From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 08:14:52 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA17418; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:09:23 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id IAA17414 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:09:04 +1300 Message-ID: <3829C24C.CF33EAC5@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:06:52 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Namer revision: draft available Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Hi All,

A first draft of the long awaited and somewhat-past-deadline revised Namer college is now available.

I've converted it into HTML and posted it on my website the DragonQuest Vault. It may be viewed directly at:
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~apollyon/vault/namer.htm

Please send or post comments.

Cheers,
Martin

I thought we often played that any = single counterspell will stop a ward for a while. Most wards are at = least 30' across (4-7 casts of counterspell).

Andrew
---------------------------
"If one or more Counterspells = of the appropriate type are cast over the entire area of effect of a = Ward, then the warded area is temporarily defused. When the duration of = the Counterspells end, such that the Ward is no longer fully covered, = it will become active again. "

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF2BDB.365546A0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 14:04:18 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA17911; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:51:32 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id NAA17908 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:51:30 +1300 Message-ID: <382A1283.C7AC3809@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:49:07 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz I'm pretty sure I copied this verbatim from the rulebook... did I err?

However... an even more cunning solution would be that the part of the ward covered by the counterspell was temporarily defused. This way a safe path could be made across a large warded area, but the area outside of the counterspell would still be "live".

Cheers,
Martin

"Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" wrote:

I thought we often played that any single counterspell will stop a ward for a while. Most wards are at least 30' across (4-7 casts of counterspell).
Andrew
---------------------------
"If one or more Counterspells of the appropriate type are cast over the entire area of effect of a Ward, then the warded area is temporarily defused. When the duration of the Counterspells end, such that the Ward is no longer fully covered, it will become active again. "

_/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax : +64-9-373-0401
       Analyst                          Phone: +64-9-373-0400
-- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 14:08:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA17926; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:59:12 +1300 Received: from qedweb.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.140] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA17923 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:59:10 +1300 Received: by QEDWEB with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:56:31 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Counterspelling Wards Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:56:30 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Yes, this is a situation where we don't play it as written in the rules. The quote below is much as the rules state at the moment. Some people just ignore this altogether and it only takes one counterspell regardless of the size of the ward. Those who care more require that the full extent of the ward is within range of the counterspell that is cast. Ex. Rk 6 Counterspell, 175' range (25 + 25 * 6). - The namer needs to be within 25' of a ward that is 150' accross (75' Range spell). - The namer could not counter a ward that is 180' accross (90' Range Spell) What this means is that if the Warder makes the ward as large as possible the namer will generally need to be at least twice their rank to counter it. With the namer re-write we should at least change the rule so that it's similar to what we play, or an improvement on that. First thought that comes to mind is Rank vs Rank, if your counterspell is higher ranked than the ward / warded spell then you can nuke it, otherwise you can suspend the ward for a limited period (as non-namers do now). With something like this, stopping wards could work the same way for everyone. Namers benefit is that they can rank the counterspells of other colleges. Enough rambling for now... Cheers, Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) [SMTP:AndrewW@falum.co.nz] > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:25 PM > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: > > I thought we often played that any single counterspell will stop a ward > for a while. Most wards are at least 30' across (4-7 casts of > counterspell). > > Andrew > --------------------------- > "If one or more Counterspells of the appropriate type are cast over the > entire area of effect of a Ward, then the warded area is temporarily > defused. When the duration of the Counterspells end, such that the Ward is > no longer fully covered, it will become active again. " > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 14:48:21 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA17994; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:38:00 +1300 Received: from FS13MSG (kotuku.manukau.govt.nz [202.14.82.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA17991 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:37:57 +1300 Received: from GWMCC-Message_Server by FS13MSG with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:32:14 +1300 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:31:32 +1300 Subject: Re: FW: Namer revision: draft available Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: "Adam tennant" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> S1 Bane - This is a nullify-all-enemy-casters-with-a-single-spell = spell. >> It is horrible. It is like all the area counterspells rolled into one >> and with increased area of affect. Yes, the area is small enough that >> the mages may be able to move out of it, depending on the situation. >> Also consider what happens to parties when this is cast on them. >Yeah... this is the one I have had the most second thoughts about because = a) >the area may be too big when compared to CS, and the effect it binary, = all >or nothing. I do think that Namers should have some way of dealing with >multi-colleged fiends and Cheese mages... but I think that Bane may be >currently over powered. . :) OK, just make it counterspell sized. If you've ever tried to "nullify" = enemy mages in combat even with counterspells, you know how difficult it = is. Also, you could just make it effect magic which doesn't have a college. = One of the biggest annoyances for a Namer ( and I admit I do it to parties = too ) is to keep coming across non-colleged magic which you can't do shit = about. >> S3 Compel Obedience - I've long wanted this one pruned back,=20 [ snip ] >The instruction restriction is harsh... however it will now effect = anyone. [ snip ] Comple Obedience was always a truly savage spell and it need toning down. = From a first glance it does look maybe a little TOO pruned back. In regards to the ITN part, I've always wanted ITNs to do more. Currently = having someone's ITN does you bugger all good against them. It should = really give you a big advantage over them like they get -5% per rank off = their resistance against you and other bad stuff like that. >> S6 Forbidding - making the barrier impenetrable if not resisted seems a >> bit much. How about you can force through, but slowly and taking = damage? >Hmmm... maybe. I'd prefer not to add damage... I thought hard about that >before adding it to the ITN version. This is the only damage causing >ability in the College and even then I'm not convinced. As for impenetrab= le >being too harsh... well a Wall of Stone is impenetrable to everyone and = this >is only solid to a) those whose name is in it, and b) fail to resist. Indeed. I thought of Wall of Iron, but same diff. :) On the topic of damage causing, is there room in the college for an effect = such as being able to do bad things to the enemy's aura and thus hurt them = through control of their name? >> S11 True Seeing - Argh! Complete annihilation of the Illusionist = college >> with a single spell!=20 And a good job too! Filthy Illsuionist scum! You say this after you come = across and illusionary wall across your way in a dungeon and you have = nobody with an Illusionist Counterspell!!! >>Take it away! If you really *must* have this, it should be caster only. >Hmmm... short duration, static area, special knowledge, fairly low BC. I >would prefer not to make it movable. The way it is it is cast on a = smallish >area (which admittedly may be a bit too large) and cannot be moved. A >single namer moving around could cover far more ground, and casting it on >themself will certainly have a much higher BC. The other consideration = is >GMing. With this effect the GM simply gets to describe the changes in = the >area, if any and all PCs get to react to it. The other way only a single = PC >can see it and then must "interpret" for the rest of the party. Compare >say, the Earth ability of speaking to an animal, to the Bardic ability of >letting the animal speak. The latter is IMHO preferable for party >interaction. I like the area effect version. As Martin syas, it's more playable. >> R6 True Form - should also prevent the target from shifting form by any >> means for some period of time. >Interesting... that would make it more powerful of course, becoming a >preventative rather than just a restorative. Hmmm... not sure. Good for pissing those Lycanthropes off. :) >> R7 True Speaking - Argh! This can be a major adventure spoiler. At >> minimum, allow the victim to 'take the fifth' and not answer. >:) Truth telling abilities can be a problem. Taking the fifth seems a >reasonable limitation. I'm certainly not keen on a spoiler ability... but = I >think this once could be fair and limited. It is a ritual so its not = going >to get used on every passing pleb... and if an extra DA isn't available = to >tell if its working then with the GM rolling the dice the answers are = going >to be too easy to validate. If you've got the person to be questioned sitting down for half an hour = while you get ready to question them then you've probably got them where = you want for doing any other magic on them too, or torturing them for info = or whatever. Allowing the user to not answer is a huge limitation and pretty much makes = the spell useless except for the "silence in the face of an adverse = allegation is an admission of guilt" option. Of course, Necro's have this in talent form with the minor inconveniance = of having to kill the questionee and kick some dirt over them. :) L8R, Adam. MCC Novell Systems Admin atennant@manukau.govt.nz +64 09 263 7100 xt 8848 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 15:03:42 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA18033; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:55:56 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA18030 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:55:55 +1300 Received: (qmail 10919 invoked from network); 11 Nov 1999 01:54:54 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO MONCHICHI) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 11 Nov 1999 01:54:54 -0000 Subject: RE: FW: Namer revision: draft available Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:53:35 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2918.2701 From: "Mandos Mitchinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Also, you could just make it effect magic which doesn't have a college. One of the biggest annoyances for a Namer ( and I admit I do it to parties too ) is to keep coming across non-colleged magic which you can't do shit about. As a personal note, I like the idea of counters against non colleged stuff to be "branched" ie any non colleged stuff can be fitted into one of the branches of magic and then the namer can effect a branch of magic. Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 15:18:40 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA18079; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:09:20 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id PAA18076 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:09:18 +1300 Message-ID: <382A24E0.60E69D3F@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:07:29 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Namer revision: draft available Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Martin Dickson wrote: > Michael Woodhams wrote: > > > T3 Rapid Cast - for consistency, I'd like to see this like the > > Illusionist concealed cast - flat -20%, counter spell is cast at the > > lower of rank in spell and rank in rapid cast. This gives more reason to > > rank the talent. > > I'm not sure I understand the comparison between Concealed Casting and Rapid > Cast. They are both talents that allow a nifty way of casting spells unavailable to others. Hence it seemed to make sense to use the same mechanics - plus the talent as written didn't seem to have a whole lot of pressure to rank it much at only 1%/rank. (But I guess it is pretty cheap - about 4000 ep to rank 10.) A minor point is that -20% is easy to do in your head - not that -14% is very much harder. > The former allows the Illusionist to cast any spell of their College > with less chance of people noticing, the latter allows Namers to cast CS > really fast. The other thing is -- Namers currently have the ability to > cast CS in one pulse. This talent merely codifies the ability and adds in a > disadvantage for beginners. Making it a flat -20% and lower of ranks would > be a serious compromise of current Namer functionality. > > > S1 Bane - This is a nullify-all-enemy-casters-with-a-single-spell spell. [...] > Yeah... this is the one I have had the most second thoughts about because a) > the area may be too big when compared to CS, and the effect it binary, all > or nothing. I do think that Namers should have some way of dealing with > multi-colleged fiends and Cheese mages... but I think that Bane may be Yay, cheese mages! > currently over powered. . :) Perhaps a lower-all-magic-base-chances area of effect spell? > > S3 Compel Obedience - I've long wanted this one pruned back, but I think > > the restrictions on instructions are a bit too harsh. How about allowing > > anything that the targets would do under some plausible circumstance? > > Then the brigands can always be compelled to flee (but a Michaeline > > nutcase might not) and might be bribable to change sides - although the > > bribe can be less than would normally be required to achieve this. > > I like the 'full effect only if have ITN'. > > The instruction restriction is harsh... however it will now effect anyone. > In past the Namer had to be able to talk to the target... instant GM out... > don't have the brigands speak any known language. A bit difficult to get away with when wondering around the Baronies. > However, bribing them as > you suggest could well work -- provided that that you can find a way to > communicate this briefly. The plan is that if accepting a bribe to change > sides is in their nature (which being base knaves it may well be) then that > is a possiblity. GM discretion is always going to apply. It was the "can't be compelled to run away if they are winning" that seemed too restrictive. If you are fighting such a mob, then Compel becomes mostly useless - having them all go and beat up on the mind mage is not a whole lot of good. > > > S6 Forbidding - making the barrier impenetrable if not resisted seems a > > bit much. How about you can force through, but slowly and taking damage? > > Hmmm... maybe. I'd prefer not to add damage... I thought hard about that > before adding it to the ITN version. This is the only damage causing > ability in the College and even then I'm not convinced. As for impenetrable > being too harsh... well a Wall of Stone is impenetrable to everyone and this > is only solid to a) those whose name is in it, and b) fail to resist. But your spell allows PCs to target the trapped one with spells and weapons and shout insults while exposing seldom seen parts of the anatomy. The party can even go in and out freely - with a stone wall, you have to worry about trapping party members on the wrong side with the dragon. With a namer around, the trapped one won't be able to cast spells back very shortly. It is the ability to make a powerful mage enemy helpless in two casts, only one of which is resistable, that worries me. I do have a cute image of nasty pit traps with walls of Forbidding covering them to allow the orcs to cross in safety... > > R3 Interregnum - very powerful - can completely negate Geases and > > Greater Curses, which seems too much. > > Geas is a normal spell and I don't see why it should be treated as a special > case -- that said, Interregnum could be modified to only affect those spells > or rituals cast at lesser or equal rank... a nasty limitation, but not > unreasonable. Curses are an odd case all round. Can dissipation remove > Damnum Minatum? You mean Damnum Magnatum? Minatum is removable just with a counterspell. D Mag I think can't be dissipated - it can even last through death and ressurection, and should not be easily circumventable. Similarly Geases become pointless if easily got around, and it doesn't lend itself to epic mythmaking - geased to seek out the One True Cheese, Blotto boldly visited Nackers the Namer once a month for life. > > R7 True Speaking - Argh! This can be a major adventure spoiler. At > > minimum, allow the victim to 'take the fifth' and not answer. > > :) Truth telling abilities can be a problem. Taking the fifth seems a > reasonable limitation. I'm certainly not keen on a spoiler ability... but I > think this once could be fair and limited. It is a ritual so its not going > to get used on every passing pleb... and if an extra DA isn't available to > tell if its working then with the GM rolling the dice the answers are going > to be too easy to validate. If the namer has Mana Sense, they don't need an extra DA. Michael. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 15:35:09 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA18100; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:15:29 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id PAA18097 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:15:27 +1300 Message-ID: <382A2618.11324DFA@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:12:40 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: FW: Namer revision: draft available Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Adam tennant wrote: > >> R7 True Speaking - Argh! > > If you've got the person to be questioned sitting down for half an hour while you get ready to question them then you've probably got them where you want for doing any other magic on them too, or torturing them for info or whatever. I agree. I would never countenance a spell version of this. And those slippery little Bards get to tell you lies and you'll never know anyway. > Allowing the user to not answer is a huge limitation and pretty much makes the spell useless except for the "silence in the face of an adverse allegation is an admission of guilt" option. > Of course, Necro's have this in talent form with the minor inconveniance of having to kill the questionee and kick some dirt over them. > :) Yes, I've used Speak with Dead as a threatened form of truth telling before. Necro: Well... I could just kill you and ask the dead... but that's really tedious... of course, if you leave me no other choice. PC: Sorry, I misunderstood the question... what was it you wanted to know? :) -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 16:04:37 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA18234; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:48:07 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id PAA18231 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:48:05 +1300 Message-ID: <382A2DD2.8CEC829E@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:45:38 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Namer revision: draft available Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Michael Woodhams wrote: > > > S1 Bane - This is a nullify-all-enemy-casters-with-a-single-spell spell. > > > currently over powered. . :) > > Perhaps a lower-all-magic-base-chances area of effect spell? That sounds quite workable... although lower BC means higher backfire chance... but all up that may be a worthwhile approach. > > > S3 Compel Obedience > > It was the "can't be compelled to run away if they are winning" that seemed too > restrictive. If you are fighting such a mob, then Compel becomes mostly useless > - having them all go and beat up on the mind mage is not a whole lot of good. But a lot of fun. :) Seriously, it could just be a matter of wording. The intent is that when using only GTN you cannot force people to do something outside of their nature. Compelling/controlling is not a central Namer theme... and IMHO it should not be their most powerful ability. > > > S6 Forbidding > > But your spell allows PCs to target the trapped one with spells and weapons and > shout insults while exposing seldom seen parts of the anatomy. The party can > even go in and out freely Well... maybe... depends on teh GTN of the bad guys and the party... but I do take the point. > I do have a cute image of nasty pit traps with walls of Forbidding covering > them to allow the orcs to cross in safety... Sadly walls object to being cast horizontally. > > > R7 True Speaking > > If the namer has Mana Sense, they don't need an extra DA. But you only get to tell if it worked by Active concentration... and doing that in the middle of a ritual is likely to disrupt things. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 16:06:18 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA18260; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:58:51 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA18257 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:58:49 +1300 Received: from paul (p1-max14.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.227.193]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA25457 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:57:24 +1300 Message-ID: <004001bf2bf0$6624dae0$6564640a@paul> Subject: Re: Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:56:47 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003D_01BF2C5D.5BA53E80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Paul Schmidt" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: "Paul Schmidt" , dq@dq.sf.org.nz This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BF2C5D.5BA53E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmmm.... the counterspell cutting a temorary safe path through a ward (like = through a minefield) is how most folks play it already. Much more fun this way Paul -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Thursday, 11 November 1999 14:02 Subject: Re:=20 =20 =20 I'm pretty sure I copied this verbatim from the rulebook... did I = err?=20 However... an even more cunning solution would be that the part of = the ward covered by the counterspell was temporarily defused. This way = a safe path could be made across a large warded area, but the area = outside of the counterspell would still be "live".=20 Cheers,=20 Martin=20 "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" wrote:=20 =20 I thought we often played that any single counterspell will stop = a ward for a while. Most wards are at least 30' across (4-7 casts of = counterspell).=20 Andrew=20 ---------------------------=20 "If one or more Counterspells of the appropriate type are cast = over the entire area of effect of a Ward, then the warded area is = temporarily defused. When the duration of the Counterspells end, such = that the Ward is no longer fully covered, it will become active again. " --=20 _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: = Martin.Dickson@peace.com=20 _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401=20 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400=20 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --=20 ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BF2C5D.5BA53E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hmmm....

the counterspell cutting a temorary safe path = through a ward=20 (like through a minefield) is how most folks play it = already.

Much more fun this way

Paul

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Martin Dickson <martind@peace.com>
To: = dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date:=20 Thursday, 11 November 1999 14:02
Subject: Re:=20

I'm pretty sure I copied this verbatim from the = rulebook... did I err?=20

However... an even more cunning solution would be that the part = of the=20 ward covered by the counterspell was temporarily defused. This = way a=20 safe path could be made across a large warded area, but the area = outside of=20 the counterspell would still be "live".=20

Cheers,=20 =
=20 Martin=20

"Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" wrote:=20

=20
I thought we often played that = any=20 single counterspell will stop a ward for a while. Most wards are = at=20 least 30' across (4-7 casts of counterspell).=20
Andrew
--------------------------- =
"If one or more Counterspells of = the=20 appropriate type are cast over the entire area of effect of a = Ward, then=20 the warded area is temporarily defused. When the duration of the = Counterspells end, such that the Ward is no longer fully = covered, it=20 will become active again. "

--=20

_/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   = Email:=20 Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin=20 = Dickson           =        =20 Fax : +64-9-373-0401
      =20 = Analyst           =             &= nbsp; =20 Phone: +64-9-373-0400
-- see unsubscribe instructions in = message=20 headers --

------=_NextPart_000_003D_01BF2C5D.5BA53E80-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 16:33:55 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA18318; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:23:31 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA18314 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:23:27 +1300 Received: from paul (p1-max14.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.227.193]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA31596 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:21:59 +1300 Message-ID: <008101bf2bf3$d5b7c0e0$6564640a@paul> Subject: Comments on Namer Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:21:22 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Paul Schmidt" To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: "Paul Schmidt" , dq@dq.sf.org.nz Compel Obeidiance - the spell is still very, very tought but this is a big improvment. Disjunction - a bit too much of a one-spell wonder. Too tough Dispel Magic - nice effect. This si what disjunction should do. Additionally if cast on an a permant magicl object it should depress the magic of the item for a time. True Seeing - good and bad. Good because it screws over Illusionry Wall and similar boring effects. Bad becuase it also shows curses etc. Once agin the ida is OK but the effect too broad. It does have benefit however that it doesn't show up normally disguised or hiding persons, thus increasing the utility of actual proffesions like theif and spy. What effect does it have on Undetecable things? Interregnum: Way too tough... this is one of the best curses I've ever seen :) Cheers paul -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 16:34:54 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA18309; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:22:21 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id QAA18306 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:22:19 +1300 Message-ID: <382A35D5.9C0244BE@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:19:49 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Counterspells Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Paul Schmidt wrote:

the counterspell cutting a temorary safe path through a ward (like through a minefield) is how most folks play it already.Much more fun this way

It is also less numbers intensive and thus easier to adjudicate -- one need only know the area of the CS and not the area of the ward, and it is less powerful than zapping the ward altogether.

If this is a common way that it is played (and people are happy with it) then I will cheerfully adjust the Counterspell document.

Cheers,
Martin

_/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax : +64-9-373-0401
       Analyst                          Phone: +64-9-373-0400
-- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 17:35:24 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA18395; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:19:57 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id RAA18392 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:19:50 +1300 Message-ID: <382A434A.354788E5@peace.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:17:14 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Comments on Namer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Paul Schmidt wrote: > True Seeing - good and bad. Good because it screws over Illusionry Wall and > similar boring effects. Bad becuase it also shows curses etc. Oops. This is partially my bad writing at fault. It shouldn't reveal all curses... only those that alter form. Weeping sores is not affected, Toad transformation is. > What effect does it have on Undetecable things? I would expect them to be revealed. It is perhaps worth noting that after some other off-list discussions about this spell the duration is coming down (to 30 seconds +10/Rank) and it will only reveal magic of equal or lower rank. > Interregnum: Way too tough... this is one of the best curses I've ever seen > :) Only at Rank 20 :) Put a bunch of spells on someone... heck... get all your mage friends to help... and then suspend the lot. They're there, but they're non-functional... and you can't stack. Yeah...all right... the duration is a bit high. :) Thanks, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 18:19:20 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA18454; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:02:40 +1300 Received: from kcbbs.gen.nz (kcbbs.gen.nz [202.14.102.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA18451 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:02:38 +1300 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00573 for dq@dq.sf.org.nz; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:54:53 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <382A43BF.693C0DC5@games.co.nz> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:19:11 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Namer with Names. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Jono Bean To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Hi all, In all the College looks good and with an amount of balance added it could work. But the question I have is do we want it. The direction that Martin (and others including me) have moved the Namer College is Questionable. Given the following statement Namers are all a bunch of hypocrites for using magic against magic. ‘The College holds that magic is a form of deception, a manipulation of reality, often temporary in nature, whereby Mages use mana to impose their will on the world’. What about the idea that Namers just use names and not magic at all. This could be done in the system by allowing Namers to rank a ‘Name’ like ‘Banishment’ for an action and ‘Demon Cat’ for an entity. The Namer would need both to be able to banish the demon cat from X. That’s the quick over view. Now back to what we are talking about: S1 Bane - This is a nullify-all-enemy-casters-with-a-single-spell spell. What about an opposite of the E&E Enhance Enchantment. This could be done so that the Namer would have to pick BC DAM or Duration just like an E&E. Jono -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 18:20:45 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA18446; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:01:01 +1300 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA18443 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:00:58 +1300 Received: from geocities.com ([203.99.70.172]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991111050518.QTZU596499.mta1-rme@geocities.com> for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:05:18 +1300 Message-ID: <382A4D99.5846C469@geocities.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:01:13 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MR as Stat Check [was Re: November meeting minutes] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Dean Ellis To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz I thought someone was kidding when I saw this item. Terry is absolutely right and I am actually quite shocked that certain people whose opinions I respected are trying to treat this as a rules lawyering exercise. Yes, all right, this could be considered a clarification, and as such fits the criteria for a fast track. However, the implications, I believe, are most certainly not fully understood. Suddenly, having a respectable (and perfectly average) WP of 15 means failing to resist 14% of the time, no matter what the modifiers. The implications, for high level games especially, are appalling. For one, could a character with less than 20 WP ever go up against high level magic knowing that even with their best defences up they are going down to at least 10% of the magic thrown at them. Rule clarification or not this is a MAJOR change to the way the the way our game is currently being played. Don't try and pull the wool anyone, why was this brought up and what are the reasons for the CHANGE to current game play? As an aside, now that I have finished my ranting, I thought I should put down some reasoned arguments. I thought stat checks applied only to those 'on the fly' checks made up by the GM to try and bring a random element into an action. Against PC to see this, AG to dodge that, MD to catch or hold this, WP to concentrate, MA to cast a cantrip, etc. Almost all other base chances including a stat are inside a skill and as such are covered by the 90 + Rank maximum. What other stat checks are there in the RULES not covered by a skill? MR is one. If we are to go the whole hog, how about SC (Strike Chance) which has an MD component and Stun Recovery (and which stat would you use out of WP and FT?). I personally think that all three of these examples (I am sure there are more but can't think of them at the moment) fall outside the realm of Stat Check due to their composite nature, including many modifiers that are nothing to do with the stat. I would go so far as to define a Stat Check as being against a base chance that (apart from the inimical GE) is composed entirely of a multiple of a single stat. Stirring and adding to the pot, Dean Martin Dickson wrote: > Terry Spencer wrote: > > > I concur. Regardless of how the is justified this is NOT how we play it and > > is, I believe, a MAJOR change. Being a MAJOR change it should be treated as > > such, not pushed through a meeting to satisfy someones personal agenda. > > A major change? To assert that MR is a stat check and should follow the rules > for one? We should have workshops and sub-committees and drafts and revisions? > > One could argue that a desire to tie something this minor up in bureaucratic red > tape must surely be "to satisfy someone's personal agenda". And no, I don't > know whether you have an agenda about this -- but you are making a damn big > assumption that this was "pushed through" to satisfy one either. > > Surely this is at most a fast track item. It is a single, well defined change, > whose implications are fully understood. As such it can be brought up an voted > upon by a GM's meeting. > > Regards, > Martin > > -- > > _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com > _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 > Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 19:00:40 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA18537; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:47:24 +1300 Received: from westpac.co.nz (firewall1.westpac.co.nz [210.55.236.18]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA18534 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:47:23 +1300 Received: by firewall1.westpac.co.nz id <32270>; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:47:39 +1300 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WESTPACTRUST Message-Id: <99Nov11.184739nzdt.32270@firewall1.westpac.co.nz> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:45:42 +1300 Subject: Re: Namer revision: draft available Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: "Mark Simpson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz How exactly is "True Seeing" supposed to interact with Illusions? From my reading of the spell it just about singlehandedly destroys the illusion college. Illusion was hardly the power gaming college before - after this spell .... . The description reads as follows: >True Seeing (S-11) >Range: 10 feet (+5/Rank) >Duration: 1 minute (+1/Rank) >Experience Multiple: 300 >Base Chance: 25% >Resist: No >Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap >Target: Area >Effects: Within the area of the spell all magically altered things will appear >as they as they truly are. Invisible or insubstantial things will become visible, >illusions are obvious and almost transparent, and magically rearranged, >cursed or transformed entities and objects become highly conspicuous. I have less of a problem with the spell detecting that an Illusion is there (if we think that namers need such a spell?! - I personally don't) , but why should the namer be able to "see through" the illusion as well. One of the mage types most commonly employed by moderately tough NPC's are Namers. Imagine how useless those permanently illusioned (at great cost) disguise illusions changing the party into race XXX are. NPC flunky namer whispering into his lords ear whilst seated on his throne in the main hall of his court having just granted an audience to the party: "the one on the right is actually a female orc, the second is really an elf etc etc" Also why do people have a problem with illusionary wall ? My understanding was that most (with a couple of exceptions) illusions under the new college are effectively insubstantial "3D holograms" which interact with light as per the "real" object/entity they seem to be but which have NO PHYSICAL PRESENCE. The wall falls into this category so that you can walk through an illusionary wall regardless of whether you can see through it or know its there. I understand, although Andrew will be able to confirm this, that a major problem with the old Illusion college was you could just "disbelieve" it away. Now instead of having to do that you just need to get a namer to cast a spell and all illusions effectively disappear! Now you don't need to convince your fellow party members of anything - they will be able to see it with their own eyes. Oh course you could just argue that illusions do not "magically alter" anything and that anything under/within/below an illusion has not been "altered" by the spell at all and therefore there is nothing to see with the spell. But somehow I don't think thats what was intended. Also, how is this spell supposed to work with the mind spell molecular re-arrangement? Wiccan skin change? Someone that has been turned to stone? Do you see what the person or thing really is or was? I don't think that to argue that its special spell and thus won't be that common is any sort of valid limitation. Namers, unlike illusionist, are all over the place. My current party is infested with them! Every namer will get this spell which means every party with a namer above low bunny (and every group of npcs with a namer in their midst) will have ready access to it. Did anyone notice the last line "cursed or transformed entities and objects become highly conspicuous". Not much point making cursed items if whenever a party finds bunch of items the party leader pipes up " are any of these cursed in any way? - namer front and centre" - two pulse delay - "the sword on the left and the amulet, all the rest are ok." Suggested changes - I'd be tempted to make this spell into a ritual - the one hour delay will curb some of the excesses - that should stop is being the spell of first resort - "something doesnt seem right here - namer - true see time!". My preferred option would be to scrub it all together. /\/\ark -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 19:30:41 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA18577; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:17:34 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA18574 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:17:30 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p336-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.96]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA03315 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:16:01 +1300 Subject: Re: Comments on Namer Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:15:21 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2c0c$22f25600$60886dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz From the top, then... DA...No obvious change, as far as I can see. Expel Magic...I can see where this is going. It's an attempt to rationalise Namer special magic, backwards to what we play. While I don't see it as a problem, I think that your Namer would take this talent to somewhere around 10, and leave it there...At medium to high levels, I think you'd trust to your Enchantment. Anyway, I don't mind it. I wonder what character progression we'd see with it, though. Rapid Cast...I hate this name. Deeply. The effect is okay, though...More of the above, though. Dissipation...No obvious change. Bane...I don't like this spell, much. I think if you were a Namer, that is to say, one of them rough boys who don't use magic in the middle of violence, then this would be great. You'd turn off the enemy, and carve them into tiny bits. It is binary, and although you could presumably move out of it, it requires casters that fail ro resist use movement to cast. I don't mind if it reduces cast chances. That sort of thing gives value to high rank, after all. Compelling Obedience...This is much better than the original spell, but then, that spell was dreadful. I don't really mind the limitations applied here. I could wish that the English were a little tidied up. I don't mean spelling and grammar, either. It seems obvious to me in reading the spell that you want it to behave in a way that is not at all a charm effect, but is in fact a minor command. At this point, however, I lose the exact thread of what you're trying to achieve. I understand that you don't want it to be able to deliver commands contrary to nature and common sense. I suggest that this requires the active judgment of the DM, and that in any event, the number of words used in such a spell should be no more than 2. After all, this means that getting an extra word for you Compels might be pretty good treasure for a Namer. I like the distinction of what an ITN does, for Compelling Obedience. I would suggest that if the target declines to obey the Namer, then they make a MR check (which will not break the compel) and if they fail, they take half the Namer's Rank if CO as damage. Further, this MR check is penalised by 2 points per Rank in the ITN of the target. I suggest this, so that a character might refuse to do something unpleasant, but not necessarily abhorrent or directly suicidal. In addition, it offers the character an opportunity for noble martyrdom. Disjunction...I don't mind this, too much, EXCEPT...I don't believe it should work on potions. If this is the case, then a case could be made that applied to healing potions, and a few other things that serve to keep players alive. The problem with this spell is that you'd have to use it on players, on occasion, and I don't think many of them would be getting up afterwards. By and large, potions serve a defensive function in DQ, and they defend individually, unlike some spells that cover parties. And they're hideously expensive, compared to investeds. Dispel Magic...Well, this one had to come along, didn't it...It's not like Namer's don't have this sort of thing, by the time they get to high level, and the advantage that this offers is that at least you won't have to read up each one's particular write up. It's okay. Forbidding...I've never liked denial magic, really, and this is no exception. My biggest problem with it is that it's treated like a wall, and yet, the description behaves to me like an area, like a Mass Fear spell. I think it should have a pretty minor, point source based area of effect, rather than a wall. After all, that device is used further down the list. Mana Sense...Okay, I suppose. Stink name, though. Scry Shield...I like it. Make it work against telepathy, and limited precog, too, I reckon. Spell Barrier...Well, with Michael Woodhams suggestion about nesting, it's okay, I suppose. True Mind...This is really STINK. This spell should not be a Namer spell, at all. This is the sort of magic that a Mind Mage might reasonably argue they ought to have, not a Namer, and with bloody good reason. If anyone is going to be good at mind control, then it ought to be Mind mages, and if they're good at it, then it follows reasonably enough that they're good at getting around it, too. I strongly think this spell is in the wrong college. In fact, it's only because my feet are stapled to the floor that I'm not hanging off the ceiling. True Seeing...I usually shudder when ever I see anything with True in front of it, but this one's okay, as far as I can see...I like the area effect thingie...It's cool... Expulsion...I would never allow this ritual to work as an escape mechanism. For that reason, I will never allow this ritual to work in this fashion in my game. The only adventure that becomes threatening to the players are ones that are on plane, if they bring a Namer along. Interregnum...I don't see a need for this ritual. Without an obvious need, I would rather it was gone. It's not doing anything I particulary want to see in a game, and it could be used in some weird rules finesse I may not be prepared to countenance. Remove Curse...No problemo... Sealing...I've seen this effect in play, with Sabrina. It's abominable, and I'm not prepared to have more player characters with this ability. The only planes that are universal to all of the DMs in DQ is the 7th Plane and Alusia. The rest of them, like, e.g. the elemental plane of Fire, would have to be added to the world. Now, while there may be someone out there, who's keen on doing the work involved in codifying the very bones of the world we play in, I would rather retain my own creation story, which may or may not have anything to do with elemental planes of fire in any of their forms. Sealing requires a DM to buy into another DM's interpretation of the world, and I think this is a bad thing. And, that's quite apart from the nastiness of the ritual, in balance terms. True Form...Damned fine, with the Paul Schmidt proviso...Again, stink name...But, hey... True Speaking...Oi, these 'True' spells...Well, as far as I could see, you'd have to tie the buggers down to get them to submit to it. If you could get them to do that, you could probably beat the truth out of them, anyway. However, I think that any ability that requires the target to tell the truth, then silence has to be an allowable option. In addition, there has to be a good reason why this ritual isn't used all the time. Otherwise, Namers would just line up all the likely looking suspects and ask them point blank if they dunnit. And, really, what ruler is going to be without a Namer with this ability? That's it for the moment. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 11 19:45:30 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA18613; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:44:16 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA18610 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:44:15 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p336-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.96]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA06096 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:42:46 +1300 Subject: Re: Namer revision: draft available Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:42:08 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2c0f$e0710ca0$60886dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz /\/\ark Simpson wrote: >How exactly is "True Seeing" supposed to interact with Illusions? Presumably by checking the GTN of the thing within the area of effect, and the auras. > >I have less of a problem with the spell detecting that an Illusion is >there >(if we think that namers need such a spell?! - I personally don't) >, but why should the namer be able to "see through" the illusion as well. Why not? What is wrong with having someone able to penetrate illusions, that isn't a Namer? > >I understand, although Andrew will be able to confirm this, that a major >problem with the >old Illusion college was you could just "disbelieve" it away. The problem wasn't that you could 'just disbelieve it away'. The problem was that it was what people did when they couldn't think of anything else to do. It didn't cost you anything, and it might save your character's life. As an activity, it was pretty hard to argue against, except for the deafening clatter of dice, as they were rolled continuously whenever anything odd happened. > Now instead >of having to do that >you just need to get a namer to cast a spell and all illusions effectively >disappear! Now you don't need to >convince your fellow party members of anything - they will be able to see >it with their own eyes. You have obviously never had to fight a high level illusion, and believe me, they were almost always high level. There were only about 5 spells worth ranking, and the rank of multi-sense illusions was their average. You paid 600 ep to learn a multi-sense illusion, but it's components were general knowledge spells. The higher the rank, the lower your chance to resist them, and in the mean time, they inflicted their harm without any kind of passive resistance. It was a stupid college. > >Oh course you could just argue that illusions do not "magically alter" >anything and that anything >under/within/below an illusion has not been "altered" by the spell at all >and therefore there is >nothing to see with the spell. But somehow I don't think thats what was >intended. It's clearly not what was intended, and this is just a case of trying to find an argument that will make a case. This is about trying to find the best game possible for players and DMs. It's not about arguing for the benefit of a character. >Also, how is this spell supposed to work with the mind spell molecular >re-arrangement? Wiccan skin change? Someone that has been turned to stone? >Do you see what the person or thing really is or was? > Presumably. >I don't think that to argue that its special spell and thus won't be that >common is any sort of valid limitation. >Namers, unlike illusionist, are all over the place. My current party is >infested with them! Every namer will >get this spell which means every party with a namer above low bunny (and >every group of npcs with a namer in their midst) >will have ready access to it. Therefore, the challenge for an illusionist will be to use their spells with subtlety. It seems to me that you're arguing that an illusionist should be able to create an illusion that will survive in the face of naked suspicion. I disagree. > >Did anyone notice the last line "cursed or transformed entities and objects > become highly conspicuous". >Not much point making cursed items if whenever a party finds bunch of items > the party leader pipes up >" are any of these cursed in any way? - namer front and centre" - two pulse > delay - "the sword on the left >and the amulet, all the rest are ok." I believe that this was a miscommunication. As I understand it, the spell is intended to reveal those people whose true forms have been taken away from them by a curse. Not that it reveals curses. Well, I hope that that's what it means. > >Suggested changes - I'd be tempted to make this spell into a ritual - the >one hour delay will curb some of the excesses - >that should stop is being the spell of first resort - "something doesnt >seem right here - namer - true see time!". > >My preferred option would be to scrub it all together. > Yes...Well, I can see why. I don't, however. I think it's fine the way it is. This spell costs 2 FT every time it's cast, it lasts only minutes, and only works in a frozen area of effect...A Namer that can cast this every time they suspect something sneaky is going to be alert to every ploy, but to exhausted to do anything threatening. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --