--000e0cd6b008d2a875048cc9b5a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Proficiency with armour use that _effectively_ reduces its ENC affects might
be a possible warrior specialty.

General agreement with Andrew that making the skill easier / cheaper / more
desirable for (serious) mages isn't that desirable an outcome -- Ian's idea
to "Increase the EP significantly. Mages are EP poor, non-mages are ep-rich.
Give an EP discount for more weapon classes at given ranks" looks an
interesting area to explore. If there are going to be complexities make them
non-runtime ones.

I'd also argue against including a bow / crossbow category -- the rest of
Warrior is based around melee / engaged and introducing ranged just
complicates matters. If we want specialist bow armed fighters to have
bonuses then I'd suggest mainstreaming the previously mentioned Archer skill
(or its Kyujutsu ancestor... or something else similar).

Cheers,
Martin


On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Ian Wood <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> high stats mean almost nothing in DQ as it is.
>
> the game has a ballance between defence and armour.
> if you want more TMR when wearing a given armour then the best option is to
> increase Strength rather than change the rules.
>
> Ian
>
> --- On *Fri, 30/7/10, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Date: Friday, 30 July, 2010, 10:46 PM
>
>  I agree with Andrew about the increase to TMR, it creates other problems
> and is kind of dumb.
> I would prefer to have the ENC penalties for armour reduced, which will
> tend to favour high PROT fighters over high AG fighters.
>
>

--000e0cd6b008d2a875048cc9b5a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Proficiency with armour use that _effectively_ reduces its ENC affects migh=
t be a possible warrior specialty.<br><br>General agreement with Andrew tha=
t making the skill easier / cheaper / more desirable for (serious) mages is=
n&#39;t that desirable an outcome -- Ian&#39;s idea to &quot;Increase the E=
P significantly. Mages are EP poor, non-mages are ep-rich. Give an EP disco=
unt for more weapon classes at given ranks&quot; looks an interesting area =
to explore. If there are going to be complexities make them non-runtime one=
s.<br>
<br>I&#39;d also argue against including a bow / crossbow category -- the r=
est of Warrior is based around melee / engaged and introducing ranged just =
complicates matters. If we want specialist bow armed fighters to have bonus=
es then I&#39;d suggest mainstreaming the previously mentioned Archer skill=
 (or its Kyujutsu ancestor... or something else similar).<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 31,=
 2010 at 12:57 AM, Ian Wood <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dawnhav=
en@xtra.co.nz">dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px so=
lid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0"><tbody><tr><td styl=
e=3D"font: inherit;" valign=3D"top"><div>high stats mean almost nothing in =
DQ as it is.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>the game has a ballance between defence and armour.</div>
<div>if you want more TMR when wearing a given armour then the best option =
is to increase Strength rather than change the rules.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Ian<br><br>--- On <b>Fri, 30/7/10, Jim Arona <i>&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&gt;</i></b> =
wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left:=
 5px; margin-left: 5px;"><br>From: Jim Arona &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim.aron=
a@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&gt;<div class=3D"im"=
><br>
Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill<br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" t=
arget=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br></div>Date: Friday, 30 July, 2010, =
10:46 PM<br><br>
<div><div class=3D"im">
<div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I agree with Andrew about the increase to=
 TMR, it creates other problems and is kind of dumb.</font></div>
<div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I would prefer to have the ENC penalties =
for armour reduced, which will tend to favour high PROT fighters over high =
AG fighters.</font><br></div></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></t=
able>
</blockquote></div>

--000e0cd6b008d2a875048cc9b5a2--


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

I've started a wiki page for this proposal:
http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Warrior_3.0

Changes from the initial email post:

No specialising in one category.

Advanced Charge changed as per reply to Andrew.

2 new general abilities (Close-Evasion & Close-Withdraw)

Following general consensus that Warrior needs to remain XP and Time costly...

Cost of additional abilities now 10k experience (was 8k), and only available from Rk 5.

Acquiring a weapon category at each rank is now mandatory.
AND you must have a weapon in the category at max rank before you can acquire it (the category).

This makes some ranks easier than they used to be, and others harder, over-all I think it is
harder.

12. Shield (max rank 4) and 8. Entangling (Net has max rank 4) are the easiest categories to
acquire, most categories have a weapon with max rank 5, but some (4. A Class Swords & 11.
Unarmed) require rank 9 or 10 in a weapon before they can be acquired.

As examples...
My high level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but wouldn't qualify
under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapon and 5-9 in another).
My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current rules and fails to qualify under
this proposal (though could have qualified with different ranking choices).


I've also started some notes Warrior Guilds on Alusia.  Not a lot of substance so far but
hopefully enough to get the concept.
Warriors getting trained at the guild get access to the stuff in the Rules.  More interesting
and flavourful guilds will grant access to more/less/different abilities along with their
draconian codes of ethics and demands of exclusivity.


Cheers, Stephen.


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

So just for me who's slow

To be able to rank warrior from 1 to 2 I need to rank a second weapon (new
category) up to its maximum, and the same for each new rank?

Is that the proposal?

Hamish

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:19 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill

I've started a wiki page for this proposal:
http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Warrior_3.0

Changes from the initial email post:

No specialising in one category.

Advanced Charge changed as per reply to Andrew.

2 new general abilities (Close-Evasion & Close-Withdraw)

Following general consensus that Warrior needs to remain XP and Time
costly...

Cost of additional abilities now 10k experience (was 8k), and only available
from Rk 5.

Acquiring a weapon category at each rank is now mandatory.
AND you must have a weapon in the category at max rank before you can
acquire it (the category).

This makes some ranks easier than they used to be, and others harder,
over-all I think it is
harder.

12. Shield (max rank 4) and 8. Entangling (Net has max rank 4) are the
easiest categories to
acquire, most categories have a weapon with max rank 5, but some (4. A Class
Swords & 11.
Unarmed) require rank 9 or 10 in a weapon before they can be acquired.

As examples...
My high level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but
wouldn't qualify
under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapon and 5-9 in
another).
My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current rules and fails
to qualify under
this proposal (though could have qualified with different ranking choices).


I've also started some notes Warrior Guilds on Alusia.  Not a lot of
substance so far but
hopefully enough to get the concept.
Warriors getting trained at the guild get access to the stuff in the Rules.
More interesting
and flavourful guilds will grant access to more/less/different abilities
along with their
draconian codes of ethics and demands of exclusivity.


Cheers, Stephen.


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

Just looking at the cost in time (Weeks) and XP to meet the proposed requirements for Warrior

Cheapest Warrior:
Rk 0 : 21w + 400xp (Rk 4 Shield)
Rk 1 : 21w + 2,400xp (Rk 4 Hand Axe)
Rk 2 : 21w + 2,500xp (Rk 4 Net) or 31w + 800xp (Rk 5 Flail)
Rk 3 : 31w + 1,500xp (Rk 5 2-Handed-Sword)
Rk 4 : 31w + 1,500xp (Rk 5 Mace/Mattock/Warhammer)
Rk 5 : 31w + 3,000xp (Rk 5 Halberd)
Rk 6 : 31w + 3,300xp (Rk 5 Spear)
Rk 7 : 43w + 6,000xp (Rk 6 Shortsword)
Rk 8 : 57w + 8,000xp (Rk 7 Sabre)
Rk 9 : 73w + 12,000xp (Rk 8 Nodaichi)
Rk 10: 91w + 12,020xp (Rk 9 Cestus)
Cheapest cumulative weapon rank cost of Rk 10 Warrior: 451 weeks + 52,420xp

'Best' Warrior (order is arbitrary):
Rk 0 : 57w + 5,900xp (Rk 7 Hand & Half)
Rk 1 : 21w + 400xp (Rk 4 Shield)
Rk 2 : 57w + 8,000xp (Rk 7 Battle Axe)
Rk 3 : 111w + 20,700xp (Rk 10 Unarmed)
Rk 4 : 31w + 1,500xp (Rk 5 Mace/Mattock)
Rk 5 : 91w + 6,600xp (Rk 8 Glaive)
Rk 6 : 111w + 12,000xp (Rk 10 Javelin)
Rk 7 : 111w + 16,400xp (Rk 10 Main-Gauche / Sai)
Rk 8 : 57w + 8,000xp (Rk 7 Sabre)
Rk 9 : 91w + 15,000xp (Rk 9 Estoc)
Rk 10: 111w + 15,000xp (Rk 10 Katana)
Cumulative cost of being 'the best' Rk10 Warrior: 849 weeks + 109,500xp

The XP cost is not too bad, but the 8 to 16 years of pure weapon ranking is daunting.

PS. Rk 10 Warrior is 63 weeks + 59,000xp (or 10% less with trainers)

Assuming most Warriors go for the Category of their primary weapon plus the 6 cheapest, that
gets them to Rk7 without too much more pain than the current rules.
And the master ranks will be costing a bit more than currently.


On Mon, August 2, 2010 12:19 pm, Stephen Martin wrote:
> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Warrior_3.0
>
> Acquiring a weapon category at each rank is now mandatory.
> AND you must have a weapon in the category at max rank before you can acquire it (the
> category).


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

Not so slow.
You're right on the money!

On Mon, August 2, 2010 1:18 pm, Hamish Brown wrote:
> So just for me who's slow
>
> To be able to rank warrior from 1 to 2 I need to rank a second weapon (new
> category) up to its maximum, and the same for each new rank?
>
> Is that the proposal?
>
> Hamish
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Martin
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:19 PM
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill
>
> I've started a wiki page for this proposal:
> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Warrior_3.0
>
> Changes from the initial email post:
>
> No specialising in one category.
>
> Advanced Charge changed as per reply to Andrew.
>
> 2 new general abilities (Close-Evasion & Close-Withdraw)
>
> Following general consensus that Warrior needs to remain XP and Time
> costly...
>
> Cost of additional abilities now 10k experience (was 8k), and only available
> from Rk 5.
>
> Acquiring a weapon category at each rank is now mandatory.
> AND you must have a weapon in the category at max rank before you can
> acquire it (the category).
>
> This makes some ranks easier than they used to be, and others harder,
> over-all I think it is
> harder.
>
> 12. Shield (max rank 4) and 8. Entangling (Net has max rank 4) are the
> easiest categories to
> acquire, most categories have a weapon with max rank 5, but some (4. A Class
> Swords & 11.
> Unarmed) require rank 9 or 10 in a weapon before they can be acquired.
>
> As examples...
> My high level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but
> wouldn't qualify
> under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapon and 5-9 in
> another).
> My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current rules and fails
> to qualify under
> this proposal (though could have qualified with different ranking choices).
>
>
> I've also started some notes Warrior Guilds on Alusia.  Not a lot of
> substance so far but
> hopefully enough to get the concept.
> Warriors getting trained at the guild get access to the stuff in the Rules.
> More interesting
> and flavourful guilds will grant access to more/less/different abilities
> along with their
> draconian codes of ethics and demands of exclusivity.
>
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Cn we make an additional pathway for players that don't want to take 2 out
of 3 sessions off to train their warrior - in which we workout how much EP
is equivalent to that amount of time.

Say 50k to get each rank 1 to 5, 100K to get each rank from 6 - 8 and 200K
each for 9 and 10.

A major main pain with warriors is that they take to much time off when you
can't play them so they can get their skills.  

I don't mind at all making it hard.  Even more ep than I have suggested
above is fine but lets not make a singular path that takes forever.  My
vision is of a skill set that most groups want to have for its combat
advantages at fight time - that provides an interesting tactical advantage
that can be planned for (in mil-sci time out) and executed in novel ways to
gain advantage. 

So the unique skills should be things that have flexible tactical
application, rather than just making stuff easier.  That being said I like
the ones Martin has suggested.

Also some kind of ability to cause other melee fighters to have to attack
the warrior would be good.  To give the warrior the skill to say I will run
into that group and hold them all off the mages, don't let me die.

Hamish


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Hamish Brown
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:18 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill

So just for me who's slow

To be able to rank warrior from 1 to 2 I need to rank a second weapon (new
category) up to its maximum, and the same for each new rank?

Is that the proposal?

Hamish

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 12:19 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill

I've started a wiki page for this proposal:
http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Warrior_3.0

Changes from the initial email post:

No specialising in one category.

Advanced Charge changed as per reply to Andrew.

2 new general abilities (Close-Evasion & Close-Withdraw)

Following general consensus that Warrior needs to remain XP and Time
costly...

Cost of additional abilities now 10k experience (was 8k), and only available
from Rk 5.

Acquiring a weapon category at each rank is now mandatory.
AND you must have a weapon in the category at max rank before you can
acquire it (the category).

This makes some ranks easier than they used to be, and others harder,
over-all I think it is
harder.

12. Shield (max rank 4) and 8. Entangling (Net has max rank 4) are the
easiest categories to
acquire, most categories have a weapon with max rank 5, but some (4. A Class
Swords & 11.
Unarmed) require rank 9 or 10 in a weapon before they can be acquired.

As examples...
My high level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but
wouldn't qualify
under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapon and 5-9 in
another).
My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current rules and fails
to qualify under
this proposal (though could have qualified with different ranking choices).


I've also started some notes Warrior Guilds on Alusia.  Not a lot of
substance so far but
hopefully enough to get the concept.
Warriors getting trained at the guild get access to the stuff in the Rules.
More interesting
and flavourful guilds will grant access to more/less/different abilities
along with their
draconian codes of ethics and demands of exclusivity.


Cheers, Stephen.


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

--001485e3e65c32a5d2048ccdf04e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Hamish Brown <perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz>wrote:

> That being said I like the ones Martin has suggested.
>

Stephen.

;)

--001485e3e65c32a5d2048ccdf04e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Hamish Brown <sp=
an dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz">perfect_brow=
n@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);=
 padding-left: 1ex;">
That being said I like the ones Martin has suggested.<br></blockquote><div>=
<br>Stephen.<br><br>;)<br><br><br></div></div>

--001485e3e65c32a5d2048ccdf04e--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CB3251.CF43ADD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lol opps

 

 

 

  _____  

From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:27 PM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill

 

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Hamish Brown <perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

That being said I like the ones Martin has suggested.


Stephen.

;)




------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CB3251.CF43ADD0
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;}
 /* 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'>Lol =
opps<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>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>=


</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</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>Martin
Dickson<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Monday, August 02, =
2010 2:27
PM<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] Warrior =
Skill</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>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM, <st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">Hamish</st1:PersonName>
Brown &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz">perfect_brown@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt;=

wrote:<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'>That being said I like the ones Martin has =
suggested.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br>
Stephen.<br>
<br>
;)<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01CB3251.CF43ADD0--


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

On Mon, August 2, 2010 2:09 pm, Hamish Brown wrote:
> Cn we make an additional pathway for players that don't want to take 2 out
> of 3 sessions off to train their warrior - in which we workout how much EP
> is equivalent to that amount of time.
>
> Say 50k to get each rank 1 to 5, 100K to get each rank from 6 - 8 and 200K
> each for 9 and 10.
>
> A major main pain with warriors is that they take to much time off when you
> can't play them so they can get their skills.

I think this is more of a general issue with the time it takes to rank weapons - twice as long
as skills or rituals.
And because weapons are relatively cheap XP wise, a Mage is generally not that far behind a
similar level non-mage in Weapon ranks.

From a Fighter VS Mages game-balance point of view, it would make more sense for weapons to be
higher XP and lower time so that magic and weapons are directly competing for the same
resources.

But going back to try to minimise changes, what is general opinion on a 'Warrior Benefit' of
being able to decrease weapon training time by 25% at a cost of 50% extra experience (or some
other percentages).
And/or giving them an 'Intensive Weapons Training' option where they get to train mornings and
afternoons on the same weapon.


> I don't mind at all making it hard.  Even more ep than I have suggested
> above is fine but lets not make a singular path that takes forever.  My
> vision is of a skill set that most groups want to have for its combat
> advantages at fight time - that provides an interesting tactical advantage
> that can be planned for (in mil-sci time out) and executed in novel ways to
> gain advantage.

Current proposal is that you need to get to Rk 5 Warrior before getting the special abilities.
This is a reasonable investment in Warrior (6 weapons to max rank), in theory enough to deter
the dabblers but not too much for those who wish to make it a priority.

> So the unique skills should be things that have flexible tactical
> application, rather than just making stuff easier.  That being said I like
> the ones Martin has suggested.

I must have missed the abilities Martin posted, could somebody re-post them please?
Or are you referring to the ones I posted and you've spent too much time in English boarding
schools?

> Also some kind of ability to cause other melee fighters to have to attack
> the warrior would be good.  To give the warrior the skill to say I will run
> into that group and hold them all off the mages, don't let me die.

There is a bit of control a fighter can exert on the field, careful use of terrain (or magical
walls) and 'sticky hexes' mean that a couple of fighters can hold the line.

I am unkeen on making the MMORPG 'Taunt' ability a standard ability in DQ.  I think this is
something that should be role-played by the character and the effects applied by the GM.
Or it is a magical ability granted by a GM.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

>Current proposal is that you need to get to Rk 5 Warrior before getting the
>special abilities.
>This is a reasonable investment in Warrior (6 weapons to max rank), in
>theory enough to deter
>the dabblers but not too much for those who wish to make it a priority.


Another way to balance it is to require similar or slightly lower Ep for
each level such as 20k from 1 to 5, 50k from 6 - 7, 100k from 8 - 10 
but require 1 weapon at max rank at level 1, a shield or main gauch at max
rank at level 2.  A secondary weapon or unarmed at rk5, and perhaps 1 more
later.  I think my toons object to learning weapons they will never use -
but then they are meat heads.

The high ep track is essentially making the same demands as spells and will
cause people to specialise at one or the other to some degree not getting
the special abilities till Rk 5 Warrior also seems important to manage this.

With the high time low ep track I would probably save up 100k ep and put the
character into retirement/training for 8 years, then come out and play often
after that getting spells...


>There is a bit of control a fighter can exert on the field, careful use of
>terrain (or magical
>walls) and 'sticky hexes' mean that a couple of fighters can hold the line.
>
>I am unkeen on making the MMORPG 'Taunt' ability a standard ability in DQ.
>I think this is
>something that should be role-played by the character and the effects
>applied by the GM.
>Or it is a magical ability granted by a GM.

This is true, you can always show em your back and tell em about their
mothers.

Oh and I always like to attribute your work to other people didn't you know?

Hamish


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

--_a87ec05a-9cef-4a48-8159-0cea6ddc96e9_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Back in the day a person was not cosidered a master if they did not know ho=
w to use all melee weapons regaurdless of their personal preferance or figh=
ting style. One reason was in deuling you didn't always have choice of weap=
on and another was that you only truely understand how to defend against a =
weapon if you have fought with it. This I know is true from experiance.

=20

To game mechanics=2C sugest master rank warriors who have mil sci can funct=
ion as mil sci while engaged at 1 rk lower.

second the add missile weapons as a catagory

making special attacks easier for warriors would see them used more.

=20

TTFN

Michael


=20
> Date: Fri=2C 30 Jul 2010 23:18:37 +1200
> Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill
> From: stephenm@aklnz.net
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>=20
> Fair points. I hadn't really thought through the Specialisation=2C was tr=
ying to create an
> alternative avenue for those that didn't want to train in dozens of weapo=
ns they would never
> use and had no interest in.
> I withdraw the Specialisation in a Weapon Category option.
>=20
> One thought.. should picking up a new category at each rank be optional o=
r required?
> If it is required it means the Warrior needs to acquire 4 weapon ranks in=
 the new cat before
> their next warrior rank (still easier to achieve than current strictures)=
. And all high level
> Warrior will have skill in a wide range of weapon types.
> If optional the one-weapon specialist can improve their one weapon gain w=
arrior benefits and
> abilities with it=2C etc. May still be too cheap and easy to get good wit=
h the one presumably
> already premium (H&1/2=2C Glaive=2C Battle Axe) weapon.
> But then is there any point in forcing people to spend time & xp on weapo=
n ranks they'll never
> use and don't want?
>=20
>=20
> Re the Movement Ability: Keeping the extra movement with a Step & Attack =
and with Special
> Attack. Agree Charge with Poles doesn't really need more. How about the n=
on-pole charge goes
> up to full TMR (but still with the SC% penalty).
>=20
> btw Thank you for the well thought out feedback.
>=20
> Cheers=2C Stephen.
>=20
> On Fri=2C July 30=2C 2010 10:42 pm=2C Andrew Withy wrote:
> > I STRONGLY dislike the specialisation suggestion as it stands=2C as it =
makes
> > the skill much more mage-friendly=2C and doesn't encourage this skill t=
o be
> > mainly taken by melee-oriented non-mages or sub-mages. Example: mage wi=
th
> > glaive=2C gets rank 5 warrior based on ranking glaive only=2C gains bon=
uses as
> > if Rank 10 warrior=2C and usually doesn't need to change weapon. Perhap=
s I
> > have misunderstood=2C but this appears to shift the skill into a must-h=
ave
> > cheap and easy bonus for any second-rank=2C third-rate mage who fights
> > occasionally.
> >
> >
> > Primary weapon to Rank 7=2C with +10 strike chance
> > Old Skill: 66=2C000 ep=2C 348 weeks. Two master feats
> > New Skill: 6=2C600 ep=2C 68 weeks.
> >
> > Primary weapon to Rank 7=2C with +18 defence
> > Old Skill: 55=2C000 ep=2C 339 weeks. One master feat
> > New Skill: 11=2C000 ep=2C 75 weeks.
> >
> > This discrepancy of "value" is mainly due to specialisation. An ep and =
time
> > reduction of FIVE or TEN times is an inappropriate change that will mak=
e
> > this skill a "must have"=2C particularly as the warrior part is a small
> > proportion of this cost/time - ranking the weapon is most of it.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > On a more technical note=2C there is an oddity with Stephen's movement =
bonus
> > suggestion.
> > His Warrior-Charge-with-Pole is *faster* than Move. Maybe this is OK=2C=
 but I
> > dislike it. Maybe we allow charge w. poleweapon when there is no enemy =
at
> > the other end. I dislike this=2C as I'd prefer to keep movement =3DMR. =
Maybe
> > we just allow warriors to increase TMR by +1 instead. Or only apply the=
 TMR
> > bonus to Step+Attack=2C and Charge-with-Non-Pole. Charge-with-Pole is a=
lready
> > very effective for moving around the grid (being twice speed and +35% t=
o hit
> > over normal charge).
> >
> > The simplifications on the numbers are also a slight boost=2C but *if* =
the
> > skill didn't become much easier to get and more attractive because of f=
unky
> > abilities=2C this would be OK.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Andrew
>=20
>=20
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
 		 	   		  =

--_a87ec05a-9cef-4a48-8159-0cea6ddc96e9_
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:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
Back in the day a person was not cosidered a master if&nbsp=3Bthey did not =
know how to use all&nbsp=3Bmelee weapons regaurdless of their personal pref=
erance or fighting style. One reason was in deuling you didn't always have =
choice of weapon and another was that you only truely&nbsp=3Bunderstand how=
 to&nbsp=3Bdefend against a weapon if you have fought with it. This I know =
is true from experiance.<BR>
&nbsp=3B<BR>
To game mechanics=2C sugest master rank warriors&nbsp=3Bwho have mil sci ca=
n function&nbsp=3Bas mil sci while engaged at 1 rk lower.<BR>
second the add missile weapons as a catagory<BR>
making special attacks easier for warriors would see them used more.<BR>
&nbsp=3B<BR>
TTFN<BR>
Michael<BR>
<BR>&nbsp=3B<BR>&gt=3B Date: Fri=2C 30 Jul 2010 23:18:37 +1200<BR>&gt=3B Su=
bject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill<BR>&gt=3B From: stephenm@aklnz.net<BR>&gt=3B =
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B Fair points. I hadn't really thoug=
ht through the Specialisation=2C was trying to create an<BR>&gt=3B alternat=
ive avenue for those that didn't want to train in dozens of weapons they wo=
uld never<BR>&gt=3B use and had no interest in.<BR>&gt=3B I withdraw the Sp=
ecialisation in a Weapon Category option.<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B One thought.=
. should picking up a new category at each rank be optional or required?<BR=
>&gt=3B If it is required it means the Warrior needs to acquire 4 weapon ra=
nks in the new cat before<BR>&gt=3B their next warrior rank (still easier t=
o achieve than current strictures). And all high level<BR>&gt=3B Warrior wi=
ll have skill in a wide range of weapon types.<BR>&gt=3B If optional the on=
e-weapon specialist can improve their one weapon gain warrior benefits and<=
BR>&gt=3B abilities with it=2C etc. May still be too cheap and easy to get =
good with the one presumably<BR>&gt=3B already premium (H&amp=3B1/2=2C Glai=
ve=2C Battle Axe) weapon.<BR>&gt=3B But then is there any point in forcing =
people to spend time &amp=3B xp on weapon ranks they'll never<BR>&gt=3B use=
 and don't want?<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B Re the Movement Ability: K=
eeping the extra movement with a Step &amp=3B Attack and with Special<BR>&g=
t=3B Attack. Agree Charge with Poles doesn't really need more. How about th=
e non-pole charge goes<BR>&gt=3B up to full TMR (but still with the SC% pen=
alty).<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B btw Thank you for the well thought out feedback=
.<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B Cheers=2C Stephen.<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B On Fri=2C Ju=
ly 30=2C 2010 10:42 pm=2C Andrew Withy wrote:<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B I STRONGLY d=
islike the specialisation suggestion as it stands=2C as it makes<BR>&gt=3B =
&gt=3B the skill much more mage-friendly=2C and doesn't encourage this skil=
l to be<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B mainly taken by melee-oriented non-mages or sub-ma=
ges. Example: mage with<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B glaive=2C gets rank 5 warrior base=
d on ranking glaive only=2C gains bonuses as<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B if Rank 10 wa=
rrior=2C and usually doesn't need to change weapon. Perhaps I<BR>&gt=3B &gt=
=3B have misunderstood=2C but this appears to shift the skill into a must-h=
ave<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B cheap and easy bonus for any second-rank=2C third-rate=
 mage who fights<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B occasionally.<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B =
&gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B Primary weapon to Rank 7=2C with +10 strike chance<=
BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B Old Skill: 66=2C000 ep=2C 348 weeks. Two master feats<BR>&=
gt=3B &gt=3B New Skill: 6=2C600 ep=2C 68 weeks.<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B =
&gt=3B Primary weapon to Rank 7=2C with +18 defence<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B Old Sk=
ill: 55=2C000 ep=2C 339 weeks. One master feat<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B New Skill: =
11=2C000 ep=2C 75 weeks.<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B This discrepancy=
 of "value" is mainly due to specialisation. An ep and time<BR>&gt=3B &gt=
=3B reduction of FIVE or TEN times is an inappropriate change that will mak=
e<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B this skill a "must have"=2C particularly as the warrior =
part is a small<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B proportion of this cost/time - ranking the=
 weapon is most of it.<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B ------------------=
<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B On a more technical note=2C there is an =
oddity with Stephen's movement bonus<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B suggestion.<BR>&gt=3B=
 &gt=3B His Warrior-Charge-with-Pole is *faster* than Move. Maybe this is O=
K=2C but I<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B dislike it. Maybe we allow charge w. poleweapon=
 when there is no enemy at<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B the other end. I dislike this=
=2C as I'd prefer to keep movement =3DMR. Maybe<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B we just al=
low warriors to increase TMR by +1 instead. Or only apply the TMR<BR>&gt=3B=
 &gt=3B bonus to Step+Attack=2C and Charge-with-Non-Pole. Charge-with-Pole =
is already<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B very effective for moving around the grid (bein=
g twice speed and +35% to hit<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B over normal charge).<BR>&gt=
=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B The simplifications on the numbers are also a s=
light boost=2C but *if* the<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B skill didn't become much easie=
r to get and more attractive because of funky<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B abilities=2C=
 this would be OK.<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B Regar=
ds<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B<BR>&gt=3B &gt=3B Andrew<BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B <BR>&gt=3B=
 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<BR> 		 	   		  =
</body>
</html>=

--_a87ec05a-9cef-4a48-8159-0cea6ddc96e9_--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CB326B.BB58F590
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 

One reason was in deuling you didn't always have choice of weapon 

 

Don't you just used unarmed when dueling?  I find it keeps the dueling to
minimum to show such audacity.  

 

H 

 
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:18:37 +1200
> Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill
> From: stephenm@aklnz.net
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> 
> Fair points. I hadn't really thought through the Specialisation, was
trying to create an
> alternative avenue for those that didn't want to train in dozens of
weapons they would never
> use and had no interest in.
> I withdraw the Specialisation in a Weapon Category option.
> 
> One thought.. should picking up a new category at each rank be optional or
required?
> If it is required it means the Warrior needs to acquire 4 weapon ranks in
the new cat before
> their next warrior rank (still easier to achieve than current strictures).
And all high level
> Warrior will have skill in a wide range of weapon types.
> If optional the one-weapon specialist can improve their one weapon gain
warrior benefits and
> abilities with it, etc. May still be too cheap and easy to get good with
the one presumably
> already premium (H&1/2, Glaive, Battle Axe) weapon.
> But then is there any point in forcing people to spend time & xp on weapon
ranks they'll never
> use and don't want?
> 
> 
> Re the Movement Ability: Keeping the extra movement with a Step & Attack
and with Special
> Attack. Agree Charge with Poles doesn't really need more. How about the
non-pole charge goes
> up to full TMR (but still with the SC% penalty).
> 
> btw Thank you for the well thought out feedback.
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> On Fri, July 30, 2010 10:42 pm, Andrew Withy wrote:
> > I STRONGLY dislike the specialisation suggestion as it stands, as it
makes
> > the skill much more mage-friendly, and doesn't encourage this skill to
be
> > mainly taken by melee-oriented non-mages or sub-mages. Example: mage
with
> > glaive, gets rank 5 warrior based on ranking glaive only, gains bonuses
as
> > if Rank 10 warrior, and usually doesn't need to change weapon. Perhaps I
> > have misunderstood, but this appears to shift the skill into a must-have
> > cheap and easy bonus for any second-rank, third-rate mage who fights
> > occasionally.
> >
> >
> > Primary weapon to Rank 7, with +10 strike chance
> > Old Skill: 66,000 ep, 348 weeks. Two master feats
> > New Skill: 6,600 ep, 68 weeks.
> >
> > Primary weapon to Rank 7, with +18 defence
> > Old Skill: 55,000 ep, 339 weeks. One master feat
> > New Skill: 11,000 ep, 75 weeks.
> >
> > This discrepancy of "value" is mainly due to specialisation. An ep and
time
> > reduction of FIVE or TEN times is an inappropriate change that will make
> > this skill a "must have", particularly as the warrior part is a small
> > proportion of this cost/time - ranking the weapon is most of it.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > On a more technical note, there is an oddity with Stephen's movement
bonus
> > suggestion.
> > His Warrior-Charge-with-Pole is *faster* than Move. Maybe this is OK,
but I
> > dislike it. Maybe we allow charge w. poleweapon when there is no enemy
at
> > the other end. I dislike this, as I'd prefer to keep movement =MR. Maybe
> > we just allow warriors to increase TMR by +1 instead. Or only apply the
TMR
> > bonus to Step+Attack, and Charge-with-Non-Pole. Charge-with-Pole is
already
> > very effective for moving around the grid (being twice speed and +35% to
hit
> > over normal charge).
> >
> > The simplifications on the numbers are also a slight boost, but *if* the
> > skill didn't become much easier to get and more attractive because of
funky
> > abilities, this would be OK.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Andrew
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CB326B.BB58F590
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html 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)">
<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;}
 /* 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:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
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=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>One reason was in deuling you didn't always have =
choice of
weapon <font color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></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>&nbsp;</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'>Don&#8217;t you just used unarmed =
when dueling?&nbsp;
I find it keeps the dueling to minimum to show such audacity. =
&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'>H</span></font><font size=3D2 =
face=3DTahoma><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>&nbsp;<br>
<br>
&nbsp;<br>
&gt; Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:18:37 +1200<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Warrior Skill<br>
&gt; From: stephenm@aklnz.net<br>
&gt; To: <st1:PersonName =
w:st=3D"on">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</st1:PersonName><br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Fair points. I hadn't really thought through the Specialisation, =
was
trying to create an<br>
&gt; alternative avenue for those that didn't want to train in dozens of
weapons they would never<br>
&gt; use and had no interest in.<br>
&gt; I withdraw the Specialisation in a Weapon Category option.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; One thought.. should picking up a new category at each rank be =
optional or
required?<br>
&gt; If it is required it means the Warrior needs to acquire 4 weapon =
ranks in
the new cat before<br>
&gt; their next warrior rank (still easier to achieve than current =
strictures).
And all high level<br>
&gt; Warrior will have skill in a wide range of weapon types.<br>
&gt; If optional the one-weapon specialist can improve their one weapon =
gain
warrior benefits and<br>
&gt; abilities with it, etc. May still be too cheap and easy to get good =
with the
one presumably<br>
&gt; already premium (H&amp;1/2, Glaive, Battle Axe) weapon.<br>
&gt; But then is there any point in forcing people to spend time &amp; =
xp on
weapon ranks they'll never<br>
&gt; use and don't want?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Re the Movement Ability: Keeping the extra movement with a Step =
&amp;
Attack and with Special<br>
&gt; Attack. Agree Charge with Poles doesn't really need more. How about =
the
non-pole charge goes<br>
&gt; up to full TMR (but still with the SC% penalty).<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; btw Thank you for the well thought out feedback.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Cheers, Stephen.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; On Fri, July 30, 2010 10:42 pm, Andrew Withy wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; I STRONGLY dislike the specialisation suggestion as it stands, =
as it
makes<br>
&gt; &gt; the skill much more mage-friendly, and doesn't encourage this =
skill
to be<br>
&gt; &gt; mainly taken by melee-oriented non-mages or sub-mages. =
Example: mage
with<br>
&gt; &gt; glaive, gets rank 5 warrior based on ranking glaive only, =
gains
bonuses as<br>
&gt; &gt; if Rank 10 warrior, and usually doesn't need to change weapon.
Perhaps I<br>
&gt; &gt; have misunderstood, but this appears to shift the skill into a
must-have<br>
&gt; &gt; cheap and easy bonus for any second-rank, third-rate mage who =
fights<br>
&gt; &gt; occasionally.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Primary weapon to Rank 7, with +10 strike chance<br>
&gt; &gt; Old Skill: 66,000 ep, 348 weeks. Two master feats<br>
&gt; &gt; New Skill: 6,600 ep, 68 weeks.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Primary weapon to Rank 7, with +18 defence<br>
&gt; &gt; Old Skill: 55,000 ep, 339 weeks. One master feat<br>
&gt; &gt; New Skill: 11,000 ep, 75 weeks.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; This discrepancy of &quot;value&quot; is mainly due to
specialisation. An ep and time<br>
&gt; &gt; reduction of FIVE or TEN times is an inappropriate change that =
will
make<br>
&gt; &gt; this skill a &quot;must have&quot;, particularly as the =
warrior part
is a small<br>
&gt; &gt; proportion of this cost/time - ranking the weapon is most of =
it.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; ------------------<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; On a more technical note, there is an oddity with Stephen's =
movement
bonus<br>
&gt; &gt; suggestion.<br>
&gt; &gt; His Warrior-Charge-with-Pole is *faster* than Move. Maybe this =
is OK,
but I<br>
&gt; &gt; dislike it. Maybe we allow charge w. poleweapon when there is =
no
enemy at<br>
&gt; &gt; the other end. I dislike this, as I'd prefer to keep movement =
=3DMR.
Maybe<br>
&gt; &gt; we just allow warriors to increase TMR by +1 instead. Or only =
apply
the TMR<br>
&gt; &gt; bonus to Step+Attack, and Charge-with-Non-Pole. =
Charge-with-Pole is
already<br>
&gt; &gt; very effective for moving around the grid (being twice speed =
and +35%
to hit<br>
&gt; &gt; over normal charge).<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; The simplifications on the numbers are also a slight boost, =
but *if*
the<br>
&gt; &gt; skill didn't become much easier to get and more attractive =
because of
funky<br>
&gt; &gt; abilities, this would be OK.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Regards<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Andrew<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz =
--<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CB326B.BB58F590--


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

I think the weapon rank restrictions feel about right, though kinda painful.

To add to the examples, my Rank 8 Warrior qualifies for Rank 2 only under
these rules. Needs 4-9, 4-8, 5-7, 4-10, and two new weapon categories (say
blunt + axes) to qualify for Rank 8. Total extra time: 326 weeks. Might be
worth switching from dagger to short sword (save 27 wks)

As an aside, this 'punishes' people for taking high-max-rank weapons, so
halberd becomes preferable to glaive, spear over javelin  and hand axe over
battle axe (as a fourth or fifth weapon). This means that people are less
likely to take the min-max weapons as backups, only as their primary weapon.
I don't know if it is good or bad, but it is interesting.

I dislike the idea of being able to 'buy' the requirements out with EP, but
I can't give good reasons for it. If you don't have the time, you get to be
a kick-ass Rank 5 warrior, and that's fine - it's not like Rank 8 gives you
anti-resurrection. DQ doesn't need a levelling-up subsystem.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----

As examples...
My high level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but
wouldn't qualify
under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapon and 5-9 in
another).
My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current rules and fails
to qualify under
this proposal (though could have qualified with different ranking choices).


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

--0016361e882c50dada048cd27b98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I don't think it's interesting. It is, after all, just another variety of
min-maxing. Not that I have a problem with min-maxing. But, I'm not
convinced that the other version of it is any better with respect to
modeling the kinds of weapons people might choose.

On 2 August 2010 19:04, Andrew Withy <awithy@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> I think the weapon rank restrictions feel about right, though kinda
> painful.
>
> To add to the examples, my Rank 8 Warrior qualifies for Rank 2 only under
> these rules. Needs 4-9, 4-8, 5-7, 4-10, and two new weapon categories (say
> blunt + axes) to qualify for Rank 8. Total extra time: 326 weeks. Might be
> worth switching from dagger to short sword (save 27 wks)
>
> As an aside, this 'punishes' people for taking high-max-rank weapons, so
> halberd becomes preferable to glaive, spear over javelin  and hand axe over
> battle axe (as a fourth or fifth weapon). This means that people are less
> likely to take the min-max weapons as backups, only as their primary
> weapon.
> I don't know if it is good or bad, but it is interesting.
>
> I dislike the idea of being able to 'buy' the requirements out with EP, but
> I can't give good reasons for it. If you don't have the time, you get to be
> a kick-ass Rank 5 warrior, and that's fine - it's not like Rank 8 gives you
> anti-resurrection. DQ doesn't need a levelling-up subsystem.
>
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
>
> As examples...
> My high level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but
> wouldn't qualify
> under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapon and 5-9 in
> another).
> My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current rules and fails
> to qualify under
> this proposal (though could have qualified with different ranking choices).
>
>
>  -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

--0016361e882c50dada048cd27b98
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<font face=3D"georgia,serif">I don&#39;t think it&#39;s interesting. It is,=
 after all, just another variety of min-maxing. Not that I have a problem w=
ith min-maxing. But, I&#39;m not convinced that the other version of it is =
any better with respect to modeling the kinds of weapons people might choos=
e.<br>
</font><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 August 2010 19:04, Andrew Withy <span dir=
=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:awithy@ihug.co.nz">awithy@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;=
</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 think the weapon rank restrict=
ions feel about right, though kinda painful.<br><br>To add to the examples,=
 my Rank 8 Warrior qualifies for Rank 2 only under<br>
these rules. Needs 4-9, 4-8, 5-7, 4-10, and two new weapon categories (say<=
br>blunt + axes) to qualify for Rank 8. Total extra time: 326 weeks. Might =
be<br>worth switching from dagger to short sword (save 27 wks)<br><br>As an=
 aside, this &#39;punishes&#39; people for taking high-max-rank weapons, so=
<br>
halberd becomes preferable to glaive, spear over javelin =A0and hand axe ov=
er<br>battle axe (as a fourth or fifth weapon). This means that people are =
less<br>likely to take the min-max weapons as backups, only as their primar=
y weapon.<br>
I don&#39;t know if it is good or bad, but it is interesting.<br><br>I disl=
ike the idea of being able to &#39;buy&#39; the requirements out with EP, b=
ut<br>I can&#39;t give good reasons for it. If you don&#39;t have the time,=
 you get to be<br>
a kick-ass Rank 5 warrior, and that&#39;s fine - it&#39;s not like Rank 8 g=
ives you<br>anti-resurrection. DQ doesn&#39;t need a levelling-up subsystem=
.<br><font color=3D"#888888"><br>Andrew<br></font>
<div class=3D"im">-----Original Message-----<br><br>As examples...<br>My hi=
gh level Rk 10 Warrior is overqualified under the current rules but<br>woul=
dn&#39;t qualify<br>under this proposal (requiring ranking 6-7 in one weapo=
n and 5-9 in<br>
another).<br>My low level Rk 1 Warrior just scrapes in under the current ru=
les and fails<br>to qualify under<br>this proposal (though could have quali=
fied with different ranking choices).<br><br><br></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>

--0016361e882c50dada048cd27b98--


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