Quoting Clare Baldock <clare@orcon.net.nz>:

> I was helping someone roll up a new character the other day, and
> discovered that there is an out of place paragraph in Character
> Generation. It gives advice on how often to roll on the conception
> table (does such still exist?),
>
> not sure how to put this on the Wiki for a quick fix,

Burning under a black moon might be a start.


Jim.


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

--=_alternative 006C736ACC2570F4_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This was put in the character generation as it was decided when Character=20
Generation was rewritten.  There wasn't anywhere else to put race specific =

information - though it it could now be moved to Health and Fitness.

How often it should be rolled varies from GM to GM - some use once per=20
encounter, but once per quarter if sexually active is more common.

Regards,
Rosemary




Clare Baldock <clare@orcon.net.nz>=20
Sent by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz
12/01/2006 08:55 p.m.
Please respond to
dq@dq.sf.org.nz


To
dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc

Subject
[dq] Conception Table?






I was helping someone roll up a new character the other day, and=20
discovered that there is an out of place paragraph in Character=20
Generation. It gives advice on how often to roll on the conception=20
table (does such still exist?),

not sure how to put this on the Wiki for a quick fix,

cheers,

clare


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



Attention: This message and accompanying data are confidential and may cont=
ain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the inte=
nded recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution =
or copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have received this=
 email in error, please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the m=
essage and attachments. This email and any attachments may contain views or=
 opinions that are those of the sender and not necessarily the view or opin=
ions of ING (NZ) Limited and/or its associated entities. =

--=_alternative 006C736ACC2570F4_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


<br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">This was put in the character genera=
tion
as it was decided when Character Generation was rewritten. &nbsp;There
wasn't anywhere else to put race specific information - though it it could
now be moved to Health and Fitness.</font><br><br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sa=
ns-serif">How often it should be rolled varies
from GM to GM - some use once per encounter, but once per quarter if sexual=
ly
active is more common.</font><br><br><font size=3D2 face=3D"sans-serif">Reg=
ards,<br>Rosemary<br></font><br><br><br><table width=3D100%><tr valign=3Dto=
p><td width=3D40%><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif"><b>Clare Baldock &lt;c=
lare@orcon.net.nz&gt;</b></font><br><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">Sent=
 by: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</font><p><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">12/0=
1/2006 08:55 p.m.</font><table border><tr valign=3Dtop><td bgcolor=3Dwhite>=
<div align=3Dcenter><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">Please respond to<br=
>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font></div></table><br><td width=3D59%><table width=3D100=
%><tr valign=3Dtop><td><div align=3Dright><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif=
">To</font></div><td><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-serif">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</fo=
nt><tr valign=3Dtop><td><div align=3Dright><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-seri=
f">cc</font></div><td><tr valign=3Dtop><td><div align=3Dright><font size=3D=
1 face=3D"sans-serif">Subject</font></div><td><font size=3D1 face=3D"sans-s=
erif">[dq] Conception Table?</font></table><br><table><tr valign=3Dtop><td>=
<td></table><br></table><br><br><br><font size=3D2><tt>I was helping someon=
e roll up a new character the
other day, and <br>discovered that there is an out of place paragraph in Ch=
aracter <br>Generation. It gives advice on how often to roll on the concept=
ion <br>table (does such still exist?),<br><br>not sure how to put this on =
the Wiki for a quick fix,<br><br>cheers,<br><br>clare<br><br><br>-- to unsu=
bscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<br></tt></font><br><font f=
ace=3D"sans-serif"><FONT Size=3D1><BR>Attention: This message and accompany=
ing data are confidential and may contain information that is subject to le=
gal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that=
 any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is=
 prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us imm=
ediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. This email an=
d any attachments may contain views or opinions that are those of the sende=
r and not necessarily the view or opinions of ING (NZ) Limited and/or its=20
associated entities.<BR></FONT>
</font>

--=_alternative 006C736ACC2570F4_=--


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

> How often it should be rolled varies from GM to GM - some use once per
> encounter, but once per quarter if sexually active is more common.

The thought occours that monthly might be the most prudent. Unless
metahuman cycles are different to humans. 

Mandos
/s


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

On 13/01/2006, at 08:48, RMansfield@ingnz.com wrote:
>
> This was put in the character generation as it was decided when 
> Character Generation was rewritten.  There wasn't anywhere else to put 
> race specific information - though it it could now be moved to Health 
> and Fitness.

The paragraph should be moved to be within the race section if it 
remains in Character Generation, rather than at the end of the 
description section. That is somewhere in 2.2, I suggest before the 
description of the races, rather than in 2.3. Race specific information 
is found other places that in Character Generation already (e.g. armour 
sizes).

> How often it should be rolled varies from GM to GM - some use once per 
> encounter, but once per quarter if sexually active is more common.

No issues with that, all the rule does is say not more often than every 
48 hours. But the rule isn't in the right place at present. If I had 
been looking for the rule, I would have expected it in the Adventure 
section as you suggest, I would probably have eventually found the 
chances in section 2.2, but I would never have found the frequency 
information in the section for determining a characters description.

cheers,

clare


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

I said it last time, but I still think the conception chances should be removed. Pregnancy is a way of developing a character outside adventure. The decision is (or should be)  based on circumstances and what is good for the character/player, not numbers. It comes down to GM malice in the end anyway. I suppose the conception chances are needed as a base for the virility/conception spells and items, but they all don't quite seem right either. Do the maths with elves.

As a GM, I've never made a PC pregnant - except Vychan, and I didn't look at any conception chance rules there. 

I hate to say it, but we all ignore rules we think are silly - the trick is to give results that would be feasible under the rules, so that reality is similar under different GMs. This last is the point of rules in the first place.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Clare Baldock
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 10:46 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Conception Table?



On 13/01/2006, at 08:48, RMansfield@ingnz.com wrote:
>
> This was put in the character generation as it was decided when
> Character Generation was rewritten.  There wasn't anywhere else to put 
> race specific information - though it it could now be moved to Health 
> and Fitness.

The paragraph should be moved to be within the race section if it 
remains in Character Generation, rather than at the end of the 
description section. That is somewhere in 2.2, I suggest before the 
description of the races, rather than in 2.3. Race specific information 
is found other places that in Character Generation already (e.g. armour 
sizes).

> How often it should be rolled varies from GM to GM - some use once per
> encounter, but once per quarter if sexually active is more common.

No issues with that, all the rule does is say not more often than every 
48 hours. But the rule isn't in the right place at present. If I had 
been looking for the rule, I would have expected it in the Adventure 
section as you suggest, I would probably have eventually found the 
chances in section 2.2, but I would never have found the frequency 
information in the section for determining a characters description.

cheers,

clare


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

So now we have had the holidays and stopped talking about the finer
points of the weather table are we able to get back to fixing the broken
spells of Necrosis, Hellfire, Whirlwind Vortex and (maybe but probably
not) dragonflames?

The last thing I can find withouyt wading through a thousand similarly
named posts was a summation Jono requested of the problem. 

> 1. GM's cannot use more than one mage with these spells. If they do
then 
> unless the party is rediculously high level then they will all die.
This 
> resricts the adventures that GM's can run without having to 
> make changes that just don't make sence. 
> 
> 2. Players have colleges with 20-30 spells in it. The spells under 
> discussion invalidate up to 50% of the colleges spells. With 
> necro there are a number of good attack spells. However Necrosis is in
another 
> league. there is no need to rank or cast anything else ever. This 
> restricts players to either not learn the spell with some artificial 
> reason (3 necros I can think of have done this), remove or change the 
> spell (1 necro), or use the spell but find combats increasingly boring

> (all the rest). 

I believe Jim put forward some suggested fixes and we were discussing
them. Could Jim repost his suggestiong and we can take it from there. 

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>:

>
> I hate to say it, but we all ignore rules we think are silly - the trick is
> to give results that would be feasible under the rules, so that reality is
> similar under different GMs. This last is the point of rules in the first
> place.


Why do you hate to say it?

Unless you have come up with a formal system that is capable of representing
everything you will ever need to model, you are going to have to interpret
rules, and that includes ignoring rules that have become silly.

Don't resist it. Get USED to it.

If we could develop a formal system that was capable of that degree of
representation, we wouldn't be wasting our time playing games with it. We'd be
using it to send people to Mars.

Jim.


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

> I hate to say it, but we all ignore rules we think are silly 
> - the trick is to give results that would be feasible under 
> the rules, so that reality is similar under different GMs. 
> This last is the point of rules in the first place.

Personally I would like to have some conception chances lying around.
Maybe in a GM's guide rather than the actual rules given that it is more
of an aid than a rule. I agree with ignoring rules that are silly hence
I think this should fall under a guideline and be open to use if GM's
wish. 

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> I believe Jim put forward some suggested fixes and we were discussing
> them. Could Jim repost his suggestiong and we can take it from there.
>

My suggestions is that:

Necrosis/Wiccan Hellfire/Whirlwind Vortex be changed to a single target spell
and that there be an area of affect damage spell be included in the college.

As it happens, necros have stream of corruption (which I thought kind of leaked
up and did some kind of magical disease damage, but I understand that it is
more your pustulent gusher of a spell, so I don't see that there is a
particular need for anything new there), air mages have any number of
alternatives. I do not propose any changes to Fire College Hellfire.

I think, therefore, that an area of effect damage spell with the same kind of
syntax as, say, blackfire or stream of corruption would be a good idea.

But, before this goes any further, and I am quoted out of context here, I should
re-explain why I think that they should be changed:

The spells have enormous utility, and a rational character would not choose
anything other than those spells. You have to manufacture situations where you
might make an alternative decision. My reason, therefore, is that it's boring
if you have a spell that is so useful that very little else would be cast.

I am not opposed to big damage. I think that any problems caused by that can be
solved in other ways.  And, I think these solutions are ones which make more
sense than by an ad hoc limitation on a high damage spell.

Jim.


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

I agree with Jim for these specific spells. I would also like to see
Fire Hellfire changed in the same way.

While I don't play a firemage, it seems that Hellfire is still their
best spell except for very long-range circumstances. This also removes
the last of the "pick any 7 targets - watch them die" spells, which
people seemed keen on for reasons outside the player-choice option. I
agree that high-damage spells can be solved by a number of solutions,
but as this solution to another problem seems to solve high damage for
most of the spells, why not extend that solution to one more spell?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 1:22 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells. 


Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> I believe Jim put forward some suggested fixes and we were discussing 
> them. Could Jim repost his suggestiong and we can take it from there.
>

My suggestions is that:

Necrosis/Wiccan Hellfire/Whirlwind Vortex be changed to a single target
spell and that there be an area of affect damage spell be included in
the college.

As it happens, necros have stream of corruption (which I thought kind of
leaked up and did some kind of magical disease damage, but I understand
that it is more your pustulent gusher of a spell, so I don't see that
there is a particular need for anything new there), air mages have any
number of alternatives. I do not propose any changes to Fire College
Hellfire.

I think, therefore, that an area of effect damage spell with the same
kind of syntax as, say, blackfire or stream of corruption would be a
good idea.

But, before this goes any further, and I am quoted out of context here,
I should re-explain why I think that they should be changed:

The spells have enormous utility, and a rational character would not
choose anything other than those spells. You have to manufacture
situations where you might make an alternative decision. My reason,
therefore, is that it's boring if you have a spell that is so useful
that very little else would be cast.

I am not opposed to big damage. I think that any problems caused by that
can be solved in other ways.  And, I think these solutions are ones
which make more sense than by an ad hoc limitation on a high damage
spell.

Jim.


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

Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>:

> I agree with Jim for these specific spells. I would also like to see
> Fire Hellfire changed in the same way.
>
> While I don't play a firemage, it seems that Hellfire is still their
> best spell except for very long-range circumstances. This also removes
> the last of the "pick any 7 targets - watch them die" spells, which
> people seemed keen on for reasons outside the player-choice option. I
> agree that high-damage spells can be solved by a number of solutions,
> but as this solution to another problem seems to solve high damage for
> most of the spells, why not extend that solution to one more spell?

Fire mages cast dragonflames in some situations, hellfire in some other
situations, and fireball in yet others. They might use any of their other magic
because it has a critical combat value.

I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an 'only choice' spell.
The other spells in the college have a similar degree of utility. For a start,
it has less range than just about any other spell in the college except for
those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other attack spell.

I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire College Hellfire is to
make the game entirely consistent. Aside from being a futile exercise, it would
lead to a boring game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now,
do we?

Jim.


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

> I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an 
> 'only choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a 
> similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range 
> than just about any other spell in the college except for 
> those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other 
> attack spell.
> 
> I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire 
> College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent. 
> Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring 
> game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?

I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for
consistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage
resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think
we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the
resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.
This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the
resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem. 

The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected
colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells. 

Mandos
/s


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

Just as a note, if fire is a contentious fix I am more than happy to see
the other three fixed and fire left. Better to solve 75% of the problem
than 0% :)

Mandos
/s


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617DF.0EE01AB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well it gets back to the the point I brought up in the initial debate. =
You say the only reason you want these spells changed is because "they =
remove choice", and not because they are overpowered. I say that the =
reason they remove choice is precisely because they are overpowered.=20

For that reason I cant see why you wouldn't change the fire version of =
Hellfire as well. I also think your suggested amendments, while they =
achieve the required depowering, were a little bland for my taste. Id =
prefer to go for spells which have some unique flavour pertinent to the =
college (like my suggested wiccan hellfire which was resist for half for =
the main target ,and then area of effect for all those within rank feet =
of the main target including allies of the caster as the flames of hell =
erupt from the ground around the main target, with resist for nothing =
for those in the area).

Anyway once you've decided on the precise effect and rank increasing =
formula then and only then you should start talking about an appropriate =
EM.
=20
Mark
=20





-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [ mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 1:42 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>:

> I agree with Jim for these specific spells. I would also like to see
> Fire Hellfire changed in the same way.
>
> While I don't play a firemage, it seems that Hellfire is still their
> best spell except for very long-range circumstances. This also removes
> the last of the "pick any 7 targets - watch them die" spells, which
> people seemed keen on for reasons outside the player-choice option. I
> agree that high-damage spells can be solved by a number of solutions,
> but as this solution to another problem seems to solve high damage for
> most of the spells, why not extend that solution to one more spell?

Fire mages cast dragonflames in some situations, hellfire in some other
situations, and fireball in yet others. They might use any of their =
other magic
because it has a critical combat value.

I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an 'only choice' =
spell.
The other spells in the college have a similar degree of utility. For a =
start,
it has less range than just about any other spell in the college except =
for
those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other attack =
spell.

I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire College =
Hellfire is to
make the game entirely consistent. Aside from being a futile exercise, =
it would
lead to a boring game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring =
games, now,
do we?

Jim.


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



------_=_NextPart_001_01C617DF.0EE01AB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Well it gets back to the the point I brought up in the =
initial=20
debate. You say&nbsp;the only reason you want these spells changed is =
because=20
"they remove choice", and not because they are overpowered. I say that =
the=20
reason they remove choice is precisely&nbsp;<EM>because </EM>they are=20
overpowered. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>For that reason I cant see why you wouldn't change the =
fire=20
version of Hellfire as well. I also think your suggested amendments, =
while they=20
achieve the required depowering, were a little bland for my taste. Id =
prefer to=20
go for spells which have some unique flavour pertinent to the college =
(like my=20
suggested wiccan hellfire which was resist for half for the main target =
,and=20
then area of effect for all those within rank feet of the main target =
including=20
allies of the caster as the flames of hell erupt from the ground around =
the main=20
target,&nbsp;with resist for nothing for those in the area).</FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Anyway once you've decided on the precise effect and =
rank=20
increasing formula then and only then you should start talking about an=20
appropriate EM.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Mark</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><BR></P></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT>
<P><FONT size=3D2><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff></FONT><BR>-----Original=20
Message-----<BR>From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20
href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On=
 Behalf=20
Of<BR>raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz<BR>Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 1:42=20
p.m.<BR>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR>Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken=20
spells.<BR><BR><BR>Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)"=20
&lt;AndrewW@datacom.co.nz&gt;:<BR><BR>&gt; I agree with Jim for these =
specific=20
spells. I would also like to see<BR>&gt; Fire Hellfire changed in the =
same=20
way.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; While I don't play a firemage, it seems that =
Hellfire is=20
still their<BR>&gt; best spell except for very long-range circumstances. =
This=20
also removes<BR>&gt; the last of the "pick any 7 targets - watch them =
die"=20
spells, which<BR>&gt; people seemed keen on for reasons outside the=20
player-choice option. I<BR>&gt; agree that high-damage spells can be =
solved by a=20
number of solutions,<BR>&gt; but as this solution to another problem =
seems to=20
solve high damage for<BR>&gt; most of the spells, why not extend that =
solution=20
to one more spell?<BR><BR>Fire mages cast dragonflames in some =
situations,=20
hellfire in some other<BR>situations, and fireball in yet others. They =
might use=20
any of their other magic<BR>because it has a critical combat =
value.<BR><BR>I=20
disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an 'only choice'=20
spell.<BR>The other spells in the college have a similar degree of =
utility. For=20
a start,<BR>it has less range than just about any other spell in the =
college=20
except for<BR>those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any =
other=20
attack spell.<BR><BR>I would hate to think that the reason for including =
Fire=20
College Hellfire is to<BR>make the game entirely consistent. Aside from =
being a=20
futile exercise, it would<BR>lead to a boring game for other reasons. =
And, we=20
don't want boring games, now,<BR>do we?<BR><BR>Jim.<BR><BR><BR>-- to =
unsubscribe=20
notify <A=20
href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A=
>=20
--<BR></P></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617DF.0EE01AB0--


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

> Well it gets back to the the point I brought up in the initial debate.
You
> say the only reason you want these spells changed is because "they
remove
> choice", and not because they are overpowered. I say that the reason
they 
>remove choice is precisely because they are overpowered. 

Who is "you"? As detailed in the thread to restart this debate there are
two reasons to change the spells. 

> Anyway once you've decided on the precise effect and rank increasing
formula
> then and only then you should start talking about an appropriate EM.

Did I miss a message or two? EM's havn't even remotely been considered
so far and are unlikely to be until we know what the final spells will
be like. 

Mandos
/s


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

------=_Part_1403_33173970.1137115230565
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells why not giv=
e
them more or change the others so there are other reasonable choices?
Dylan


On 1/13/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> > I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an
> > 'only choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a
> > similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range
> > than just about any other spell in the college except for
> > those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other
> > attack spell.
> >
> > I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire
> > College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.
> > Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring
> > game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?
>
> I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for
> consistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage
> resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think
> we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the
> resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.
> This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the
> resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem.
>
> The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected
> colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_1403_33173970.1137115230565
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>If theres a lack of choice then instead of &quot;nerfing&quot; the spe=
lls why not give them more or change the others so there are other reasonab=
le choices?</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@a=
dhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt; I disagree entirely with An=
drew's contention that it is an<br>&gt; 'only choice' spell. The other spel=
ls in the college have a
<br>&gt; similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range<br>&gt; =
than just about any other spell in the college except for<br>&gt; those who=
se range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other<br>&gt; attack spell.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt; I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire<b=
r>&gt; College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.<br>&gt; As=
ide from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring<br>&gt; game fo=
r other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?
<br><br>I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for<br>con=
sistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage<br>res=
ist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think<br>
we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the<br>resi=
st for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.<br>This=
 still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the<br>resist =
AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem.
<br><br>The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected<b=
r>colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.<br><=
br>Mandos<br>/s<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailt=
o:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_1403_33173970.1137115230565--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617DF.D2394A2C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Because a ?significant? proportion of people think that the spells are
also too tough relative to the rest of thesystem, not just relative to
other spells.
=20
Andrew

	-----Original Message-----
	From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On
Behalf Of RPer 4eva
	Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 p.m.
	To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
	Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.
=09
=09
	If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells
why not give them more or change the others so there are other
reasonable choices?
	Dylan
=09


------_=_NextPart_001_01C617DF.D2394A2C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D609332101-13012006>Because a ?significant? proportion of people =
think that=20
the spells are also too tough relative to the rest of thesystem, not =
just=20
relative to other spells.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D609332101-13012006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D609332101-13012006>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT=20
  face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
  dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <B>On Behalf Of =
</B>RPer=20
  4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken=20
  spells.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells =
why not=20
  give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable=20
  choices?</DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
=00
------_=_NextPart_001_01C617DF.D2394A2C--


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

> If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells why
not
> give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable
choices?

Think for a second Dylan.....

If it takes this much debate and argument to fix four broken spells, how
long would it take to fix the rest of the college to bring it into line
with those four spells. 

These spells are broken for two reasons, choice being only one, and be
depowering these spells just a little bit we can fix both problems, if
we fix everything else instead we spend more time and end up
exacerbating the other issues. 

Mandos
/s


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617E0.2CC92924
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well you could do that. But it seems easier to nerf one spell in a =
college rather than seek  to power-up (re-write) a dozen others.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of =
RPer 4eva
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells why not =
give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable =
choices?
Dylan

=20
On 1/13/06, Mandos Mitchinson < MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:=20

> I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an
> 'only choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a=20
> similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range
> than just about any other spell in the college except for
> those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other
> attack spell.=20
>
> I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire
> College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.
> Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring
> game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?=20

I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for
consistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage
resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think
we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the
resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.
This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the
resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem.=20

The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected
colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.

Mandos
/s


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




------_=_NextPart_001_01C617E0.2CC92924
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">


<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D163172301-13012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Well=20
you could do that. But it seems easier to nerf one spell in a college =
rather=20
than seek &nbsp;to power-up (re-write) a dozen =
others.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>RPer =
4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken=20
  spells.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells =
why not=20
  give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable=20
  choices?</DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan<BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote>On 1/13/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername>Mandos=20
  Mitchinson</B> &lt;<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>&gt; =
wrote:</SPAN>=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
#ccc 1px solid">&gt;=20
    I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an<BR>&gt; =
'only=20
    choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a <BR>&gt; =
similar=20
    degree of utility. For a start, it has less range<BR>&gt; than just =
about=20
    any other spell in the college except for<BR>&gt; those whose range =
is=20
    touch. Certainly, shorter than any other<BR>&gt; attack spell.=20
    <BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I would hate to think that the reason for including =

    Fire<BR>&gt; College Hellfire is to make the game entirely=20
    consistent.<BR>&gt; Aside from being a futile exercise, it would =
lead to a=20
    boring<BR>&gt; game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring =
games, now,=20
    do we? <BR><BR>I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is =
just=20
    for<BR>consistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets =
high=20
    damage<BR>resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem =
and I=20
    think<BR>we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps =
remove=20
    the<BR>resist for half as the college has a number of resist for =
half=20
    options.<BR>This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage =
but stops=20
    the<BR>resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the =
problem.=20
    <BR><BR>The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other=20
    affected<BR>colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with =
these=20
    spells.<BR><BR>Mandos<BR>/s<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify =
mailto:<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz"> dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A> =

  --<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617E0.2CC92924--


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

------=_Part_1451_9345667.1137115735664
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I don't really care how much debate it takes. I'm more interested in the
final product. So why don't we at least take a look at it?
Dylan


On 1/13/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> > If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells why
> not
> > give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable
> choices?
>
> Think for a second Dylan.....
>
> If it takes this much debate and argument to fix four broken spells, how
> long would it take to fix the rest of the college to bring it into line
> with those four spells.
>
> These spells are broken for two reasons, choice being only one, and be
> depowering these spells just a little bit we can fix both problems, if
> we fix everything else instead we spend more time and end up
> exacerbating the other issues.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_1451_9345667.1137115735664
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I don't really care how much debate it takes. I'm more interested in t=
he final product. So why don't we at least take a look at it?</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@a=
dhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt; If theres a lack of choice =
then instead of &quot;nerfing&quot; the spells why<br>not<br>&gt; give them=
 more or change the others so there are other reasonable
<br>choices?<br><br>Think for a second Dylan.....<br><br>If it takes this m=
uch debate and argument to fix four broken spells, how<br>long would it tak=
e to fix the rest of the college to bring it into line<br>with those four s=
pells.
<br><br>These spells are broken for two reasons, choice being only one, and=
 be<br>depowering these spells just a little bit we can fix both problems, =
if<br>we fix everything else instead we spend more time and end up<br>exace=
rbating the other issues.
<br><br>Mandos<br>/s<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"=
mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockqu=
ote></div><br>

------=_Part_1451_9345667.1137115735664--


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

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 13:21, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
> Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:
> 
> > I believe Jim put forward some suggested fixes and we were discussing
> > them. Could Jim repost his suggestiong and we can take it from there.
> >
> 
> My suggestions is that:
> 
> Necrosis/Wiccan Hellfire/Whirlwind Vortex be changed to a single target spell
> and that there be an area of affect damage spell be included in the college.

Direct damage has never seemed to me to be in the flavour of the Wiccan
college (curses, blessings and fertility). *If* Hellfire becomes single
target and *if* we want a new multi-target combat spell to replace it,
I'd suggest a curse/disable/maim spell. E.g. something hands-of-earth
like, but with vines, or multi-target damnum minatum, or agony, or
agonizing muscle spasms which do fatigue damage only but break bones on
a "good" roll.

However, I'd tend to change Hellfire to resist-for-none, as it seems to
me to be less of a change to the nature of the spell.


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

------=_Part_1471_23579656.1137115870755
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

As far as I can tell theres a history of Nerfing spells. While maybe some
were needed slowly the whole system seems to be getting downpowered. I
wonder out of the last 10 spell alterations including complete removals how
many actualy left the college as strong or stronger than it was before the
change. Mages are supposed to be powerful. They weild strage powers and are
to be feared. How long until all we can do is change hair color or make tea
with our newly weakened but balanced spells?
Dylan


On 1/13/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Well you could do that. But it seems easier to nerf one spell in a colleg=
e
> rather than seek  to power-up (re-write) a dozen others.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]*On Behalf Of
> *RPer 4eva
> *Sent:* Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 p.m.
> *To:* dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> *Subject:* Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.
>
> If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells why not
> give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable choices=
?
> Dylan
>
>
>  On 1/13/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> > > I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an
> > > 'only choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a
> > > similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range
> > > than just about any other spell in the college except for
> > > those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other
> > > attack spell.
> > >
> > > I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire
> > > College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.
> > > Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring
> > > game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?
> >
> > I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for
> > consistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage
> > resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think
> > we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the
> > resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.
> > This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the
> > resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem.
> >
> > The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected
> > colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.
> >
> > Mandos
> > /s
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto: dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>

------=_Part_1471_23579656.1137115870755
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>As far as I can tell theres a history of Nerfing spells. While maybe s=
ome were needed slowly the whole system seems to be getting downpowered. I =
wonder out of the last 10 spell alterations including complete removals how=
 many actualy left the college as strong or stronger than it was before the=
 change. Mages are supposed to be powerful. They weild strage powers and ar=
e to be feared. How long until all we can do is change hair color or make t=
ea with our newly weakened but balanced spells?
</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
<a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a></b> =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a>&=
gt; wrote:
</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2">Well you could=
 do that. But it seems easier to nerf one spell in a college rather than se=
ek &nbsp;to power-up (re-write) a dozen others.</font></span></div>
<blockquote><span class=3D"q">
<div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2">-----Origi=
nal Message-----<br><b>From:</b> <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(wi=
ndow,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">d=
q-owner@dq.sf.org.nz
</a> [mailto:<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" hr=
ef=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=
</a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>RPer 4eva<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 13 January 2006 =
2:21=20
p.m.<br><b>To:</b> <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,thi=
s)" href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><b=
r><b>Subject:</b> Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.<br><br></font></div=
></span>
<span class=3D"q">
<div>If theres a lack of choice then instead of &quot;nerfing&quot; the spe=
lls why not give them more or change the others so there are other reasonab=
le choices?</div></span>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
<div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_108c15e2052085ef_4"><span class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a =
onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:Man=
dosM@adhb.govt.nz" target=3D"_blank">
MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span> </span></div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_108c15e2052085ef_6">&gt; I disagree entirely=
 with Andrew's contention that it is an<br>&gt; 'only choice' spell. The ot=
her spells in the college have a <br>&gt; similar degree of utility. For a =
start, it has less range
<br>&gt; than just about any other spell in the college except for<br>&gt; =
those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other<br>&gt; attac=
k spell. <br>&gt;<br>&gt; I would hate to think that the reason for includi=
ng Fire
<br>&gt; College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.<br>&gt; =
Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring<br>&gt; game =
for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we? <br><br>
I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for<br>consistancy=
, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage<br>resist for =
half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think<br>we should in=
clude Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the
<br>resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.=
<br>This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the<br=
>resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem. <br>
<br>The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected<br>co=
lleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.<br><br><=
/span></div><span class=3D"q">Mandos<br>/s<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe not=
ify mailto:
<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:=
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank"> dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<=
br></span></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_1471_23579656.1137115870755--


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

> I don't really care how much debate it takes. I'm more interested in
>  the final product. So why don't we at least take a look at it?

So you want to take four colleges comprising something like 100+ spells
and power-up 94 of them as well as rebalancing combat, damange and
probably healing as well as then adjusting the other colleges so that
they are not left behind just to avoid fixing four spells?

Please tell me you are either joking here or you are taking some form of
class A narcotic that is causing delierium. 

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> > I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an
> > 'only choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a
> > similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range
> > than just about any other spell in the college except for
> > those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other
> > attack spell.
> >
> > I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire
> > College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.
> > Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring
> > game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?
>
> I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for
> consistancy,

It shouldn't be for consistency at ANY point. It's not a reason for making a
change. Blind stupidity is the only justification for that line of argument.

that type of spell the large number of targets high damage
> resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think
> we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the
> resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.
> This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the
> resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem.

That isn't anything to do with my argument, and I won't entertain agreement with
me based on the erroneous assumption that I am worried about damage. I'm not.

I don't agree to nerfing spells simply to make it more inline with the rest of
the magic system. That is so uninspired that it makes me wonder why people
bother to play games of imagination.
>
> The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected
> colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.

It's the only one that I care about, in this instance. You might have issues
with damage, and that's entirely up to you. I don't. I have seen the game at
the top, middle and bottom, and as far as I can see, there's plenty of room for
a spell like Hellfire. It's okay if Fire mages are the only ones that get it,
as far as I am concerned.

If the changes I proposed were cynically endorsed simply as part of a conspiracy
to reduce damage across the board, then I would withdraw my support from it. I
would rather not have the spells being discussed changed at all than to remove
the option of high level play. I perceive such a direction as dangerous to the
enjoyment of the game.

Jim


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

> As far as I can tell theres a history of Nerfing spells. While maybe
some were
> needed slowly the whole system seems to be getting downpowered. I
wonder out
> of the last 10 spell alterations including complete removals how many
actualy
> left the college as strong or stronger than it was before the change.

Last changes to spells. 

1. Shadowform confirmed as not staking with other defence spells. - No
Change to college. 
2. Geas - Max ranked to 20 - Not a colleged spell, only ever ranked by
one or two characters as getting to Rk50 was stupid. 
3. Undetectability removed - It was removed as neither the original
spell, not any of the replacements had ever been playable. It
technically depowered the spell but since most GM's had been disallowing
it's use or avoiding it's effects the net result was negligable. 
4-10 New college for Namer. Loads of touch and funky new spells in play,
some of them now up for discussion to depower as they were a bit over
the top - effect, seriously powered up the college giving namers far
more options. 

So 7 power-ups, 2 depowerings for good reasons and 1 confirmation. 

Overall I would say the level of the game is slowly increasing, but if
there is a history of nerfing spells I would love to see it. 

Mandos
/s


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

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 14:31, RPer 4eva wrote:
> As far as I can tell theres a history of Nerfing spells. While maybe
> some were needed slowly the whole system seems to be getting
> downpowered. I wonder out of the last 10 spell alterations including
> complete removals how many actualy left the college as strong or
> stronger than it was before the change. Mages are supposed to be
> powerful. They weild strage powers and are to be feared. How long
> until all we can do is change hair color or make tea with our newly
> weakened but balanced spells?
> Dylan

That would be because everyone notices the game-stressing overpowered
spells. There are underpowered spells also, but almost nobody takes
them, and those that do seldom use them, so they aren't noticed.

If you want to redress the balance, feel free to look through the spells
and point out a bunch that are pretty useless as they stand and suggest
up-powering them.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617E2.C4366CDC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with you that most changes have been nerfs, and a number of =
those I didnt personally see as warranted. However, I do see they spells =
as being a problem. There really isnt a reason to cast anything but rank =
20 hellfire if your a Wiccan, even if you have all the other =
specials/generals at 20.=20
=20
I have however seen colleges get beefed up when colleges as a whole are =
looked at (see for example namer ...). I have also seen some minor power =
increases to spells which were overly restrictive (an example off the =
top of my head being "Illusionary Animal" which had both a rank/size of =
animal limitation and a rank/tmr limitation. So at low ranks you could =
cast a realistic looking bird which could fly .... at a maximum tmr of 1 =
- the rank/tmr restriction was removed and replaced with you get the =
natural tmr of the animal and if you want bigger animals you have to =
rank it). =20
=20
There are less people sufficiently"interested" in seeing overly =
restrictive spell beeefed up (ie. just the members of that college) =
whereas when a spell is "too good" there a bunch of players and gm's =
willing to speak out.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of =
RPer 4eva
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 2:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


As far as I can tell theres a history of Nerfing spells. While maybe =
some were needed slowly the whole system seems to be getting =
downpowered. I wonder out of the last 10 spell alterations including =
complete removals how many actualy left the college as strong or =
stronger than it was before the change. Mages are supposed to be =
powerful. They weild strage powers and are to be feared. How long until =
all we can do is change hair color or make tea with our newly weakened =
but balanced spells?=20
Dylan

=20
On 1/13/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz < Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:=20

Well you could do that. But it seems easier to nerf one spell in a =
college rather than seek  to power-up (re-write) a dozen others.


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz  <mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz> [mailto: =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of RPer 4eva
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.



If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the spells why not =
give them more or change the others so there are other reasonable =
choices?
Dylan

=20
On 1/13/06, Mandos Mitchinson <  <mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> =
MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:=20

> I disagree entirely with Andrew's contention that it is an
> 'only choice' spell. The other spells in the college have a=20
> similar degree of utility. For a start, it has less range=20
> than just about any other spell in the college except for
> those whose range is touch. Certainly, shorter than any other
> attack spell.=20
>
> I would hate to think that the reason for including Fire=20
> College Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.
> Aside from being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring
> game for other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we?=20

I don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just for
consistancy, that type of spell the large number of targets high damage
resist for half spell is something that I see as a problem and I think
we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. Perhaps remove the=20
resist for half as the college has a number of resist for half options.
This still makes it a damn fine spell with high damage but stops the
resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the core of the problem.=20

The lack of spell choice is another issue that the other affected
colleges suffer from but it is not the only issue with these spells.


Mandos
/s


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





------_=_NextPart_001_01C617E2.C4366CDC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">


<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D754233201-13012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I=20
agree with you that most changes have been nerfs, and a number of those =
I didnt=20
personally see as warranted. However, I do see they spells as being a =
problem.=20
There really isnt a reason to cast anything but rank 20 hellfire if your =
a=20
Wiccan, even if you have all the other specials/generals at 20.=20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D754233201-13012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D754233201-13012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I have=20
however seen colleges get beefed up when colleges as a whole are looked =
at (see=20
for example namer ...). I have also seen some minor power increases to =
spells=20
which were overly restrictive (an example off the top of my head being=20
"Illusionary Animal" which had both a rank/size of animal limitation and =
a=20
rank/tmr limitation. So at low ranks you could cast a realistic looking =
bird=20
which could fly .... at a maximum tmr of 1 - the rank/tmr restriction =
was=20
removed and replaced with you get the natural tmr of the animal and if =
you want=20
bigger animals you have to rank it).&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D754233201-13012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D754233201-13012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>There=20
are less people sufficiently"interested" in seeing overly restrictive =
spell=20
beeefed up (ie. just the members of that college) whereas when a spell =
is "too=20
good" there a bunch of players and gm's willing to speak=20
out.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>RPer =
4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Friday, 13 January 2006 2:31 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken=20
  spells.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>As far as I can tell theres a history of Nerfing spells. While =
maybe some=20
  were needed slowly the whole system seems to be getting downpowered. I =
wonder=20
  out of the last 10 spell alterations including complete removals how =
many=20
  actualy left the college as strong or stronger than it was before the =
change.=20
  Mages are supposed to be powerful. They weild strage powers and are to =
be=20
  feared. How long until all we can do is change hair color or make tea =
with our=20
  newly weakened but balanced spells? </DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan<BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote>On 1/13/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A></B> =
&lt;<A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A>&gt; =
wrote:=20
  </SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
#ccc 1px solid">
    <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Well you =
could do that. But=20
    it seems easier to nerf one spell in a college rather than seek =
&nbsp;to=20
    power-up (re-write) a dozen others.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN class=3Dq>
      <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma =
size=3D2>-----Original=20
      Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> <A=20
      onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"=20
      href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" =
target=3D_blank>dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
      </A>[mailto:<A onclick=3D"return =
top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"=20
      href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz"=20
      target=3D_blank>dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]<B>On Behalf Of </B>RPer =

      4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 13 January 2006 2:21 =
p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> <A=20
      onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"=20
      href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz"=20
      target=3D_blank>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] =
Big nasty=20
      and broken spells.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV></SPAN><SPAN class=3Dq>
      <DIV>If theres a lack of choice then instead of "nerfing" the =
spells why=20
      not give them more or change the others so there are other =
reasonable=20
      choices?</DIV></SPAN>
      <DIV>Dylan<BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
      <DIV>
      <DIV><SPAN class=3De id=3Dq_108c15e2052085ef_4><SPAN =
class=3Dgmail_quote>On=20
      1/13/06, <B class=3Dgmail_sendername>Mandos Mitchinson</B> &lt;<A=20
      onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"=20
      href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz" target=3D_blank>=20
      MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>&gt; wrote:</SPAN> </SPAN></DIV>
      <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
      style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; =
BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
        <DIV><SPAN class=3De id=3Dq_108c15e2052085ef_6>&gt; I disagree =
entirely with=20
        Andrew's contention that it is an<BR>&gt; 'only choice' spell. =
The other=20
        spells in the college have a <BR>&gt; similar degree of utility. =
For a=20
        start, it has less range <BR>&gt; than just about any other =
spell in the=20
        college except for<BR>&gt; those whose range is touch. =
Certainly,=20
        shorter than any other<BR>&gt; attack spell. <BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I =
would=20
        hate to think that the reason for including Fire <BR>&gt; =
College=20
        Hellfire is to make the game entirely consistent.<BR>&gt; Aside =
from=20
        being a futile exercise, it would lead to a boring<BR>&gt; game =
for=20
        other reasons. And, we don't want boring games, now, do we? =
<BR><BR>I=20
        don't think changing the Fire college hellfire is just=20
        for<BR>consistancy, that type of spell the large number of =
targets high=20
        damage<BR>resist for half spell is something that I see as a =
problem and=20
        I think<BR>we should include Fire Hellfire in the solution. =
Perhaps=20
        remove the <BR>resist for half as the college has a number of =
resist for=20
        half options.<BR>This still makes it a damn fine spell with high =
damage=20
        but stops the<BR>resist AND die effects that IMO comprise the =
core of=20
        the problem. <BR><BR>The lack of spell choice is another issue =
that the=20
        other affected<BR>colleges suffer from but it is not the only =
issue with=20
        these spells.<BR><BR></SPAN></DIV><SPAN=20
        class=3Dq>Mandos<BR>/s<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify =
mailto: <A=20
        onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"=20
        href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz"=20
        target=3D_blank>dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A>=20
      =
--<BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><=
/BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C617E2.C4366CDC--


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:


> These spells are broken for two reasons, choice being only one, and be
> depowering these spells just a little bit we can fix both problems, if
> we fix everything else instead we spend more time and end up
> exacerbating the other issues.

For you, damage is an important consideration.

For others, it is not.

And to use a meaningless trick of argument, 'A 'significant' number of people
think that there is no problem with the amount of damage in the game.'

Jim.


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

> If the changes I proposed were cynically endorsed simply as 
> part of a conspiracy to reduce damage across the board, then 
> I would withdraw my support from it. I would rather not have 
> the spells being discussed changed at all than to remove the 
> option of high level play. I perceive such a direction as 
> dangerous to the enjoyment of the game.

I have no problem with the damage the spells put out. My issue is that
spells should not have Long Range, High Damage, Multitargets AND resist
for half. Spells with any two of the above are fantastic, in fact I have
no problems with some of the changes we make to spells adding damage, as
long as we remove some of the other mods, my preference is Resist for
half. 

I agree with you 100% that there is a need for high damage in the game
and that Fire is probably the best place for it, but on the flip side I
do have an issue with Multitarget, Resist and Die spells. 

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>:


> Direct damage has never seemed to me to be in the flavour of the Wiccan
> college (curses, blessings and fertility). *If* Hellfire becomes single
> target and *if* we want a new multi-target combat spell to replace it,
> I'd suggest a curse/disable/maim spell. E.g. something hands-of-earth
> like, but with vines, or multi-target damnum minatum, or agony, or
> agonizing muscle spasms which do fatigue damage only but break bones on
> a "good" roll.
>
> However, I'd tend to change Hellfire to resist-for-none, as it seems to
> me to be less of a change to the nature of the spell.


There is nothing wrong with seeking a version of the spell that has this point
of difference. It's also not a reason to change the entire college. One could
easily have your interpretation of the college, and at the same time an
entirely different one could be equally valid.

Jim


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

> For you, damage is an important consideration.
> 
> For others, it is not.

Nope, I never said damage was the issue. 

> And to use a meaningless trick of argument, 'A 'significant' 
> number of people think that there is no problem with the 
> amount of damage in the game.'

I agree with that meaningless trick. I think there is no problem with
the amount of damamge in the game. 

I think there is a problem with high damage being combined with other
spell mods such as resist for half, and multitargeting but I have no
issues with the damage itself. 

Mandos
/s


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

------=_Part_1599_15706014.1137117500604
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Not talking about powering up 94. Why not one spell in each. A choice can b=
e
as few as 2 alternatives. Lets try to give them a second alternative thereb=
y
removing the apparent lack of choice.
Dylan


On 1/13/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> > I don't really care how much debate it takes. I'm more interested in
> >  the final product. So why don't we at least take a look at it?
>
> So you want to take four colleges comprising something like 100+ spells
> and power-up 94 of them as well as rebalancing combat, damange and
> probably healing as well as then adjusting the other colleges so that
> they are not left behind just to avoid fixing four spells?
>
> Please tell me you are either joking here or you are taking some form of
> class A narcotic that is causing delierium.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_1599_15706014.1137117500604
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Not talking about powering up 94. Why not one spell in each. A choice =
can be as few as 2 alternatives. Lets try to give them a second alternative=
 thereby removing the apparent lack of choice.</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@a=
dhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt; I don't really care how muc=
h debate it takes. I'm more interested in<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;the final prod=
uct. So why don't we at least take a look at it?
<br><br>So you want to take four colleges comprising something like 100+ sp=
ells<br>and power-up 94 of them as well as rebalancing combat, damange and<=
br>probably healing as well as then adjusting the other colleges so that
<br>they are not left behind just to avoid fixing four spells?<br><br>Pleas=
e tell me you are either joking here or you are taking some form of<br>clas=
s A narcotic that is causing delierium.<br><br>Mandos<br>/s<br><br><br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">=
dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_1599_15706014.1137117500604--


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

Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>:


> That would be because everyone notices the game-stressing overpowered
> spells. There are underpowered spells also, but almost nobody takes
> them, and those that do seldom use them, so they aren't noticed.
>
> If you want to redress the balance, feel free to look through the spells
> and point out a bunch that are pretty useless as they stand and suggest
> up-powering them.


There is no need for the game to be altered to deal with spells that are
under-powered. If a player feels that they like the spell, but that it is too
under-powered, let them find a version that is more to their taste by questing
for it.

It is a mistake to seek to create an entirely balanced economy of rules. It
doesn't happen in the real world, and it won't happen here.

Jim.


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> > If the changes I proposed were cynically endorsed simply as
> > part of a conspiracy to reduce damage across the board, then
> > I would withdraw my support from it. I would rather not have
> > the spells being discussed changed at all than to remove the
> > option of high level play. I perceive such a direction as
> > dangerous to the enjoyment of the game.
>
> I have no problem with the damage the spells put out. My issue is that
> spells should not have Long Range, High Damage, Multitargets AND resist
> for half. Spells with any two of the above are fantastic, in fact I have
> no problems with some of the changes we make to spells adding damage, as
> long as we remove some of the other mods, my preference is Resist for
> half.
>
> I agree with you 100% that there is a need for high damage in the game
> and that Fire is probably the best place for it, but on the flip side I
> do have an issue with Multitarget, Resist and Die spells.

I don't, because Hellfire isn't certain death.

Jim


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

> I don't, because Hellfire isn't certain death.

Fair call. I reread the spell and did the maths and it isn't a resist
and die.

I concour that Fire can be left alone. 

Mandos
/s


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

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:00, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
> Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>:

> > If you want to redress the balance, feel free to look through the spells
> > and point out a bunch that are pretty useless as they stand and suggest
> > up-powering them.
> 
> 
> There is no need for the game to be altered to deal with spells that are
> under-powered. If a player feels that they like the spell, but that it is too
> under-powered, let them find a version that is more to their taste by questing
> for it.
> 
> It is a mistake to seek to create an entirely balanced economy of rules. It
> doesn't happen in the real world, and it won't happen here.
> 
The recently made modification to illusary animal is a fine example of
what I was intending. A minor change made it usable at low level. 

However, the comment is primarily a counter to RPer 4eva's perception
that spells are only modified to nerf them - if he(?) sees this as a
problem, he can propose power-ups. If they make sense (like illusary
animal) they'll likely get accepted.


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

------=_Part_1699_32497967.1137118938264
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I wouldn't presume to know enough to suggest exactly what should be powered
up. I'm just saying if you think people always cast the spell because they
have no other reasonable choice then why not find a way to give them a
reasonable choice by powering something else up?
Dylan


On 1/13/06, Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:00, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>:
>
> > > If you want to redress the balance, feel free to look through the
> spells
> > > and point out a bunch that are pretty useless as they stand and
> suggest
> > > up-powering them.
> >
> >
> > There is no need for the game to be altered to deal with spells that ar=
e
> > under-powered. If a player feels that they like the spell, but that it
> is too
> > under-powered, let them find a version that is more to their taste by
> questing
> > for it.
> >
> > It is a mistake to seek to create an entirely balanced economy of rules=
.
> It
> > doesn't happen in the real world, and it won't happen here.
> >
> The recently made modification to illusary animal is a fine example of
> what I was intending. A minor change made it usable at low level.
>
> However, the comment is primarily a counter to RPer 4eva's perception
> that spells are only modified to nerf them - if he(?) sees this as a
> problem, he can propose power-ups. If they make sense (like illusary
> animal) they'll likely get accepted.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_1699_32497967.1137118938264
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I wouldn't presume to know enough to suggest exactly what should be po=
wered up. I'm just saying if you think people always cast the spell because=
 they have no other reasonable choice then why not find a way to give them =
a reasonable choice by powering something else up?
</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Michael Woodhams</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mdw@free.net.nz">mdw@free.net.nz=
</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:00, <a =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a> wro=
te:
<br>&gt; Quoting Michael Woodhams &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mdw@free.net.nz">md=
w@free.net.nz</a>&gt;:<br><br>&gt; &gt; If you want to redress the balance,=
 feel free to look through the spells<br>&gt; &gt; and point out a bunch th=
at are pretty useless as they stand and suggest
<br>&gt; &gt; up-powering them.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; There is no need fo=
r the game to be altered to deal with spells that are<br>&gt; under-powered=
. If a player feels that they like the spell, but that it is too<br>&gt; un=
der-powered, let them find a version that is more to their taste by questin=
g
<br>&gt; for it.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; It is a mistake to seek to create an entir=
ely balanced economy of rules. It<br>&gt; doesn't happen in the real world,=
 and it won't happen here.<br>&gt;<br>The recently made modification to ill=
usary animal is a fine example of
<br>what I was intending. A minor change made it usable at low level.<br><b=
r>However, the comment is primarily a counter to RPer 4eva's perception<br>=
that spells are only modified to nerf them - if he(?) sees this as a<br>
problem, he can propose power-ups. If they make sense (like illusary<br>ani=
mal) they'll likely get accepted.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailt=
o:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --
<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_1699_32497967.1137118938264--


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

Note that I am entirely happy for the Conception rules to be removed 
altogether, but if they should continue to exist, please put them where 
they may be found and not in a seemingly random spot in the rules,

cheers,

clare


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

> malice in the end anyway. I suppose the conception chances
> are needed as a base for the virility/conception spells
> and items, but they all don't quite seem right either. Do
> the maths with elves.

Andrew is correct. The main reason the base chances were put
in is that they were missing from the previous incarnation
of the rulebook and some spells mention modifying fertility
chances. Hence the original table was found and put back in
with each table value being put under the appropriate race.

Keith


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

Quoting RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com>:

> I wouldn't presume to know enough to suggest exactly what should be powered
> up. I'm just saying if you think people always cast the spell because they
> have no other reasonable choice then why not find a way to give them a
> reasonable choice by powering something else up?

There is no particular need to power things up if you are going to give them a
viable alternative. A character with alternatives has more power, inherently.
To keep things at more or less the same level, you would most likely need to
depower other abilities.

Or you could just keep ramping things up until you have runaway damage
inflation, in which case the only equilibrium that you will find will be
shortly after the next edition of the rules comes out, and last until the
following revision.

You know, you can just continue making general suggestion after general
suggestion as you are doing. But, somewhere out there, there's a grandmother
who doesn't have someone to show her how to suck eggs.

Jim.


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