A0engendering=A0resentment in the creative= .=A0</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> --00c09f89978b66169d04891f25c1-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:50:28 +1200
--0016363b8edc91f33a04891f4cfd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 16 June 2010 14:25, RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why not use lower MR for non namers. This is kind of building on remove > curse which namers are better at than everyone else. This isn't weakening > everyone else. We're giving them a new ability its just not as good as > namers are. For example something like give them half the range and 10% > lower base chance to cast them (possibly only if they're not from the same > branch of magic) and make them 20 + 2 per rank instead of the normal MR. > These numbers are just examples and people who know more about balance > should adjust them as they see fit. > The issue is the high MR on a Rank 0 counterspell whoever casts it. 10+1/Rank seems a reasonable number, and there is no particular reason why Namers need to have a different equation. Being able to advance branch counterspells as opposed to individual college counterspells is a significant advantage, and I am convinced that Namers do not need anything else. On 16 June 2010 14:25, RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com> wrote: > > With the proposal for making them by branch doesn't that mean since all > standard PC mages are from a branch that they can rank that whole branch > like a namer in any case? > No, not even a little bit. Non-Namer Adepts Rank counterspells by college, not branch, under my proposal. On 16 June 2010 14:25, RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com> wrote: > > People say we need to be objective here but I would like to hear a little > more from people who play namers on how they think any of the proposed > changes will effect them. Might give us fresh insites. > We have heard from Michael, Dean, Errol, Jono and Jason. The rest of the people who play Namers are hiding under their desks and waiting for the dust to clear. --0016363b8edc91f33a04891f4cfd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">On 16 June 2010 14:25, RPer 4eva <span di= r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gmail.co= m</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div><br>Why not use lower MR for non namers. This is kind of building on r= emove curse which namers are better at than everyone else. This isn't w= eakening everyone else. We're giving them a new ability its just not as= good as namers are. For example something like give them half the range an= d 10% lower base chance to cast them (possibly only if they're not from= the same branch of magic) and make them 20 + 2 per rank instead of the nor= mal MR. These numbers are just examples and people who know more about bala= nce should adjust them as they see fit.</div> </blockquote></font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">The issue is the high MR on a Rank 0 coun= terspell whoever casts it. 10+1/Rank seems a reasonable number, and there i= s no particular reason why Namers need to have a different equation. Being = able to advance branch counterspells as=A0opposed to individual college cou= nterspells is a significant advantage, and I am convinced that Namers do no= t need anything else.</font><font face=3D"georgia,serif"><br> </font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">On 16 June 2010 14:25, RPer 4eva <span di= r=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gmail.co= m</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div>=A0</div> <div>With the proposal for making them by branch doesn't that mean sinc= e all standard PC mages are from a branch that they can rank that whole bra= nch like a namer in any case?</div></blockquote></font></div> <div>=A0</div> <div>No, not even a little bit. Non-Namer Adepts Rank counterspells by coll= ege, not branch, under my proposal.</div> <div>=A0</div> <div>On 16 June 2010 14:25, RPer 4eva <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail= to:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div>=A0</div> <div>People say we need to be objective here but I would like to hear a lit= tle more from people who play namers on how they think any of the proposed = changes will effect them. Might give us fresh insites.<br></div></blockquot= e> <div>=A0</div> <div>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">We have heard from Michael, Dean, Errol, = Jono and Jason. The rest of the people who play Namers are hiding under the= ir desks and waiting for the dust to clear.</font><br></div></div> --0016363b8edc91f33a04891f4cfd-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:01:56 +1200
--001485016ff995d8d704891f7563 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Post 1 This would drop the MA requirements of all colleges by 1. Not that I care, mind you, but it puts Mind college in range of any pc who is just barely sentient and knows what a letter is. It also means that non-Namer Adepts would have the same number of counterspells to Rank as a Namer. On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote: > > A counter-proposal to represent the sum of my opinions would be something > like: > a) Remove General Knowledge Counterspells. Special CS becomes college CS. > b) New Namer-only ability to cast a counterspell on an entity to give them > 10+rk MR vs the > whole branch. > c) Non-Namers can rank other-college counterspells as Special Knowledge > spells. > > > My 8c (2c after cash rounding, gst, and rounding again - I hate financials) > > Cheers, Stephen. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > --001485016ff995d8d704891f7563 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Post 1</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">This would drop the MA requirements of al= l colleges by 1. Not that I care, mind you, but it puts Mind college in ran= ge of any pc who is just barely sentient and knows what a letter is. </font= ></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">It also means that non-Namer Adepts would= have the same number of counterspells to Rank as a Namer.<br></font><br></= div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>&g= t;</span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div class=3D"im"><br>A counter-proposal to represent the sum of my opinion= s would be something like:<br>a) Remove General Knowledge Counterspells. = =A0Special CS becomes college CS.<br>b) New Namer-only ability to cast a co= unterspell on an entity to give them 10+rk MR vs the<br> whole branch.<br>c) Non-Namers can rank other-college counterspells as Spec= ial Knowledge spells.<br><br><br>My 8c (2c after cash rounding, gst, and ro= unding again - I hate financials)<br><br>Cheers, Stephen.<br><br><br>-- to = unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-req= uest@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br> </div></blockquote></div><br> --001485016ff995d8d704891f7563-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:23:22 +1200
--_000_2904DD08020FAE41B0F0B24E37334BC804B37ACA84UXCHANGE71UoA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Only 32? Do get back to SF if you want to learn ... Counter Dimensional We= aving Gen/ Spec; Counter Spirit Gen/Spec; Counter Exsanguination Spec; Coun= ter Nano Spec (6 more counters @ average rank 5). Incidentally, for counterspells, I've had 648 half-days ranking on 6 full Thaumaturgy college sets 1,154 half-days ranking on 6 full Elemental college sets 630 half-days ranking on 6 full Entity colleges & 2 more Entities for whi= ch I only have the counter-special. ... and I still find examples where my range or duration= is too short! I would endorse Jim's comment "I have seen GK counterspells used, actually = quite often. It is not AS dangerous a body of knowledge, generally speaking= , but then the Exp. Mult. reflects that." It's not just the Necros that can hurt, even incapacitate or kill, using Ge= neral knowledge alone. Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858) m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Err= ol Cavit Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:36 PM To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal As an example, here are WordSmith's CS Ranks (MA 20) 3 Air GK 6 Air SK 3 Bardic GK 4 Bardic SK 3 Binder GK 4 Binder SK 4 Celestial GK 6 Celestial SK 7 E&E GK 6 E&E SK 0 Earth GK 7 Earth SK 7 Fire GK 6 Fire SK 6 Greater Summoning GK 6 Greater Summoning SK 0 Ice GK 6 Ice SK 3 Illusion GK 6 Illusion SK 6 Mind GK 7 Mind SK 4 Namer GK 6 Namer SK 6 Necro GK 7 Necro SK 0 Rune GK 3 Rune SK 0 Water GK 6 Water SK 7 Witchcraft GK 6 Witchcraft SK For context, specials are 11 Bane 8 Forbidding 12 Dispel Magic 6 Banishment -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jac= qui Smith Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 3:56 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal Jim Arona wrote: > I'm not keen on the one per college variant because it means one spell > entirely turns off an Adept. Thinking about this, I realised that I've rarely seen anyone cast a general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spell they have running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells are special knowledge (with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that there isn't a heck of a lot of point in having separate general knowledge and special knowledge counters, because the special knowledge counter is damn good at turning off mages. And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental magic....? WAY too powerful. If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pick an existing counterspell for their invention, maybe? Jacqui -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- --_000_2904DD08020FAE41B0F0B24E37334BC804B37ACA84UXCHANGE71UoA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-m= icrosoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office= :access" xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s=3D"= uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-microsof= t-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-co= m:office:publisher" xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadshee= t" xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns= :odc=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-micro= soft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" = xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc=3D"http://m= icrosoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:" xmlns:Repl=3D"http://= schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/share= point/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel= /2003/xml" xmlns:ppda=3D"http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois= =3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir=3D"http://= schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3= .org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint= /dsp" xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd=3D"http= ://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sha= repoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#"= xmlns:sp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps=3D"http://= schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001= /XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/so= ap" xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udc= p2p=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf=3D"http:/= /schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss=3D"http://sche= mas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi=3D"http://schemas.mi= crosoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformat= s.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlf= ormats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.c= om/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/pa= ckage/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp=3D"http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/web= partpages" xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/20= 06/types" xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/200= 6/messages" xmlns:pptsl=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/Sli= deLibrary/" xmlns:spsl=3D"http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortal= Server/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:= st=3D"" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions / @font-face {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS"; panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} / Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";} span.PlainTextChar {mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit"> <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=3DEN-NZ link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DWordSection1> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Only 32?  Do get back to SF if you want to lea= rn … Counter Dimensional Weaving Gen/ Spec; Counter Spirit Gen/Spec; Counter Exs= anguination Spec; Counter Nano Spec (6 more counters @ average rank 5).<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Incidentally, for counterspells, I've had<o:p></o:p= ></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>  648 half-days ranking on 6 full Thaumat= urgy college sets<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>1,154 half-days ranking on 6 full Elemental college= sets<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>  630 half-days ranking on 6 full Entity colle= ges & 2 more Entities for which I only have the counter-special.<o:p></o:p>= </p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>        &nb= sp;          ... and I still find examples where my range or duration is too short!<o:p></o:= p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>I would endorse Jim’s comment "<span style=3D'color:#365F91'>I have seen GK counterspells used, actually quite o= ften. It is not AS dangerous a body of knowledge, generally speaking, but then th= e Exp. Mult. reflects that</span>."<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>It’s not just the Necros that can hurt, even = incapacitate or kill, using General knowledge alone.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)<o:p></o:p= ></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian<o:p>= </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><span lang=3DEN-US>-----Original Message-----<br> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Err= ol Cavit<br> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:36 PM<br> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<br> Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal</span><o:p></o:= p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>As an example, here are WordSmith's CS Ranks (MA 20= )<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>3        Air GK<= o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Air SK<= o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>3        Bardic = GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>4        Bardic = SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>3        Binder = GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>4        Binder = SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>4        Celesti= al GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Celesti= al SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>7        E&E= GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        E&E= SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>0        Earth G= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>7        Earth S= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>7        Fire GK= <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Fire SK= <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Greater Summoning GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Greater Summoning SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>0        Ice GK<= o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Ice SK<= o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>3        Illusio= n GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Illusio= n SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Mind GK= <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>7        Mind SK= <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>4        Namer G= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Namer S= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Necro G= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>7        Necro S= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>0        Rune GK= <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>3        Rune SK= <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>0        Water G= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Water S= K<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>7        Witchcr= aft GK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Witchcr= aft SK<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>For context, specials are<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>11      Bane<o:p></o:p></p= > <p class=3DMsoPlainText>8        Forbidd= ing<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>12      Dispel Magic<o:p><= /o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>6        Banishm= ent<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jacqui Smith<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 3:56 p.m.<o:p></o:p><= /p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Jim Arona wrote:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>> I'm not keen on the one per college variant be= cause it means one spell <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>> entirely turns off an Adept.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Thinking about this, I realised that I've rarely se= en anyone cast a <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>general knowledge counter - except to turn off a sp= ell they have <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells a= re special knowledge <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>(with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that= there isn't a heck <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>of a lot of point in having separate general knowle= dge and special <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>knowledge counters, because the special knowledge c= ounter is damn good <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>at turning off mages.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>magic....? WAY too powerful.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insis= ting that they pick <o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>an existing counterspell for their invention, maybe= ?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>Jacqui<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.or= g.nz --<o:p></o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> --_000_2904DD08020FAE41B0F0B24E37334BC804B37ACA84UXCHANGE71UoA_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:39:49 +1200
--0016e68ce714122a9d04891ffd81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote: > > > 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? > > If MR from CS were to apply to a whole college then I think that 10+1/rk is > reasonable. > > Again, and just to make this completely clear: Under my proposal, when a Namer casts a branch counterspell, they identify the college it applies to. Eric casts the elemental branch SK counterspell and names it Fire College, targeting the ground. A Fire Mage standing in the area of effect of the counterspell cannot cast SK Fire College Magic. The Air Mage standing next to him is not denied casting, and indeed gains a bonus to SK Fire College magic. They do not provide a bonus across the branch. I do not want to see that as a baseline for the game. Individual players might get that as a refinement, of course. One advantage of my approach is that a Namer would only have to Rank 8 counterspells. Another is that IF a new college is encountered AND it falls into a branch of magic, then a Namer (and only a Namer) need only acquire its identifying token. Once they have that, then they would be able to use their branch counterspell with respect to the new magic. On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote: > > > 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? > > No, not when it only applies to one college for 10-20 minutes. It means in > some situations > when the college of the opposition mage is known and there is time to put > appropriate > counterspells on that you are mostly protected from that college. A > benefit to a party the > researches and prepares for encounters - this is good for the game. > The problem with high value, short duration effects is that the easiest counter, assuming all other things are equal, is to briefly engage, and then withdraw over and over again. It provides a powerful pressure for adventurers to be aggressive, otherwise they have to re-apply their buffs, and watch either their FT or their Restorative pile drop through the floor. Not that I particularly mind that. But, that's only one problem. Even quite low Ranks in counterspells give very high bonuses, i.e. +48 at Rank 6. With respect to a reward for preparation and research, this will still be true whatever the bonus from a counterspell. A bonus of +10 to MR vs the right college is infinitely superior to any amount of bonus you might get from none or a counterspell of the wrong college. On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote: > > > 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell too high? > > If CS were to apply to a whole branch then absolutely 30+3/rk is too high. > > If MR from CS were to apply to a whole college then I think that 10+1/rk is > reasonable. > > I would like for Namers to be able to provide the option for either, so > that players must > choose between lots of protection against one college and lesser but > broader protection. > But I think this is better done as another Namer-only way of casting CS on > entities to give I am not sure about this. I know how negative it sounds when people say it, but all I mean is that I really have no idea how it would affect game play. It might be cool, it might be crap. Someone should try it and see, I suppose. It still doesn't address issues of high MR from counterspells. As a general observation, there is very little we can do about what DMs give out in their game. Nor should we want to. Adventurers should be breaking the rules left, right and centre, as named NPCs quite often do, armed with any amount of weird shit because they are world-striding titans. Except when they're cream-bun eating cuddly toys. We can control the ruleset, however, and if the MR levels are too high, then it is easy for us to set them to a reasonable level. I believe my proposal does this. --0016e68ce714122a9d04891ffd81 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <span dir= =3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>&g= t;</span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div class=3D"im"><br>> 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?<= br><br></div>If MR from CS were to apply to a whole college then I think th= at 10+1/rk is reasonable.<br><br></blockquote></font><font face=3D"Georgia"= ></font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Again, and just to make this completely c= lear:</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">Under my proposal, when a Namer casts a branch = counterspell, they identify the college it applies to. Eric casts the eleme= ntal branch SK counterspell and names it Fire College, targeting the ground= . A=A0Fire=A0Mage standing=A0in the area of effect of the counterspell cann= ot=A0cast SK Fire College Magic. The=A0Air Mage standing next to him is not= denied casting, and indeed gains a bonus to=A0SK Fire College=A0magic.</fo= nt></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">They do not=A0provide a bonus across the=A0bran= ch. I do not want to see that=A0as a baseline for the game. Individual play= ers might get that as a refinement, of course.=A0=A0</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">One advantage of my approach is that a Namer wo= uld only have to Rank 8 counterspells.=A0=A0Another=A0is that=A0IF a new co= llege is encountered=A0AND it falls into a branch of magic, then a Namer (a= nd only a Namer) need only acquire=A0its identifying token.=A0Once they hav= e that, then they would be able to=A0use their branch counterspell with res= pect to the new magic.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div>On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D= "mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div class=3D"im"><br>> 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?<= br><br></div>No, not when it only applies to one college for 10-20 minutes.= =A0It means in some situations<br>when the college of the opposition mage = is known and there is time to put appropriate<br> counterspells on that you are mostly protected from that college. =A0A bene= fit to a party the<br>researches and prepares for encounters - this is good= for the game.<br></blockquote></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">The problem with high value, short duration eff= ects is that the easiest counter, assuming all other things are equal, is t= o briefly engage, and then withdraw over and over again. It provides a powe= rful pressure for adventurers to be aggressive, otherwise they have to re-a= pply their buffs, and watch either their FT or their Restorative pile=A0dro= p through the floor. Not that I particularly mind that.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">But, that's only one problem. Even quite lo= w Ranks in counterspells give very high bonuses, i.e. +48 at Rank 6.</font>= </div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">With respect to a reward for preparation and re= search, this will still be true whatever the bonus from a counterspell. A b= onus of +10 to MR vs the right college is infinitely superior to any amount= of bonus you might get from none or a counterspell of the wrong college. <= /font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>=A0</div> <div>On 16 June 2010 16:29, Stephen Martin <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D= "mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div class=3D"im"><br>> 2. Is the bonus from a counterspell=A0too high?<= /div><br>If CS were to apply to a whole branch then absolutely 30+3/rk is t= oo high.<br><br>If MR from CS were to apply to a whole college then I think= that 10+1/rk is reasonable.<br> <br>I would like for Namers to be able to provide the option for either, so= that players must<br>choose between lots of protection against one college= and lesser but broader protection.<br>But I think this is better done as a= nother Namer-only way of casting CS on entities to give</blockquote> <div>=A0</div></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">I am not sure about this. I know how negative= =A0it sounds when people say it, but all I mean is that I really have no id= ea how it would affect game play. It might be cool, it might be crap. Someo= ne should try it and see, I suppose. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">It still doesn't address issues of high MR = from counterspells.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">As a general observation, there is very l= ittle we can do about what DMs give out in their game. Nor should we want t= o.=A0Adventurers should be breaking the rules left, right and centre, as=A0= named NPCs quite often do, armed with any amount of weird shit because they= are world-striding titans. Except when they're cream-bun eating cuddly= toys.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">We can control the ruleset, however, and if the= MR levels are too high, then it is easy for us to set them to a reasonable= level. </font></div> <div><font face=3D"Georgia">I believe my proposal does this.</font></div> --0016e68ce714122a9d04891ffd81-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:58:05 +1200
--000feaf5647c64f0630489203eaa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So, aside from the non-standard counterspells, about 3 years and 4 months. On 16 June 2010 18:23, Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz> wrote= : > Only 32? Do get back to SF if you want to learn =85 Counter Dimensional > Weaving Gen/ Spec; Counter Spirit Gen/Spec; Counter Exsanguination Spec; > Counter Nano Spec (6 more counters @ average rank 5). > > Incidentally, for counterspells, I've had > > 648 half-days ranking on 6 full Thaumaturgy college sets > > 1,154 half-days ranking on 6 full Elemental college sets > > 630 half-days ranking on 6 full Entity colleges & 2 more Entities for > which I only have the counter-special. > > ... and I still find examples where my range or durati= on > is too short! > > > > I would endorse Jim=92s comment "I have seen GK counterspells used, actua= lly > quite often. It is not AS dangerous a body of knowledge, generally speaki= ng, > but then the Exp. Mult. reflects that." > > It=92s not just the Necros that can hurt, even incapacitate or kill, usin= g > General knowledge alone. > > > > Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858) > > m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz > > Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of > Errol Cavit > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:36 PM > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal > > > > As an example, here are WordSmith's CS Ranks (MA 20) > > > > 3 Air GK > > 6 Air SK > > 3 Bardic GK > > 4 Bardic SK > > 3 Binder GK > > 4 Binder SK > > 4 Celestial GK > > 6 Celestial SK > > 7 E&E GK > > 6 E&E SK > > 0 Earth GK > > 7 Earth SK > > 7 Fire GK > > 6 Fire SK > > 6 Greater Summoning GK > > 6 Greater Summoning SK > > 0 Ice GK > > 6 Ice SK > > 3 Illusion GK > > 6 Illusion SK > > 6 Mind GK > > 7 Mind SK > > 4 Namer GK > > 6 Namer SK > > 6 Necro GK > > 7 Necro SK > > 0 Rune GK > > 3 Rune SK > > 0 Water GK > > 6 Water SK > > 7 Witchcraft GK > > 6 Witchcraft SK > > > > For context, specials are > > 11 Bane > > 8 Forbidding > > 12 Dispel Magic > > 6 Banishment > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of > Jacqui Smith > > Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 3:56 p.m. > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal > > > > Jim Arona wrote: > > > I'm not keen on the one per college variant because it means one spell > > > entirely turns off an Adept. > > Thinking about this, I realised that I've rarely seen anyone cast a > > general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spell they have > > running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells are special knowledge > > (with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter > > turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that there isn't a heck > > of a lot of point in having separate general knowledge and special > > knowledge counters, because the special knowledge counter is damn good > > at turning off mages. > > > > And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental > > magic....? WAY too powerful. > > > > If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - > > maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pick > > an existing counterspell for their invention, maybe? > > > > Jacqui > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > --000feaf5647c64f0630489203eaa Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <font face=3D"georgia,serif">So, aside from the non-standard counterspells,= about 3 years and 4 months.<br></font><br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 18:23, Michael Parkinson <span d= ir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz">m.parkinson@au= ckland.ac.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div lang=3D"EN-NZ" vlink=3D"purple" link=3D"blue"> <div> <p>Only 32?=A0 Do get back to SF if you want to learn =85 Counter Dimension= al Weaving Gen/ Spec; Counter Spirit Gen/Spec; Counter Exsanguination Spec;= Counter Nano Spec (6 more counters @ average rank 5).</p> <p>Incidentally, for counterspells, I've had</p> <p>=A0=A0648 half-days ranking on 6 full Thaumaturgy college sets</p> <p>1,154 half-days ranking on 6 full Elemental college sets</p> <p>=A0 630 half-days ranking on 6 full Entity colleges & 2 more Entitie= s for which I only have the counter-special.</p> <p>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ... and I still f= ind examples where my range or duration is too short!</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>I would endorse Jim=92s comment "<span style=3D"COLOR: #365f91">I h= ave seen GK counterspells used, actually quite often. It is not AS dangerou= s a body of knowledge, generally speaking, but then the Exp. Mult. reflects= that</span>."</p> <p>It=92s not just the Necros that can hurt, even incapacitate or kill, usi= ng General knowledge alone.</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)</p> <p><a href=3D"mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz" target=3D"_blank">m.parkin= son@auckland.ac.nz</a></p> <p>Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian</p> <p>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D</p> <div> <div></div> <div class=3D"h5"> <p>=A0</p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">-----Original Message-----<br>From: <a href=3D"mail= to:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a> [mail= to:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.s= f.org.nz</a>] On Behalf Of Errol Cavit<br> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:36 PM<br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.or= g.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br>Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Is= sues, was Counterspell proposal</span></p> <p>=A0</p> <p>As an example, here are WordSmith's CS Ranks (MA 20)</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>3=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Air GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Air SK</p> <p>3=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bardic GK</p> <p>4=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bardic SK</p> <p>3=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Binder GK</p> <p>4=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Binder SK</p> <p>4=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Celestial GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Celestial SK</p> <p>7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E&E GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E&E SK</p> <p>0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Earth GK</p> <p>7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Earth SK</p> <p>7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fire GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Fire SK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Greater Summoning GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Greater Summoning SK</p> <p>0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ice GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Ice SK</p> <p>3=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Illusion GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Illusion SK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mind GK</p> <p>7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Mind SK</p> <p>4=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Namer GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Namer SK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Necro GK</p> <p>7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Necro SK</p> <p>0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Rune GK</p> <p>3=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Rune SK</p> <p>0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Water GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Water SK</p> <p>7=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Witchcraft GK</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Witchcraft SK</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>For context, specials are</p> <p>11=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bane</p> <p>8=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Forbidding</p> <p>12=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Dispel Magic</p> <p>6=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Banishment</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>-----Original Message-----</p> <p>From: <a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq-owne= r@dq.sf.org.nz</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target= =3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>] On Behalf Of Jacqui Smith</p> <p>Sent: Wednesday, 16 June 2010 3:56 p.m.</p> <p>To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz= </a></p> <p>Subject: Re: [dq] Ruleset Issues, was Counterspell proposal</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>Jim Arona wrote:</p> <p>> I'm not keen on the one per college variant because it means on= e spell </p> <p>> entirely turns off an Adept.</p> <p>Thinking about this, I realised that I've rarely seen anyone cast a = </p> <p>general knowledge counter - except to turn off a spell they have </p> <p>running. Why? Because almost all the nasty spells are special knowledge = </p> <p>(with 2-3 exceptions I can think of) and a special knowledge counter </p= > <p>turns them off. Basically I'm beginning to see that there isn't = a heck </p> <p>of a lot of point in having separate general knowledge and special </p> <p>knowledge counters, because the special knowledge counter is damn good <= /p> <p>at turning off mages.</p> <p>=A0</p></div></div> <p>And ONE spell to effectively turn off almost ALL antagonistic elemental = </p> <p>magic....? WAY too powerful.</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>If the problem is actually the proliferation of GM-invented Colleges - <= /p> <div class=3D"im"> <p>maybe there's a better way to deal with that. Insisting that they pi= ck </p> <p>an existing counterspell for their invention, maybe?</p> <p>=A0</p></div> <p>Jacqui</p> <div class=3D"im"> <p>=A0</p> <p>=A0</p> <p>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.n= z" target=3D"_blank">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --</p></div></div></div></= blockquote></div><br> --000feaf5647c64f0630489203eaa-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Test
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:02:29 +1200
--00c09f8a4c4a20b2950489204e9c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just a test, nothing happening here, go on about your business --00c09f8a4c4a20b2950489204e9c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 <p><font face="georgia,serif">Just a test, nothing happening here, go on about your business</font></p> --00c09f8a4c4a20b2950489204e9c-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Test
From	paul schmidt
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:22:30 +1200
--_dea34cbb-14b6-4861-b612-17d5f71cf6a6_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Just a test=2C nothing happening here=2C go on about your business =20 Shouldn't that end with "Go on about your business citizen." from the guy = in the shocktrooper outfit? =20 _________________________________________________________________ Find a way to cure that travel bug MSN NZ Travel http://travel.msn.co.nz/= --_dea34cbb-14b6-4861-b612-17d5f71cf6a6_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <style><!-- .hmmessage P { margin:0px=3B padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size: 10pt=3B font-family:Verdana } --></style> </head> <body class=3D'hmmessage'> <BR>&nbsp=3B<BR> <FONT face=3Dgeorgia=2Cserif>Just a test=2C nothing happening here=2C go on= about your business</FONT><BR> <FONT face=3DGeorgia></FONT>&nbsp=3B<BR> <FONT face=3DGeorgia>Shouldn't that end with &nbsp=3B"Go on about your busi= ness citizen." from the guy in the shocktrooper outfit?</FONT><BR> = <br /><hr />MSN NZ Travel <a href=3D'http://travel.msn.co.nz/' target=3D= '_new'>Find a way to cure that travel bug</a></body> </html>= --_dea34cbb-14b6-4861-b612-17d5f71cf6a6_-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Test
From	Jim Arona
Date	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:33:05 +1200
--0016363b8edcaf8ceb0489226827 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It would, if only I could find a decent shocktrooper outfitter. With serious automatic weaponry. On 16 June 2010 19:22, paul schmidt <p_f_schmidt@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Just a test, nothing happening here, go on about your business > > Shouldn't that end with "Go on about your business citizen." from the guy > in the shocktrooper outfit? > > ------------------------------ > MSN NZ Travel Find a way to cure that travel bug<http://travel.msn.co.nz/> > --0016363b8edcaf8ceb0489226827 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <font face=3D"georgia,serif">It would, if only I could=A0find a decent shoc= ktrooper outfitter. With serious automatic weaponry.<br></font><br> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 June 2010 19:22, paul schmidt <span dir=3D= "ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:p_f_schmidt@hotmail.com">p_f_schmidt@hotmail.co= m</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div><br>=A0<br><font face=3D"georgia,serif">Just a test, nothing happening= here, go on about your business</font><br><font face=3D"Georgia"></font>= =A0<br><font face=3D"Georgia">Shouldn't that end with =A0"Go on ab= out your business citizen." from the guy in the shocktrooper outfit?</= font><br> <div class=3D"hm"><br> <hr> MSN NZ Travel <a href=3D"http://travel.msn.co.nz/" target=3D"_blank">Find a= way to cure that travel bug</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br> --0016363b8edcaf8ceb0489226827-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --