> While I have been a long-time rpg gamer, I have yet
> to play (or GM)
> Dragonquest. However, I have read, with
> considerable interest and
> pleasure, my copy of the 3rd edition of the
> Dragonquest rulebook.
> For a number of reasons I have been drawn to it over
> the years -
> seemingly in a vacuum considering the market
> domination of xD&D over
> the years.

> Please, be kind. I'm a bit confused over how the
> issue of Adepts and
> their "acqusition" of Talents, Spells, and Rituals
> is handled, per
> the rules of DQ, 3rd Ed.

> Rule 34.4 "A character is assumed to have mastered
> all of the General
> Knowledge of his College . . . [it] is always at
> Rank 0."
>
> Does this mean that a beginning Adept would know
> (i.e. be able to
> cast) all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals?
> Only that they would
> be cast at Rank 0? And while I understand that to
> improve individual
> spells one should use their "Experience: Multiple"
> costs, what is the
> cost of learning, or having access to, a particular
> college?

> Rule 34.6 ". . . but can only know a number of
> spells and rituals of
> Rank 5 or lower equal to his Magical Aptitude. He
> can know an
> unlimited number of spells and rituals of Rank 6 or
> higher."
>
> Huh? An Adept can know some spells at a lower
> proficiency, but any
> number at higher mastery? This rule, in conjunction
> with 34.7, has
> me really scratching my head. Please, someone,
> help!

> Finally, how does all of this work with 8.6. and
> spending your 100
> ExP to acquire any one skill at Rank 0?

> Thanks, to everyone who might help me. If you guys
> are there for my
> questions, you might just have another DQ devotee on
> your hands. :)

> Rule 34.4 "A character is assumed to have mastered all of the General
> Knowledge of his College . . . [it] is always at Rank 0."

> Does this mean that a beginning Adept would know (i.e. be able to
> cast) all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals?

> Only that they would be cast at Rank 0?

> what is the cost of learning, or having access to, a particular college?

> Rule 34.6 ". . . but can only know a number of spells and rituals of
> Rank 5 or lower equal to his Magical Aptitude. He can know an
> unlimited number of spells and rituals of Rank 6 or higher."

> Huh? An Adept can know some spells at a lower proficiency, but any
> number at higher mastery? This rule, in conjunction with 34.7, has
> me really scratching my head. Please, someone, help!

> Rule 34.7 "cannot acquire additional spells . . . unless he attains
> Rank 6 or higher with spells already learned so as to make room . . ."

> Make room for new spells or "additioanl knowledge." What's up wit
> dat?

> Finally, how does all of this work with 8.6. and spending your 100
> ExP to acquire any one skill at Rank 0?

> Thanks, to everyone who might help me. If you guys are there for my
> questions, you might just have another DQ devotee on your hands. :)

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>Rule 34.4 "A character is assumed to have mastered all of the General
>Knowledge of his College . . . [it] is always at Rank 0."
>
>Does this mean that a beginning Adept would know (i.e. be able to
>cast) all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals? Only that they would
>be cast at Rank 0?

>And while I understand that to improve individual
>spells one should use their "Experience: Multiple" costs, what is the
>cost of learning, or having access to, a particular college?

>Rule 34.6 ". . . but can only know a number of spells and rituals of
>Rank 5 or lower equal to his Magical Aptitude. He can know an
>unlimited number of spells and rituals of Rank 6 or higher."
>
>Huh? An Adept can know some spells at a lower proficiency, but any
>number at higher mastery?

>Rule 34.7 "cannot acquire additional spells . . . unless he attains
>Rank 6 or higher with spells already learned so as to make room . . ."

>Make room for new spells or "additioanl knowledge." What's up wit
>dat?

>Finally, how does all of this work with 8.6. and spending your 100
>ExP to acquire any one skill at Rank 0?

>Thanks, to everyone who might help me. If you guys are there for my
>questions, you might just have another DQ devotee on your hands. :)

>Rule 34.4 "A character is assumed to have mastered all of the General
>Knowledge of his College . . . [it] is always at Rank 0."
>
>Does this mean that a beginning Adept would know (i.e. be able to
>cast) all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals? Only that they would
>be cast at Rank 0? And while I understand that to improve individual
>spells one should use their "Experience: Multiple" costs, what is the
>cost of learning, or having access to, a particular college?

>Rule 34.6 ". . . but can only know a number of spells and rituals of
>Rank 5 or lower equal to his Magical Aptitude. He can know an
>unlimited number of spells and rituals of Rank 6 or higher."
>
>Huh? An Adept can know some spells at a lower proficiency, but any
>number at higher mastery? This rule, in conjunction with 34.7, has
>me really scratching my head. Please, someone, help!

>Rule 34.7 "cannot acquire additional spells . . . unless he attains
>Rank 6 or higher with spells already learned so as to make room . . ."
>
>Make room for new spells or "additioanl knowledge." What's up wit
>dat?

>Finally, how does all of this work with 8.6. and spending your 100
>ExP to acquire any one skill at Rank 0?

----- Original Message -----
From: "tearohdaktil" <cristovojon@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:17:07 -0000
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Interested in DQ - A few rules questions, though.

Here are a few answers (although I don't have the books in front of me, just now)...

> While I have been a long-time rpg gamer, I have yet to play (or GM)
> Dragonquest. However, I have read, with considerable interest and
> pleasure, my copy of the 3rd edition of the Dragonquest rulebook.
> For a number of reasons I have been drawn to it over the years -
> seemingly in a vacuum considering the market domination of xD&D over
> the years.
>
> Please, be kind. I'm a bit confused over how the issue of Adepts and
> their "acqusition" of Talents, Spells, and Rituals is handled, per
> the rules of DQ, 3rd Ed.
>
> Rule 34.4 "A character is assumed to have mastered all of the General
> Knowledge of his College . . . [it] is always at Rank 0."
>
> Does this mean that a beginning Adept would know (i.e. be able to
> cast) all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals? Only that they would
> be cast at Rank 0?

Yes. T-1...G-1, G-2,... and Q-1, Q-2 ... (etc., as available to the particular college) would be known by an adept at rank zero. It is possible to spend initial exp. to gain rank 1 (or more, if you have enough exp!) by spending initial exp.

And while I understand that to improve individual
> spells one should use their "Experience: Multiple" costs, what is the
> cost of learning, or having access to, a particular college?

I forgot the answer to that question. I seem to recall that the details of how to become an adapt was covered in a magazine article (something about an exp expenditure and some sort of monastery-like training facility).

>
> Rule 34.6 ". . . but can only know a number of spells and rituals of
> Rank 5 or lower equal to his Magical Aptitude. He can know an
> unlimited number of spells and rituals of Rank 6 or higher."
>
> Huh? An Adept can know some spells at a lower proficiency, but any
> number at higher mastery? This rule, in conjunction with 34.7, has
> me really scratching my head. Please, someone, help!
>
> Rule 34.7 "cannot acquire additional spells . . . unless he attains
> Rank 6 or higher with spells already learned so as to make room . . ."
>
> Make room for new spells or "additioanl knowledge." What's up wit
> dat?

Except for a namer, the adept must have a MA equal or greater than the total number of general knowledge spells and rituals to enter a particular college. Some people include the 'Special Magical Preparations' &/or counter spell that the adept also knows toward that total (some do not).

The adept is 'working on it' from rank 1 to 5. He has sufficient proficiency at rank 6. An adept may be 'working on' a number of spells or rituals equall to his MA. As I recall, the adept may acquire any number of additional spells &/or rituals at rank '0'.

>
> Finally, how does all of this work with 8.6. and spending your 100
> ExP to acquire any one skill at Rank 0?

This is for the skills such as 'Ranger', 'Healer', 'Spy' (etc). That way, a starting character may be able to get one of these 'expensive' skills.

>
> Thanks, to everyone who might help me. If you guys are there for my
> questions, you might just have another DQ devotee on your hands. :)
>

I'm sure someone will 'pipe in' to to correct and/or explain further than what is listed in this message.


- Greg W
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8

> Now, I'll have to pull out my copy of the third
> edition to help you here. If you end up sticking
> around, you'll find that most of us have and play by
> our copies of the 2nd edition rules, published back
> when DQ was owned by SPI rather than TSR. The game is
> essentially the same, they just changed a lot of the
> numbers, particularly in the magic sections. Most
> people here (I believe...) find the 2nd edition
> superior, so if you can find a copy in a gaming shop
> or on eBay I personally recommend you snatch it up
> quick. However, that's a personal opinion. :) Let's
> actually get to your questions....

>Except for a namer, the adept must have a MA equal or greater than the
>total number of general knowledge spells and rituals to enter a particular
>college. Some people include the 'Special Magical Preparations' &/or
>counter spell that the adept also knows toward that total (some do not).

>
>However, I've noticed that DQ fans, at least the vocal majority, seem
>to have not only a preference and/or fond memories of the 1st and 2nd
>edition of the game's rules, but also a downright spitting hatred of
>3rd edition. Why are there such vitriolic opininions on this issue?
>Granted, I've never played or even seen those earlier versions, but
>it seems they are not all that different from 3rd edition. It would
>appear that many of these fans of DQ hate that the less politically
>correct stuff was changed or excised, i.e. deviltry, harsh language,
>occult-leaning material, etc. Is that material really so precious,
>at least, in terms of elegant system design? Or, do you think it is
>more of a personal statement in that they are taking a stand against
>the so-called "right-thinking" made by a company, much less the
>guv'ment?

>However, I've noticed that DQ fans, at least the vocal majority, seem
>to have not only a preference and/or fond memories of the 1st and 2nd
>edition of the game's rules, but also a downright spitting hatred of
>3rd edition. Why are there such vitriolic opininions on this issue?
>Granted, I've never played or even seen those earlier versions, but
>it seems they are not all that different from 3rd edition. It would
>appear that many of these fans of DQ hate that the less politically
>correct stuff was changed or excised, i.e. deviltry, harsh language,
>occult-leaning material, etc. Is that material really so precious,
>at least, in terms of elegant system design? Or, do you think it is
>more of a personal statement in that they are taking a stand against
>the so-called "right-thinking" made by a company, much less the
>guv'ment?

> --- In dqn-list@y..., Steven Wiles
> <mortdemuerte@y...> wrote:
>
> However, I've noticed that DQ fans, at least the
> vocal majority, seem
> to have not only a preference and/or fond memories
> of the 1st and 2nd
> edition of the game's rules, but also a downright
> spitting hatred of
> 3rd edition. Why are there such vitriolic
> opininions on this issue?
> Granted, I've never played or even seen those
> earlier versions, but
> it seems they are not all that different from 3rd
> edition. It would
> appear that many of these fans of DQ hate that the
> less politically
> correct stuff was changed or excised, i.e. deviltry,
> harsh language,
> occult-leaning material, etc. Is that material
> really so precious,
> at least, in terms of elegant system design? Or, do
> you think it is
> more of a personal statement in that they are taking
> a stand against
> the so-called "right-thinking" made by a company,
> much less the
> guv'ment?

Chello!

Besides removing the College of Demonic Summonings and the College of Black Magics, they messed up the races.  they DOUBLED the attribute modifiers and penalties in the birthrights section.  I believe they removed the assassin as well and changed the name of the Courtesan skill to Courtier. 

For those of us that started in '82 (or earlier!), it just seemed like T$R was trying to deliberately piss us off!

Tony

  tearohdaktil <cristovojon@juno.com> wrote:

 Why are there such vitriolic opininions on this issue?  
Granted, I've never played or even seen those earlier versions, but 
it seems they are not all that different from 3rd edition.  It would 
appear that many of these fans of DQ hate that the less politically 
correct stuff was changed or excised, i.e. deviltry, harsh language, 
occult-leaning material, etc.  Is that material really so precious, 
at least, in terms of elegant system design?  Or, do you think it is 
more of a personal statement in that they are taking a stand against 
the so-called "right-thinking" made by a company, much less the 
guv'ment?

Anthony N. Emmel

HMGMA# TX-1-00162-01

Yahoo! Messenger ID: lord_kjeran

�And suppose�suppose that when rationalism does go, it�s as if a bright dazzle has gone for a while and we could see�Dark magic�A universe of marvels where water flows uphill and trolls live in the deepest woods and dragons live under the mountains.�

Stephen King, The Stand

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup

>However, these are technical issues. What really
>galled us was the "sense" of why TSR had published the
>3rd edition in the first place. Note, this is the
>realm of pure opinion, but it was and is our held
>opinion. It seemed as though TSR had bought the game
>-not- to market it alongside D&D, but simply to remove
>a competitor from the field.

>Besides removing the College of Demonic Summonings and the College of Black
>Magics, they messed up the races. they DOUBLED the attribute modifiers and
>penalties in the birthrights section. I believe they removed the assassin
>as well and changed the name of the Courtesan skill to Courtier.

--- In dqn-list@y..., Steven Wiles <mortdemuerte@y...> wrote:

> Now, I'll have to pull out my copy of the third
> edition to help you here. If you end up sticking
> around, you'll find that most of us have and play by
> our copies of the 2nd edition rules, published back
> when DQ was owned by SPI rather than TSR. The game is
> essentially the same, they just changed a lot of the
> numbers, particularly in the magic sections. Most
> people here (I believe...) find the 2nd edition
> superior, so if you can find a copy in a gaming shop
> or on eBay I personally recommend you snatch it up
> quick. However, that's a personal opinion. :) Let's
> actually get to your questions....

Thanx Steve,

I'll "mull" over your answers, along with the other replies I've
gotten thus far, and see if I need further clarification.

However, I've noticed that DQ fans, at least the vocal majority, seem
to have not only a preference and/or fond memories of the 1st and 2nd
edition of the game's rules, but also a downright spitting hatred of
3rd edition. Why are there such vitriolic opininions on this issue?
Granted, I've never played or even seen those earlier versions, but
it seems they are not all that different from 3rd edition. It would
appear that many of these fans of DQ hate that the less politically
correct stuff was changed or excised, i.e. deviltry, harsh language,
occult-leaning material, etc. Is that material really so precious,
at least, in terms of elegant system design? Or, do you think it is
more of a personal statement in that they are taking a stand against
the so-called "right-thinking" made by a company, much less the
guv'ment?






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>I've got a question about what people think of the Parrying rules as
>found in rule [17.4], 2nd ed.

>As written, when someone is Evading and their attacker rolls 30% or
>higher than the modified Strike Check, the defender can "Parry".
>Next follows a roll by the evader of D+Defender's Rank with prepared
>weapon-Attacker's Rank with prepared weapon. Now, as long as the
>modified roll is 4 or higher, the evader may either "Disarm"
>or "Disarm & Riposte" the attack. Both results are quite favorable
>to the evader. However, if he rolls 3 or less, then "the attack has
>been successfully Parried; but in so doing, the defender has been
>thrown off balance and must execute a Pass action".
>
>This strikes me as strange. By rolling less than 3, the evader has
>actually put himself in a situation -worse- than if the -attacker-
>had not rolled so poorly. In other words, if his attacker had been
>less clumsy, the defender would actually be -better off-. This seems
>a little... backwards to me.

>I just wondered what people thought of the rule. I expect the point
>of the rule is to give the possibility of a defender losing a round
>of Evade. An evading character with any defense to speak of can be a
>horrible nut to crack, and maybe this rule was meant to allow an
>attacker an -occasional- lucky Pulse. As written, though, the rule
>seems a little off-kilter to me in terms of game mechanics. I was
>wondering if there are any house-rules or just general thoughts on
>this one.

> Note. The defender has the choice of whether or not to attempt the
> second roll.

> > Note. The defender has the choice of whether or not to attempt the
> > second roll.
>
>are you SURE this is optional according to the rules? (my rules are not
>handy at the moment)

> The text says you "may" roll, not "must" or "shall" roll.




> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com






> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:14:02 -0600, klm@morris-clan.net wrote:

>My greatest disappointment with the 3rd edition rules was not what they did, but
>what they didn't do. The editors didn't have anyone who had actually played
>DQ help modify the rules. Anyone who has actually played DQ could have
>suggested areas for improvement, none of which were addressed.

Bear in mind that the 3rd Edition was done by TSR as more of a
"Well, we want to keep the name of the game, so we need to do an
edition of it in print" kind of thing. What bothered me more than
anything else about the 3rd Edition was the way the magic system was
completely violated for the most part - especially with the removal of
Black Magics and Greater Summonings - and how there were spells that
had negative Base Chances. Someone didn't pay attention to what was
written in Arcane Wisdom obviously.

>Consider, as a simple example, the Alchemist skill. This is labeled as being "poor
>man's magic."

Frankly, I've never considered it to be "poor man's magic."
Alchemist skills pertain to creating potions, venoms, toxins, and the
like, and is much along the lines of "poor man's herbalism" if anything
else, although I could also see it along the lines of "Let's turn lead
into gold, if possible."

>However, if you consider the suggested yearly incomes, a middle income
>person would make 6000 to 8000 silver pennies a year. So, we presume,
>lower income people will make considerably less. After paying for lodging,
>food, and other essentials, I doubt a "poor man" would have even 200
>silver pennies a year to purchase something from an alchemist. Looking
>at the alchemist prices, 200 silver would barely get you in the door! (As an
>aside, our solution for this is to divide all Alchemist costs by 10.)

Hmm, that's a good solution...but to be honest, Alchemist skill is
not something for the poor man. It's a costly skill, granted, but it
does work as is. I've had a couple of Alchemist characters in my
campaigns (got one in the current one as well), and haven't had any
problems with this.

>Much as I enjoy DragonQuest, there are plenty of small areas in which the rules
>could have been tweaked to make a better game. The 3rd edition didn't do a
>single one of them.

Something I think most of us knew when we looked at the 3rd
Edition. To put it bluntly, TSR didn't care.

.....One should never place burnt offerings on the altar of life.

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

I always looked at it as the mana-poor individual's magic (as opposed to monetary-poor).  What are the costs for a potion as opposed to something created by a Shaper, for instance?  Plus, it appears to give out substances for use in a relatively short amount a time.

Just a few thoughts,

Tony

On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 03:40:17 GMT, Eric Hansen wrote:

>> The text says you "may" roll, not "must" or "shall" roll.
>
>OK. I suppose it does make sense that you can play it safe rather than
>really putting your ass on the line by going for that riposte kill.

Besides, I would have thought that the purpose of taking the
Evade action, other than for defense, would have been to try and either
disarm or parry the opponent. That's what the tactic is essentially
for.

.....If hot air rises, why aren't Ottawa and Washington in orbit?

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:

>> Now, if we could somehow resurrect the DQN, life would be good
>>once more. <g>
>
>Not entirely resurrected, but I'm working on it.

Yep, I noticed...since I just received my copy of DQN v7n1. Nice
surprise. :)

Of course, I've just resurrected the old DragonQuest_RPG mailing
list on Yahoogroups, and I've relaunched my DQ website as well...so all
sorts of surprises are happening these days in the world of DQ. :)

.....We don't see things as they are; we see them as we are. (Anais Nin)

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

>I was looking at the rules for Running, and I seem to have found a
>discrepancy? Maybe I'm just doing my math wrong here.
>
>In the Monster Section of the book, creatures are frequently listed
>as having a Movement Rate (Running, Flying, Swimming, Crawling, etc.)
>in addition to having a listed TMR. According to Section 65, "How To
>Read Monster Descriptions", the Movement Rates are supposed to be in
>yards per minute and are also supposed have 50 times the numerical
>value of the TMR. Now, TMR has units of 1 Hex per Pulse. Since a
>hex is 5 feet and a Pulse is 5 seconds, that would give TMR the units
>of 1 foot/second. Alas, 50 yards per minute is -not- 1 foot per
>second. In fact, it reprents a speed which is exactly 2.5 times -
>greater- than would be suggested by the TMR.
>
>Perhaps this addresses the question about running in tactical mode.
>Unless I screwed up my math, it looks as though "Movement Rate" (used
>for a Chase sequence, presumably) is 2.5 times faster than Tactical
>Movement Rate. So, I think this suggests obliquely that TMR does not
>represent all-out running so much as defensively careful movement.
>An all-out run would be 2.5 times your TMR. In game mechanics terms,
>I would probably say that someone running in tactical loses all
>defense and can't attack.

>The discussion about the Parry rule so far has been interesting. The
>point that someone (sorry, forgot who) brought up that the defender -
>doesn't- have to roll the D10 if he doesn't want to was an excellent
>one. Nothing I read in the rule [17.4] suggest this roll is
>optional, but it's such an obvious idea we'll have to implement it in
>my group.
>
>However, I don't think anyone addressed my actual question. Most
>likely that's because I phrased it rather poorly. My point was that
>in all other rules in the game I can think of where someone makes a
>D100 Check, the higher you roll, the worse the result is -invariably-
>. Roll above your Cast Chance on a spell, you fail the spell. Roll
>30 (or 40) higher than that, you backfire. What struck me as
>peculiar was that the Parry rule, alone in the game's rules (as far
>as I've determined), offers the only situation where a person might
>actually -want- to roll very very high. This is because of the
>defender's D10 roll. It puts the attacker in a very good position
>for the next Pulse of combat if the defender screws it up. It's the
>only rule I can think of where an attacker might legitimately
>think "Boy, I sure hope I roll under my Modified Strike Check -or- 30
>over it so that there's a chance the defender screws up." That's
>what I thought was weird. It seemed to violate what I perceived as
>DQ's "higher-roll-is-always-worse" philosophy. This, I realize, is
>being nit-picky, but I've always been a stickler for consistency.

Hi! my name is Héctor,
I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Whe play DQ 2 Ed since 1990
first of all, forgive me about my Spelling ang Grama, I write in english
like Tarzan Speaks in Chineese.

let me tell you our  solution about the use of the Main Gauche and shields
its my House Rule.
1) when a character decides to study and icrease his rank with a Shield, he
uses his secondary hand,
 because in the other hand he is going to carry a weapon.
so, the shield hand becomes the primary hand with a defensive weapon.

2) if your secondary hand is damage or unuseless, the character may still
use the shield in the other hand, but he loose the ranks with it.
Example: you have Rank 3 with the Small Roud Shield so Def= mod AG + 3x4
(with your Trained
              Hand with the shield)
              if you use your non Trained hand with the shield, you only
have Def= mod AG + 3

3) In the case that you carry 2 defensive weapons, Say: a Main Gauche and a
Small Roud Shield and the main gauche is in your primary hand and the Shield
is in your secondary (but first hand because you have trained the shield
with it) hand. and you want to make an evade action your def will be:
([Rank with the Shield] x [defense bonus of the shield]) + [Mod Ag] +
[defense bonus of the Main Gauche] + [bonus for Evading]
note that if you have some Rank with the main gauche you dont have to aply
it because the main gauche is in untrained had for defense.

Finally if you want Make and evade Action with 2 Main Gauche and aply the
[Def Bonus] x [Rank] with both of them, you have to adquire Rank and pay EX
points for training with primary and secondary hand separately.
the AmbiD Characters must train only one hand to obtain the [Def Bonus] X
[Rank] in each hand with two Defensive weapon and, of course, is making an
Evade Action.

oh my god, ....my english, ....

Chau!

----- Original Message -----
From: "mortdemuerte" <mortdemuerte@yahoo.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:42 AM
Subject: [DQN-list] The Main Gauche


> I was talking with my GM the other day, and we wandered onto the
> topic of the Main Gauche.  It seems to me that I've heard a "problem
> with the Main Gauche" referred to obliquely once or twice, here and
> there, and I wondered if our observation of a potential problem is
> not unique.  Let me state the concern.
>
> We were considering a character with high Rank in Main Gauche who
> uses one in each hand.  Just to heighten the stakes, he's also
> ambidexterous.  We have a character in our current group who is
> favoring this fighting style.  He doesn't currently have high Rank in
> MG's (or anything else, for that matter), but he's clearly moving in
> that direction.  My GM remembered other characters using this
> fighting style in earlier groups he'd been in, and he said he found
> the technique disproportionately powerful when combined with Evading
> and a high Rank.  Have other groups seen the same thing?
>
> My own take on the matter is that the problem (if it exists) comes
> from allowing the character to use a Main Gauche both offensively and
> defensively in the same Pulse.  In other words, you can either state
> you will use the MG as a weapon, and get no defense from it, or use
> it for defense, and not be able to attack with it that Pulse.  Thus,
> I take the standpoint that a MG is -either- a weapon -or- a shield,
> but not both, in the same Pulse.  Does this sound reasonably, or have
> I ruined the MG?  Assuming this is a problem others have seen, and
> we're not inflating molehills here, what solutions have you come up
> with?
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/TPvn8A/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/ofVplB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

>I was looking at the rules for Running, and I seem to have found a
>discrepancy? Maybe I'm just doing my math wrong here.

>In the Monster Section of the book, creatures are frequently listed
>as having a Movement Rate (Running, Flying, Swimming, Crawling, etc.)
>in addition to having a listed TMR. According to Section 65, "How To
>Read Monster Descriptions", the Movement Rates are supposed to be in
>yards per minute and are also supposed have 50 times the numerical
>value of the TMR. Now, TMR has units of 1 Hex per Pulse. Since a
>hex is 5 feet and a Pulse is 5 seconds, that would give TMR the units
>of 1 foot/second. Alas, 50 yards per minute is -not- 1 foot per
>second. In fact, it reprents a speed which is exactly 2.5 times -
>greater- than would be suggested by the TMR.
>
>Perhaps this addresses the question about running in tactical mode.
>Unless I screwed up my math, it looks as though "Movement Rate" (used
>for a Chase sequence, presumably) is 2.5 times faster than Tactical
>Movement Rate. So, I think this suggests obliquely that TMR does not
>represent all-out running so much as defensively careful movement.

>An all-out run would be 2.5 times your TMR. In game mechanics terms,
>I would probably say that someone running in tactical loses all
>defense and can't attack.

> Now, I think whats important when Evading is that
> you not get the DEF bonus
> from both weapons, but only 1 (the highest Ranked
> weapon). After all, if
> you're wielding a sword and shield you don't get an
> Evading bonus for both
> sword AND shield, so why for main gauche and main
> gauche?

--- In dqn-list@y..., "mortdemuerte" <mortdemuerte@y...> wrote:
{snip}
> However, I don't think anyone addressed my actual question. Most
> likely that's because I phrased it rather poorly. My point was that
> in all other rules in the game I can think of where someone makes a
> D100 Check, the higher you roll, the worse the result is -invariably-
> . Roll above your Cast Chance on a spell, you fail the spell. Roll
> 30 (or 40) higher than that, you backfire. What struck me as
> peculiar was that the Parry rule, alone in the game's rules (as far
> as I've determined), offers the only situation where a person might
> actually -want- to roll very very high. This is because of the
{cut}

Two other instances exist in DQ when you want a high roll.

The first is reaction rolls, where a 00 gets you a new best friend,
and an 01 immediately attacks you. This is true unless you are out
looking for trouble, of course. In my games, friendly reaction rolls
tend to be much preferred by the party.

The second instance is, of course, your damage roll.

--Rodger

Chello!

While there is no rule specifically prohibiting this, historically, no one fights with just two MGs--such a person would realistically be cut to ribbons by those using full-length swords.  The MG is supposed to be an auxiliary weapon, not a primary weapon.

Tony

  mortdemuerte <mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> wrote:

We were considering a character with high Rank in Main Gauche who
uses one in each hand.

Anthony N. Emmel

HMGMA# TX-1-00162-01

Yahoo! Messenger ID: lord_kjeran

�And suppose�suppose that when rationalism does go, it�s as if a bright dazzle has gone for a while and we could see�Dark magic�A universe of marvels where water flows uphill and trolls live in the deepest woods and dragons live under the mountains.�

Stephen King, The Stand

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 16:43:40 -0000, rthorm wrote:

>I have just sent out DQN v7n01. If you are not on the list, you can go to the
>DQNewsletter site at Yahoo Groups to subscribe and to see previous issues.

It was really nice to see the new issue of the DQN, and it came
as quite a surprise to me, let me tell you. :)

>In the next issue of the DragonQuest Newsletter (v7n02) I am hoping to have a
>concentration on Mechanicians and their devices. As always, I am looking for
>submissions. If you are a Newsletter supporter, consider contributing something
>now to help keep the Newsletter coming.

Interesting concept for the next issue of DQN, Rodger. I'm not
sure I can contribute much to the issue, since I can't say I've done a
heck of a lot of work on Mechanician characters and traps and other
devices. However, I'm sure there are a few creative geniuses out
there in this regard. :)

....."Well, my lord, if you would have me open your drawers, you'll have to
put me in the cups, first." - Seline, a serving wench, to one Sundar the Sullen

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

>My own take on the matter is that the problem (if it exists) comes
>from allowing the character to use a Main Gauche both offensively and
>defensively in the same Pulse. In other words, you can either state
>you will use the MG as a weapon, and get no defense from it, or use
>it for defense, and not be able to attack with it that Pulse. Thus,
>I take the standpoint that a MG is -either- a weapon -or- a shield,
>but not both, in the same Pulse. Does this sound reasonably, or have
>I ruined the MG? Assuming this is a problem others have seen, and
>we're not inflating molehills here, what solutions have you come up
>with?

>Perhaps this addresses the question about running in tactical mode.
>Unless I screwed up my math, it looks as though "Movement Rate" (used
>for a Chase sequence, presumably) is 2.5 times faster than Tactical
>Movement Rate. So, I think this suggests obliquely that TMR does not
>represent all-out running so much as defensively careful movement.

>An all-out run would be 2.5 times your TMR. In game mechanics terms,
>I would probably say that someone running in tactical loses all
>defense and can't attack.

> I've posted the rulebooks for everyone here:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/documents/Bantam%20PDFs/
>
> There isn't enough room for me to put it all so I didn't put
> the Monsters section there, but if sombody had some extra disk
> space I could send it there!
>
> please download, mirror and distribute!

--- In dqn-list@y..., "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@c...> wrote:
> Hullo, Margaret,
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:14:02 -0600, klm@m... wrote:
>
> >My greatest disappointment with the 3rd edition rules was not what
they did, but
> >what they didn't do. The editors didn't have anyone who had
actually played
> >DQ help modify the rules. Anyone who has actually played DQ could
have
> >suggested areas for improvement, none of which were addressed.
>
> Bear in mind that the 3rd Edition was done by TSR as more of a
> "Well, we want to keep the name of the game, so we need to do an
> edition of it in print" kind of thing. What bothered me more than
> anything else about the 3rd Edition was the way the magic system was
> completely violated for the most part - especially with the removal
of
> Black Magics and Greater Summonings - and how there were spells that
> had negative Base Chances. Someone didn't pay attention to what
was
> written in Arcane Wisdom obviously.
>
> >Consider, as a simple example, the Alchemist skill. This is
labeled as being "poor
> >man's magic."
>
> Frankly, I've never considered it to be "poor man's magic."
> Alchemist skills pertain to creating potions, venoms, toxins, and
the
> like, and is much along the lines of "poor man's herbalism" if
anything
> else, although I could also see it along the lines of "Let's turn
lead
> into gold, if possible."
>
> >However, if you consider the suggested yearly incomes, a middle
income
> >person would make 6000 to 8000 silver pennies a year. So, we
presume,
> >lower income people will make considerably less. After paying for
lodging,
> >food, and other essentials, I doubt a "poor man" would have even
200
> >silver pennies a year to purchase something from an alchemist.
Looking
> >at the alchemist prices, 200 silver would barely get you in the
door! (As an
> >aside, our solution for this is to divide all Alchemist costs by
10.)
>
> Hmm, that's a good solution...but to be honest, Alchemist
skill is
> not something for the poor man. It's a costly skill, granted, but
it
> does work as is. I've had a couple of Alchemist characters in my
> campaigns (got one in the current one as well), and haven't had any
> problems with this.
>
> >Much as I enjoy DragonQuest, there are plenty of small areas in
which the rules
> >could have been tweaked to make a better game. The 3rd edition
didn't do a
> >single one of them.
>
> Something I think most of us knew when we looked at the 3rd
> Edition. To put it bluntly, TSR didn't care.
>
> .....One should never place burnt offerings on the altar of life.
>
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@c...
> web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

>From: Bruce Probst <bprobst@netspace.net.au>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Running
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:10:43 +1000
>