------=_Part_4653_15887482.1137151635305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I just think its stupid to downpower 4 spells at once because people say
that having them means theres no choice. Either people have choice already
and its a mute point or people don't have choice and we should consider
other ways of doing it than downpowering 4 spells.

Dylan



On 1/13/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> 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 --
>

------=_Part_4653_15887482.1137151635305
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I just think its stupid to downpower 4 spells at once because people s=
ay that having them means theres no choice. Either people have choice alrea=
dy and its a mute point or people don't have choice and we should consider =
other ways of doing it than downpowering 4 spells.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br>&nbsp;</div><br><br>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/13/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a><=
/b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac=
.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">Quoting RPer 4eva &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br><br>&gt; I=
 wouldn't presume to know enough to suggest exactly what should be powered
<br>&gt; up. I'm just saying if you think people always cast the spell beca=
use they<br>&gt; have no other reasonable choice then why not find a way to=
 give them a<br>&gt; reasonable choice by powering something else up?<br>
<br>There is no particular need to power things up if you are going to give=
 them a<br>viable alternative. A character with alternatives has more power=
, inherently.<br>To keep things at more or less the same level, you would m=
ost likely need to
<br>depower other abilities.<br><br>Or you could just keep ramping things u=
p until you have runaway damage<br>inflation, in which case the only equili=
brium that you will find will be<br>shortly after the next edition of the r=
ules comes out, and last until the
<br>following revision.<br><br>You know, you can just continue making gener=
al suggestion after general<br>suggestion as you are doing. But, somewhere =
out there, there's a grandmother<br>who doesn't have someone to show her ho=
w to suck eggs.
<br><br>Jim.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:d=
q-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></di=
v><br>

------=_Part_4653_15887482.1137151635305--


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

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

> I just think its stupid to downpower 4 spells at once because people say
> that having them means theres no choice.

I don't think you read these posts.

>Either people have choice already and its a mute point

If they do have choice, it would be an invalid point.

>or people don't have choice and we should consider other ways of doing it than
>downpowering 4 spells.

Yes. That is your position. What makes you think that it is a valid position?
Because the voices tell you it's a good idea? Because it's bubbly-green and
tingly?

As far as I can tell, your position is simply the expression of a creed.I am
left to decide whether or not I believe your position as a statement of dogma.

Okay, I have decided that I don't. Let's move onto something productive.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_4869_30426951.1137153631016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course. Both of my position and wha=
t
something productive is. Now as for the people who aren't scared of a new
idea or of the supposed extra work that would come from prehaps we could at
least look at the idea of trying something else other than downpowering
these spells. I have proposed one idea that at least in theory provides mor=
e
choices. Has bring other spells up to make them viable options been tried
any time recently? If not is there a reason for this. If not then prehaps w=
e
can try it.
Dylan

On 1/14/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Quoting RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com>:
>
> > I just think its stupid to downpower 4 spells at once because people sa=
y
> > that having them means theres no choice.
>
> I don't think you read these posts.
>
> >Either people have choice already and its a mute point
>
> If they do have choice, it would be an invalid point.
>
> >or people don't have choice and we should consider other ways of doing i=
t
> than
> >downpowering 4 spells.
>
> Yes. That is your position. What makes you think that it is a valid
> position?
> Because the voices tell you it's a good idea? Because it's bubbly-green
> and
> tingly?
>
> As far as I can tell, your position is simply the expression of a creed.I=
am
> left to decide whether or not I believe your position as a statement of
> dogma.
>
> Okay, I have decided that I don't. Let's move onto something productive.
>
> Jim.
>

------=_Part_4869_30426951.1137153631016
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Well you're entitled to your opinion of course. Both of my position an=
d what something productive is. Now as for the people who aren't scared of =
a new idea or of the supposed extra work that would come from prehaps we co=
uld at least look at the idea of trying something else other than downpower=
ing these spells. I have proposed one idea that at least in theory provides=
 more choices. Has bring other spells up to make them viable options been t=
ried any time recently? If not is there a reason for this. If not then preh=
aps we can try it.
</div>
<div>Dylan</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/14/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a><=
/b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac=
.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">Quoting RPer 4eva &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br><br>&gt; I=
 just think its stupid to downpower 4 spells at once because people say
<br>&gt; that having them means theres no choice.<br><br>I don't think you =
read these posts.<br><br>&gt;Either people have choice already and its a mu=
te point<br><br>If they do have choice, it would be an invalid point.<br>
<br>&gt;or people don't have choice and we should consider other ways of do=
ing it than<br>&gt;downpowering 4 spells.<br><br>Yes. That is your position=
. What makes you think that it is a valid position?<br>Because the voices t=
ell you it's a good idea? Because it's bubbly-green and
<br>tingly?<br><br>As far as I can tell, your position is simply the expres=
sion of a creed.I am<br>left to decide whether or not I believe your positi=
on as a statement of dogma.<br><br>Okay, I have decided that I don't. Let's=
 move onto something productive.
<br><br>Jim.<br></blockquote></div>

------=_Part_4869_30426951.1137153631016--


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

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

> Well you're entitled to your opinion of course. Both of my position and what
> something productive is. Now as for the people who aren't scared of a new
> idea or of the supposed extra work that would come from prehaps we could at
> least look at the idea of trying something else other than downpowering
> these spells.

Dylan, as you have probably guessed, I don't think much of your position, and I
don't think you are contributing.

For you to be contributing, then you need to be producing something that people
can look at, and decide if you are suggesting something that is worth
considering.

As for whether or not people are afraid of a new idea...You would have to
produce one first.

>I have proposed one idea that at least in theory provides more
> choices.

That's not a proposition. You have simply railed against spells being
downpowered. There seems to be no logic behind this position, or evidence to
support it. At the moment, it's a statement of belief, and the belief of
someone without much experience in these matters.

>Has bring other spells up to make them viable options been tried
> any time recently? If not is there a reason for this. If not then prehaps we
> can try it.

Why should they? It's your brilliant idea. YOU come up with the revision
necessary to make the game better. And, that means something that one could
notice as a change, not yet another demand for someone to do something about
it.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_5334_13359612.1137156345761
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/14/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Quoting RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com>:
>
> > Well you're entitled to your opinion of course. Both of my position and
> what
> > something productive is. Now as for the people who aren't scared of a
> new
> > idea or of the supposed extra work that would come from prehaps we coul=
d
> at
> > least look at the idea of trying something else other than downpowering
> > these spells.
>
> Dylan, as you have probably guessed, I don't think much of your position,
> and I
> don't think you are contributing.


Prehaps you are failing to recognise the contribution. I am attempting to
consider some alternatives. They may not be to your liking but in a
discusion it is generaly considered acceptable to speak your mind even if
the other person doesn't like it.

For you to be contributing, then you need to be producing something that
> people
> can look at, and decide if you are suggesting something that is worth
> considering.
>
> As for whether or not people are afraid of a new idea...You would have to
> produce one first.


My idea is adding power to other spells so that there is a choice at the
higher levels without just lowering the supposed current only rational
decision to the weakness that would make other things viable. You may not
agree with this but it is in fact an idea. I hope next time you will
recognise one without having to have it pointed out to you a third time.

>I have proposed one idea that at least in theory provides more
> > choices.
>
> That's not a proposition. You have simply railed against spells being
> downpowered. There seems to be no logic behind this position, or evidence
> to
> support it. At the moment, it's a statement of belief, and the belief of
> someone without much experience in these matters.


Which part do you have a problem with? My idea that the spells are being
downpowered. This is the current idea being discussed so I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt and assume that you accept this. My position is that I
don't think we necesarily have to down power them. There are alternatives.
Now do you think there is no logic to the idea there might be alternatives?
Once again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and choose instead to
believe that you think there are no better alternatives. But how many have
you considered? Enough to be certain that there are none that are better?
Now theres a position without much evidence to support it. In fact I would
call that a statement of belief and I wouldn't have much faith in it. Or
could it be that you think my idea to power up other spells doesn't have
enough detail to count as an alternative? This I can also accept as it is
the start of an idea. Much like the first person saying these spells should
be downpowered but not how. The opening to a discusion doesn't normaly
contain the ending as well.


> >Has bring other spells up to make them viable options been tried
> > any time recently? If not is there a reason for this. If not then
> prehaps we
> > can try it.
>
> Why should they? It's your brilliant idea. YOU come up with the revision
> necessary to make the game better. And, that means something that one
> could
> notice as a change, not yet another demand for someone to do something
> about
> it.


As I am asking for discusion on the idea its not in fact up to me to know
everything about it. I was looking for ideas. Unlike certain people appear
to be I find myself open to new ideas. Try it some time.

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

Dylan

------=_Part_5334_13359612.1137156345761
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/14/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a><=
/b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac=
.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">Quoting RPer 4eva &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:msnoverflow@gmail.com">msnoverflow@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br><br>&gt; W=
ell you're entitled to your opinion of course. Both of my position and what
<br>&gt; something productive is. Now as for the people who aren't scared o=
f a new<br>&gt; idea or of the supposed extra work that would come from pre=
haps we could at<br>&gt; least look at the idea of trying something else ot=
her than downpowering
<br>&gt; these spells.<br><br>Dylan, as you have probably guessed, I don't =
think much of your position, and I<br>don't think you are contributing.</bl=
ockquote>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Prehaps you are failing to recognise the contribution. I am attempting=
 to consider some alternatives. They may not be to your liking but in a dis=
cusion it is generaly considered acceptable to speak your mind even if the =
other person doesn't like it.
</div><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">For you to be contributing, then=
 you need to be producing something that people<br>can look at, and decide =
if you are suggesting something that is worth
<br>considering.<br><br>As for whether or not people are afraid of a new id=
ea...You would have to<br>produce one first.</blockquote>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>My idea is adding power to other spells so that there is a choice at t=
he higher levels without just lowering the supposed current only rational d=
ecision to the weakness that would make other things viable. You may not ag=
ree with this but it is in fact an idea. I hope next time you will recognis=
e one without having to have it pointed out to you a third time.
</div><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt;I have proposed one idea tha=
t at least in theory provides more<br>&gt; choices.<br><br>That's not a pro=
position. You have simply railed against spells being
<br>downpowered. There seems to be no logic behind this position, or eviden=
ce to<br>support it. At the moment, it's a statement of belief, and the bel=
ief of<br>someone without much experience in these matters.</blockquote>

<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Which part do you have a problem with? My idea that the spells are bei=
ng downpowered. This is the current idea being discussed so I'll give you t=
he benefit of the doubt and assume that you accept this. My position is tha=
t I don't think we necesarily have to down power them. There are alternativ=
es. Now do you think there is no logic to the idea there might be alternati=
ves? Once again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and choose instead=
 to believe that you think there are no better alternatives. But how many h=
ave you considered? Enough to be certain that there are none that are bette=
r? Now theres a position without much evidence to support it. In fact I wou=
ld call that a statement of belief and I wouldn't have much faith in it. Or=
 could it be that you think my idea to power up other spells doesn't have e=
nough detail to count as an alternative? This I can also accept as it is th=
e start of an idea. Much like the first person saying these spells should b=
e downpowered but not how. The opening to a discusion doesn't normaly conta=
in the ending as well.
<br>&nbsp;</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">&gt;Has bring other spells up to=
 make them viable options been tried<br>&gt; any time recently? If not is t=
here a reason for this. If not then prehaps we
<br>&gt; can try it.<br><br>Why should they? It's your brilliant idea. YOU =
come up with the revision<br>necessary to make the game better. And, that m=
eans something that one could<br>notice as a change, not yet another demand=
 for someone to do something about
<br>it.</blockquote>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>As I am asking for discusion on the idea its not in fact up to me to k=
now everything about it. I was looking for ideas. Unlike certain people app=
ear to be I find myself open to new ideas. Try it some time.</div><br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Jim.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscrib=
e notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf=
.org.nz
</a> --<br></blockquote></div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan<br>&nbsp;</div>

------=_Part_5334_13359612.1137156345761--


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

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

> On 1/14/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Well you're entitled to your opinion of course. Both of my position and
> > what
> > > something productive is. Now as for the people who aren't scared of a
> > new
> > > idea or of the supposed extra work that would come from prehaps we could
> > at
> > > least look at the idea of trying something else other than downpowering
> > > these spells.
> >
> > Dylan, as you have probably guessed, I don't think much of your position,
> > and I
> > don't think you are contributing.
>
>
> Prehaps you are failing to recognise the contribution. I am attempting to
> consider some alternatives. They may not be to your liking but in a
> discusion it is generaly considered acceptable to speak your mind even if
> the other person doesn't like it.

In a discussion, you have to have something in your mind to utter, for it to be
considered worth listening to.
>
> For you to be contributing, then you need to be producing something that
> > people
> > can look at, and decide if you are suggesting something that is worth
> > considering.
> >
> > As for whether or not people are afraid of a new idea...You would have to
> > produce one first.
>
>
> My idea is adding power to other spells so that there is a choice at the
> higher levels without just lowering the supposed current only rational
> decision to the weakness that would make other things viable. You may not
> agree with this but it is in fact an idea. I hope next time you will
> recognise one without having to have it pointed out to you a third time.

As you have said.

But, where is your proposed revision? I don't see anything.
>
> >I have proposed one idea that at least in theory provides more
> > > choices.
> >
> > That's not a proposition. You have simply railed against spells being
> > downpowered. There seems to be no logic behind this position, or evidence
> > to
> > support it. At the moment, it's a statement of belief, and the belief of
> > someone without much experience in these matters.
>
>
> Which part do you have a problem with? My idea that the spells are being
> downpowered. This is the current idea being discussed so I'll give you the
> benefit of the doubt and assume that you accept this. My position is that I
> don't think we necesarily have to down power them. There are alternatives.
> Now do you think there is no logic to the idea there might be alternatives?

What is your logical or evidentiary support for this position? Do you just
happen to believe this, like some people believe in fairies?

> Once again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and choose instead to
> believe that you think there are no better alternatives. But how many have
> you considered? Enough to be certain that there are none that are better?

I don't know what world you come from, but in this one we don't entertain every
notion. Life is too short.

> Now theres a position without much evidence to support it. In fact I would
> call that a statement of belief and I wouldn't have much faith in it. Or
> could it be that you think my idea to power up other spells doesn't have
> enough detail to count as an alternative? This I can also accept as it is
> the start of an idea. Much like the first person saying these spells should
> be downpowered but not how. The opening to a discusion doesn't normaly
> contain the ending as well.
>
I don't think much of it because I see nothing to support it as a good idea and
neither is there anything to examine as an alternative. It is just whining, and
if I wanted to read the whining of players, I would go to the player's forum of
a MMORPG.

It's not like this is the first time you have opened your mouth and offered
something with a semantic value of null. This is yet another of those times.
Perhaps it is a habit with you.
>
> > >Has bring other spells up to make them viable options been tried
> > > any time recently? If not is there a reason for this. If not then
> > prehaps we
> > > can try it.
> >
> > Why should they? It's your brilliant idea. YOU come up with the revision
> > necessary to make the game better. And, that means something that one
> > could
> > notice as a change, not yet another demand for someone to do something
> > about
> > it.
>
>
> As I am asking for discusion on the idea its not in fact up to me to know
> everything about it. I was looking for ideas. Unlike certain people appear
> to be I find myself open to new ideas. Try it some time.
>
If you are so open to new ideas, try having one and presenting it.

Instead of hoping someone else will do the work, provide an alternative. The
world is full of people who sit around and complain. If that's all you want, do
it on your own time. Otherwise, keep the channel clear for people who have
something productive to say.

Jim.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61879.4EBC0E7B
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Dylan,
Someone raised the problem of high-end spells and asked for suggested
fixes. Possible fixes and approaches were raised. Some support was shown
for one set of fixes. Your approach didn't inspire anyone (including
yourself) to produce a more concrete proposal, or for others to post in
support. At this point, my advice is to do what I (try to) do in this
position:
=20
(a) know you are secretly right and no one appreciates you
(b) pipe down
(c) vote against the proposal if you still dislike it
(d) stop baiting Jim.
=20
Andrew

	=20


------_=_NextPart_001_01C61879.4EBC0E7B
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 =
class=3D343483619-13012006>Hi=20
Dylan,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D343483619-13012006>Someone raised the problem of high-end spells =
and asked=20
for suggested fixes. Possible fixes and approaches were raised. Some =
support was=20
shown for one set of fixes. Your approach didn't inspire anyone =
(including=20
yourself) to produce a more concrete proposal, or for others to post in =
support.=20
At this point, my advice is to do what I (try to) do in this=20
position:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D343483619-13012006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D343483619-13012006>(a)=20
know you are secretly right and no one appreciates =
you</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D343483619-13012006>(b)=20
pipe down</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D343483619-13012006>(c)=20
vote against the proposal if you still dislike it</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D343483619-13012006>(d)=20
stop baiting Jim.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D343483619-13012006></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D343483619-13012006>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV></DIV>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr =
align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial=20
  color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
=00
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61879.4EBC0E7B--


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

Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

> Hi Dylan,
> Someone raised the problem of high-end spells and asked for suggested 
> fixes. Possible fixes and approaches were raised. Some support was 
> shown for one set of fixes. Your approach didn't inspire anyone 
> (including yourself) to produce a more concrete proposal, or for 
> others to post in support. At this point, my advice is to do what I 
> (try to) do in this position:
>  
> (a) know you are secretly right and no one appreciates you
> (b) pipe down
> (c) vote against the proposal if you still dislike it
> (d) stop baiting Jim.
>  
> Andrew
>
>      
>
I addition to what Andrew has said I suggest if you want to continue 
with your suggested idea then do the following

1.  Say what spells you think would be best powered up
2.  Say how they should be powered up.

If you make solid suggestions rather than nebulous statements like 
"power some spells up" then peolpe will take more notice of your posts.  
They may still be disagree with what what you propose but at least they 
are disagreeing to specific proposals not general statements.

SCott Whitaker


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

Hey Michael,

as a player of a fellow wiccan, I don't actually agree
with you on this point. Just because you/your
character believe wiccan to be about blessings/curses
etc doesn't mean that everyone thinks that way. I
think wiccan's use raw magic more hence why most of
their spells are found in other colleges. Whatever
your idea for the college you still get to make the
choice to learn special knowledge spells. 

Anyways back to the discussion at hand.

I am all for moving forward to discuss actual numbers
for the spells and I might suggest doing them one at a
time so we can sort one out then move on to another. I
am happy to implement/watch testing of the ideas in a
game environment as I am running a game witha necro
with Necrosis playing in the game and I am playing in
a game with Father Rowan whom I am sure will be
casting Hellfire a lot in the next session.

For Necrosis I would actually like to see the spell
stay multi target and remove the resist for half, and
maybe rather than add a new spell to the college if
you think the college needs a resist for half spell
maybe look at some of the other spells e.g. Life
Draining, maybe make that resist for half to give
necromancers some reason to actually rank and use the
spell because at the momment there seems to be nil
reason to use it when you have things like Necrosis or
Stream of Corruption.

Back in the original debate right near the end I
proposed some quick fix ideas for Wiccan Hellfire.
would people like me to dig them out to re-propose
them for review?

Zane

PS: I play a wiccan and a necro tho I haven't hit high
games and don't think I would like to :)


> 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 --
> 


"...Sometimes the slower people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you win the race..."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

Michael Woodhams

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.


Spell of Pigs (wiccan special)

EM 650
BC 5
R 10+10/R
R A+P
T Entity
D 1 day/R, perm at R20

This spell curses 1 (+1/3R) beings with pigness (or some other stupid farm
animal*). Pigness entails a variety of curse effects.

A loss of PB and PC by 1/R (min 5)
A loss of physical stats by 1/2R (min 3)

Additionally at R15 the targets loose the ability to speak (except in pig)
and at R20 the targets are physically transformed into pigs.

Needless to say this is a minor curse.

*I don't care that pigs are actually clever, it's a fantasy trope.



Spell of Withering (Wiccan special)

EM 400
BC 15
R 20+20/R
R A+P
T Entity
D perm (major curse)

This spell withers a limb. The limb becomes useless. An arm cannot be used
to hold/support/use things and a withered leg causes the target to lose 1/2
AG and have TMR reduced acorrdingly. On a double the witch may elect to
affect two limbs. On a triple they may affect the head. A withered head is
usually fatal.



Air + Fire mages have a plethora of area effect / multi target / resist for
half spells so a reduction of targets on hellfire / whirlwind vortex to one
should be sufficient. Necros on the other hand should have a spell like:

Teeth of the Dragon (or other big beastie with lots of teeth) (Necro
special, duh)

EM 500
BC 20
R 10 +10/R
R P
T Fire action
D inst

The necromancer summons R+5 teeth to hurl at his enemies. Each tooth does
D+1 A class type damage to the target (armour counts). A target may resist
the teeth for no effect and in addition gains any missile defensive bonuses
to the resistance. Alternativly 5 teeth can be exchanged for a big tooth
which does D+10 damage or 10 teeth for a bad ass tooth o doom doing D+20
(BATOD are resist for half). Instead of doubling or tripling damage the
number of teeth is doubled/tripled. Alternativly a double will result in
weapon lodges (lose 3AG, d-5 to extract) or affecting insubstantials and a
triple option may be to make damage affecting EN or causing a bleeder (FT
then EN).

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.12/220 - Release Date: 3/01/2006


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

Having followed the arguement/discussion over the idea of changing several 
spells, I would have to agree that the spells in question need a small tweak 
to make them more user friendly ( and by this I mean everyone involed not 
just the caster).

Personally I loath resist for none, I would prefer to see a result  for the 
expenditure of 2 FT even if it is only resist for a point of En.

Back to the posts, Dylan, ah Dylan.

The list is a forum for ideas where everyone can have a say, that said you 
must have something to say.

A few points.

ONE: Repeating the same point over and over won't make your point, you need 
a reasoned and well thought arguement.

TWO: You need a point.

THREE: Insulting people just because you can not convince them or they 
diagree is pointless it wont win them over.

FOUR: If you keep on with your current trend of arguing non exsistant points 
or irrellivant tangents that do not contribute; or insulting people they 
will simply delete your posts without reading them, thus curtailing your 
chance to affect the games future.

And no this isn't an attack or because I disagree with you, some of your 
early posts were quite cogent but you seem to have lost the plot.

Hoping you find it again
TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest video  @  http://xtra.co.nz/streaming


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