I don't disallow greater summoners, but by making each greater demon a separet ritual (Rather than each rank) and describing what communitys do to people who "Call up that which they cannot put down", noone ever plays one.

>>> "Jim Arona" <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> 15/Apr/99 04:23:18 pm >>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd E. Schreiber <schreib@platinumcrown.com>

>19 years, that's impressive, were you a play tester? My 15 years must make
>me a rank novice.

No. Just played for a long time, I suppose.

>I've got players that were somewhat involved in the
>slaying of a couple of dragons. (it was a long campaign in which they
>actually had little to do with the slaying of the dragon itself, not unlike
>"The Hobbit". In any even they got a good share of the dragon's hoard, and
>they invested some of that money into an Inn, which turns little in the way
>of profit. Either way, its not really fare to just start charging them
>steep prices because they have a lot of money.

I don't think it's a question of fairness. It's a question of what the DM
thinks makes for a better game. If, in your opinion as a DM, you think it
would be better for it to be harder to come by, then you should make it more
expensive. If you don't think it makes for a better game, it make it
cheaper.

>
>Removing a curse wouldn't be much more than a thought for them. However,
>people with money, especially characters, find a way to spend it. They
>spent a small fortune on griffons, and have money to spend on raising a
>small army if they like, which just may happen in the near future. They
>also tend to find money and valuables during the course of adventuring, so
>don't let money be the issue. If you want a curse to stick, set a specific
>method in which it must be removed. In a Multi DM environment, you could
>charge a ton of money for a curse removal in one adventure, and the next DM
>could give the service away for free in the next adventure.

This is a concern, but not a big one. Much of the nuts and bolts of the game
are handled in monthly 'Gods Meetings', where we decide things of that
nature. We keep a loose hand on the campaign in that way. There are set
prices for services of that nature, and we try to keep the game within those
boundaries. But, we're not too fussed if the occasional DM steps out of
them. If it's a bit of a habit then we might want to know why it was
happening, I suppose. I haven't really noticed it as being any kind of
concern.
As for DMs handing out heaps of treasure on one campaign, and there hardly
being any on another, again, I don't that it's much of a concern. We find
that in general, players tend to average out with the same kind of income,
over the long haul, and since there are characters around who have been
playing since the first of these games was started, way back in '79, the
long view is the one try to look for.

> Money is hardly
>the issue. If they are a group of "do gooders" they might find someone
>willing to help them very easily. If they are kind of underhanded, make it
>that no one is willing to help them out, for any amount of money.

This is the only real concern I have within our campaign. There is little
game pressure toward idealistic or altruistic behaviour. Success is the
measure of how 'cool' a character. There is a developing trend away from
that attitude, and I believe that it would be usefully supported by a
coherent and accessible religious structure.
Sadly, DQ provides almost no material on religious matters, aside from a few
notes in a couple of modules about the Powers of Light, and the whole of the
Greater Summoners College (the negative, if you will).
Does anyone allows players to be Greater Summoners, by the way?

>
>My $.02.

I raise you $.02.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 5:14 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Namers and curse removal (was: minor curse
removalcost)

>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:
>
>> A Ritual of Dissipation may only remove spells that are cast from the
>> General or Special Knowledge of a College (ref. 39.5 Ritual of
>> Dissipation:...In order to perform the Ritual, the Namer must know the

exact

>> name of the spell that was cast over the character, what College the

spell

>> was a part of, and whether or not the spell was General or Special
>> Knowledge.
>> Therefore, a spell like Curse, which has no College, and indeed can be
>> taught by any Adept who has reached Rank 6 in it, does not have a

particular

>> College for it to belong to.
>
>An excellent analysis; thank you. However, you are assuming that
>spells like Major Curse are of *no* College rather than *every*
>College. I have always assumed it to be the other way around: a
>Major Curse cast by a Fire Adept is a Special Knowledge Spell of
>the College of Fire Magics, while a Major Curse cast by an Earth
>Adept is a Special Knowledge Spell of the College of Earth Magics.
>I base this assumption on 32.3, which says (in part): "Only those
>individuals who know the Investment Ritual OF THE COLLEGE that was
>used to store the spell..." This seems to imply that each College
>has a separate and distinct Investment Ritual, and thus a separate
>and distinct Warding Ritual, Remove Curse Ritual, Major Curse
>Spell, and so on. Hence, a Namer could determine (through 39R-1)
>the exact name of the spell (Major Curse), what College the spell
>was a part of (whatever College the Adept who cast it was a member
>of), and whether it was General or Special Knowledge (Special).

Your contention is drawn from an implication. It isn't in the ruleset. To
continue along this vein, I could say that Curse was entered in the manual
in the section concerned with consequences, thus implying that an
alternative approach should be taken with to the one offered by the section
governing general magic. It is, after all, not general magic.
Further, I have never heard of anyone allowing college bonuses and penalties
to apply to Curses, and I find it hard to know how a Mind mage, whose magic
depended on the clear functioning of the aforementioned organ would be able
to cast, once they were dead. Yet, the spell explicitly states that an Adept
can cast a Curse, should they be in such a state.
This would lead me to infer that Curse is not a college magic, that it is
something that exists outside of the demesne that a college might be said to
offer an Adept.

>By the way, I'm not aware of any rule stating that a character
>must have Rank 6 or better in a spell or ritual to teach it; 87.4
>says only that "the character must pay (200 x Ordinal Number)
>Silver Pennies to an Adept who knows the spell." Perhaps you
>are thinking of a house rule?

You may be right, I can't find one in the book...It's been such a part of
our campaign that I've forgotten that rule's provenance.

>
>> Further, this implies that Namers can't Dissipate the effects of

backfires,

>> except where that spell was an inappropriately targetted one. Then, the
>> spell can be Dissipated. They cannot Dissipate a simple reverse affect,
>> because that has no spell name.
>
>I would agree that Namers cannot dissipate backfire curses (results
>above 61). A reversed effect (26-45) is quite a different matter:
>a Spell of Fireproofing which backfires and takes effect upon the
>caster rather than the intended target is still a Spell of Fire-
>proofing.

Not my point. If the spell happens to be targetted on the Adept instead of
someone else, then it is clearly Dissipateable. If the spell is reversed so
that they are Water-proofed, for example, then it is not Dissipateable.

> The reason Namers cannot dissipate backfire curses is
>not because they have no name, but because they are not the "effects
>of a spell cast over an individual or object" (39Q-1), but simply
>the results of a botched attempt to cast a spell.

If that were the case, then no backfire effect would be Dissipateable. What
you are saying is that backfires are botched attempts to cast, and cannot be
dealt with in this way. I fail to see how a retargetted spell would be any
different. How can there be any difference between blindness and a spell
retargetting? Surely, they are all the same thing, if you use that line of
argument.

>
>> However, this is just toying with rules. The real question is whether or

not

>> you want anyone to be able to get rid of curses by having a Namer

Dissipate

>> them.
>
>Agreed. As I said before, the situation has never come up in any
>of my campaigns. (We once had a major curse turn a PC into a monkey,
>but the character happened to be brand-new, so his player decided to
>simply roll up another.) If it did, I probably wouldn't allow it to
>work on Major Curses. I was merely pointing out that there's nothing
>in the official rules which prohibits Namers from doing so.

You have yet to show me any thing to convince me to alter the way I run my
game. Even if there were no such explicit rule that said that Curses could
not be Dissipated, I would still run my game that way. I believe it to
engender a better style of game.

>
>> I believe that such a situation would reduce the range of variation

within

>> the game. A Namer would quickly become critical to the game, since they

can

>> Dissipate spells and Curses, and potentially backfire effects.
>
>It really changes very little, unless you have a curse-intensive game
>world. Frankly, in our world nobody ever wants to be a Namer because
>they tend to be such one-trick wonders.

In a campaign of about 120 characters, you find quite a few characters.
Consider. A Namer requires no special amount of MA to know their College
(3). This means that other stat points can be focussed elsewhere. They
derive bonuses from their Rank in Individual and Generic True names, and
they always know their own. This means that they can cast on themselves with
larger bonuses than their MA might initially indicate. They make good
warrior types, because of the high value of their other stats, and their
Magic Resistance can be modified upward to very high levels.
In addition, if you wanted to be Mage bane, Namers cast faster than other
spell casters, and while the other mage is trying to get out of the area of
the Counterspell, the aforementioned Mage bane can be tearing him apart with
his hand and a half.

>
>> Where possible, it is better to have a game offer wider alternatives than

to

>> lump everything under one flag, and say they (in this case Namers) can

deal

>> with it.
>
>It's funny you should say that, because to me it seems that the
>"wider alternative" offered would be to allow for Namers dissipating
>curses *as well as* other Adepts removing them. That's one of the
>things I love about DQ, actually--there's rarely only one way of
>solving a problem.
>

I seriously doubt that it would widen anything. All that would happen is
that one of the players would be detailed to be the Namer, in much the same
way that one of the players has to be the cleric in AD&D.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

> An excellent analysis; thank you. However, you are assuming that
> spells like Major Curse are of *no* College rather than *every*
> College. I have always assumed it to be the other way around: a
> Major Curse cast by a Fire Adept is a Special Knowledge Spell of
> the College of Fire Magics, while a Major Curse cast by an Earth
> Adept is a Special Knowledge Spell of the College of Earth Magics.
> I base this assumption on 32.3, which says (in part): "Only those
> individuals who know the Investment Ritual OF THE COLLEGE that was
> used to store the spell..." This seems to imply that each College
> has a separate and distinct Investment Ritual, and thus a separate
> and distinct Warding Ritual, Remove Curse Ritual, Major Curse
> Spell, and so on. Hence, a Namer could determine (through 39R-1)
> the exact name of the spell (Major Curse), what College the spell
> was a part of (whatever College the Adept who cast it was a member
> of), and whether it was General or Special Knowledge (Special).

I think that your point about there being a seperate Spell of Investment, etc., is an excellent. It's not explicitly stated in the rules anywhere I know of, but there seems enough implicit evidence to support the idea. I think it makes a lot of sense, too. It would mean, however, that you could only learn these "generic" Rituals from an Adept of your own College, for all that means.

However, the real capper on whether Ritual of Dissipation can be used to get rid of a Major Curse is the following. In the Rit of Dis text, it explicitly says "Only spells (not rituals) may be dissipated using this technique". So a Major Curse certainly isn't going to be dissipated by this Ritual, regardless of the arguments above. I think I agree with the earlier statements that Minor Curses like the Evil Eye and Damnum Minatum or those backfires in which the intended spell affects an unexpected target would be fair game.

However, for the infamous backfires above a roll of 60, I don't think Rit of Dis will do a thing. But there are a lot of options, not merely a Remove Curse spell. For example, a number of them say they can be cured by a Healer. The deafness, muteness, blindness -don't- say they can be cured by a Healer, but since muscle spasms, migrains, arthritis, etc. can be, why not? Now this might be a bit of a stretch to some, but in my group we have at least temporarily cured backfire insomnia and amnesia with the assistance of a Mind Mage, using Hypnotism if I remember right. We've even used Illusions to temporarily cure backfire blindness, but that's a long story.... I don't think Namers have any monopoly on the curse removal business, if you're a bit creative.

> By the way, I'm not aware of any rule stating that a character
> must have Rank 6 or better in a spell or ritual to teach it; 87.4
> says only that "the character must pay (200 x Ordinal Number)
> Silver Pennies to an Adept who knows the spell." Perhaps you
> are thinking of a house rule?

I'm not familiar with any rule in the manual which says that an Adept must know a spell, ritual, etc. at Rank 6 to be able to -teach- it. I know there is a statement somewhere that a character can only know as many spells under Rank 6 as he has pts of MA. One can -infer- from this that Rank 6 represents knowing that spell intimately enough to confidently teach it to others. That sort of makes sense to me. Saying a character who knows a spell at Rank 0 could teach it to someone else is a little bit like saying someone who just passed a unit of a Freshman Physics course in college is qualified to teach the subject to someone else. I'm an advanced grad student and I'm only now confident enough in my knowledge to teach a course. Others may disagree with my philosophy about what it means to be qualified to teach, but I stand by it. I suppose if push came to shove I would allow players to learn (or teach) a spell from someone who knew it at less than Rank 6. However, I would give an increasing chance with decreasing Rank that the teaching was faulty, and the spell they thought they learned doesn't work or has an increased chance of backfire or something equally unpleasant. It would be easy to model this after the tables for "botched magical research" in the Arcane Wisdom supplement, for those of you familiar with it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, David Mason wrote:

> Does anyone allows players to be Greater Summoners, by the way?

Assuming this is not a typo, my answer is "Yes, we allow players
to be Greater Summoners?" Why wouldn't we?



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> Your contention is drawn from an implication. It isn't in the ruleset.

As I said, I make the opposite *assumption* that you do. The rules do
not explicitly address the issue, so we are both forced to conjecture.

> To
> continue along this vein, I could say that Curse was entered in the manual
> in the section concerned with consequences, thus implying that an
> alternative approach should be taken with to the one offered by the section
> governing general magic. It is, after all, not general magic.
> Further, I have never heard of anyone allowing college bonuses and penalties
> to apply to Curses, and I find it hard to know how a Mind mage, whose magic
> depended on the clear functioning of the aforementioned organ would be able
> to cast, once they were dead. Yet, the spell explicitly states that an Adept
> can cast a Curse, should they be in such a state.

Frankly, I don't know how *anyone* would cast a spell "once they were
dead." But in any case, is it your contention that a Sorceror of the
Mind cannot cast a Deathcurse? If so, I still fail to see how that
invalidates my reasoning with regard to spells and rituals described
in Sections 32 and 84 being of every College of Magic. And finally,
the rules do NOT explicitly state than an Adept can cast a Deathcurse
after they are dead; it says, "At the moment of his death," which is
quite a different thing. (I see no reason why a Sorceror of the Mind
would have any more difficulty accomplishing this than any other
Adept, but as I've said, I don't think it matters either way...)

Oh, yes...one last thing: you have now heard of someone allowing
College bonuses and penalties to apply to Curses--me.

> >I would agree that Namers cannot dissipate backfire curses (results
> >above 61). A reversed effect (26-45) is quite a different matter:
> >a Spell of Fireproofing which backfires and takes effect upon the
> >caster rather than the intended target is still a Spell of Fire-
> >proofing.
>
> Not my point. If the spell happens to be targetted on the Adept instead of
> someone else, then it is clearly Dissipateable. If the spell is reversed so
> that they are Water-proofed, for example, then it is not Dissipateable.

I see. But there is no such backfire result, so the issue is moot.

> > The reason Namers cannot dissipate backfire curses is
> >not because they have no name, but because they are not the "effects
> >of a spell cast over an individual or object" (39Q-1), but simply
> >the results of a botched attempt to cast a spell.
>
> If that were the case, then no backfire effect would be Dissipateable. What
> you are saying is that backfires are botched attempts to cast, and cannot be
> dealt with in this way. I fail to see how a retargetted spell would be any
> different. How can there be any difference between blindness and a spell
> retargetting? Surely, they are all the same thing, if you use that line of
> argument.

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. No backfire result is itself
Dissipateable. Where, however, the backfire result includes the
spell taking effect on someone or something (26-60), a Namer may
Dissipate the backfired spell's effects.

> You have yet to show me any thing to convince me to alter the way I run my
> game. Even if there were no such explicit rule that said that Curses could
> not be Dissipated, I would still run my game that way. I believe it to
> engender a better style of game.

I haven't been trying to convince you to alter the way you run your
game. In fact, I believe I have as much as said that I would (or do)
run my game the same way! I am merely attempting to point out
possibilities afforded by the rules as they are written, and to
debate the merits of those possibilities. Thus far, at least, we
are in agreement that Namers should not be able to Dissipate major
curses.

> >It really changes very little, unless you have a curse-intensive game
> >world. Frankly, in our world nobody ever wants to be a Namer because
> >they tend to be such one-trick wonders.
>
> In a campaign of about 120 characters, you find quite a few characters.
> Consider. A Namer requires no special amount of MA to know their College
> (3). This means that other stat points can be focussed elsewhere. They
> derive bonuses from their Rank in Individual and Generic True names, and
> they always know their own. This means that they can cast on themselves with
> larger bonuses than their MA might initially indicate. They make good
> warrior types, because of the high value of their other stats, and their
> Magic Resistance can be modified upward to very high levels.
> In addition, if you wanted to be Mage bane, Namers cast faster than other
> spell casters, and while the other mage is trying to get out of the area of
> the Counterspell, the aforementioned Mage bane can be tearing him apart with
> his hand and a half.

That's all very true. All I'm saying is that it changes things very
little. Namers already have all of the powers and abilities and
advantages you list; the only change would be that they could also
Dissipate curses. Therefore, unless curses are a frequent event in
your campaign, there is very little change in the balance of power.
As I've said before, curses are quite rare in my game world. They
may not be in yours, however...thus my caveat regarding "curse-
intensive" worlds.

> I seriously doubt that it would widen anything. All that would happen is
> that one of the players would be detailed to be the Namer, in much the same
> way that one of the players has to be the cleric in AD&D.

Again, only if curses are encountered frequently enough to justify
it.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 mortdemuerte@yahoo.com wrote:

> I think that your point about there being a seperate Spell of Investment,
> etc., is an excellent. It's not explicitly stated in the rules anywhere
> I know of, but there seems enough implicit evidence to support the idea.
> I think it makes a lot of sense, too. It would mean, however, that you
> could only learn these "generic" Rituals from an Adept of your own
> College, for all that means.

Thank you.

> However, the real capper on whether Ritual of Dissipation can be used
> to get rid of a Major Curse is the following. In the Rit of Dis text,
> it explicitly says "Only spells (not rituals) may be dissipated using
> this technique". So a Major Curse certainly isn't going to be
> dissipated by this Ritual, regardless of the arguments above. I think
> I agree with the earlier statements that Minor Curses like the Evil Eye
> and Damnum Minatum or those backfires in which the intended spell
> affects an unexpected target would be fair game.

You seem to be under the impression that Major Curse is a ritual. It
is not; it is a spell. I don't think there is any argument (correct
me if I'm wrong) about the Evil Eye or Damnum Minatum; obviously,
they can be dissipated like any other spell.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: mortdemuerte@yahoo.com <mortdemuerte@yahoo.com>

>I think that your point about there being a seperate Spell of Investment,

etc., is an excellent. It's not explicitly stated in the rules anywhere I
know of, but there seems enough implicit evidence to support the idea. I
think it makes a lot of sense, too. It would mean, however, that you could
only learn these "generic" Rituals from an Adept of your own College, for
all that means.

>
>However, the real capper on whether Ritual of Dissipation can be used to

get rid of a Major Curse is the following. In the Rit of Dis text, it
explicitly says "Only spells (not rituals) may be dissipated using this
technique". So a Major Curse certainly isn't going to be dissipated by this
Ritual, regardless of the arguments above.

Curse is a spell, not a ritual. According to your argument, it would be
Dissipateable...




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

O, how about the way that the college makes other players less special,
since the various summonables found there have a minimum of Rank 10 in all
magic of their college, and you can get representatives of every branch of
magic except the various Entity colleges...
And yes, it was a typo.

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 12:08 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: [dqn-list] minor curse removal cost ?

>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, David Mason wrote:
>
>> Does anyone allows players to be Greater Summoners, by the way?
>
>Assuming this is not a typo, my answer is "Yes, we allow players
>to be Greater Summoners?" Why wouldn't we?
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroups eLerts!
>Exclusive discounts from the largest computer retailers
>Join Now! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/30
>
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

> You seem to be under the impression that Major Curse is a ritual. It
> is not; it is a spell. I don't think there is any argument (correct
> me if I'm wrong) about the Evil Eye or Damnum Minatum; obviously,
> they can be dissipated like any other spell.

You, sir, are quite right. If asked, I would've placed money that it was a ritual, but I look again and, lo and behold, it's a spell. Goodness! It's such a powerful and nasty spell, I guess I subconsciously assumed it -had- to be a ritual.

Well, I thought I understood the source of contention here, but I was looking in entirely the wrong place. Now I understand the heart of the argument, and it is a sticky one, isn't it? Well, I suppose if you assume that Major Curse belongs to -no- College, it can't be Dissipated. If you assume there's a version specific to -each- College, it can. It really does just come down to your personal philosophy on the matter, sigh.

I suppose, now that I've got my facts straight, that I would (will) run things this way. Ritual of Investment and Ritual of Warding have a version for each College. That just happens to fit in well with my own philosophy of how these Rituals function, and is consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with their descriptions. However, I would probably make the two spells in [84] non-College specific, just to prevent a Geas or a Major Curse from being Dissipated. I would do this because, one, I have the -impression- it's what the designers meant, and two, I like the idea that a Major Curse is very difficult to get rid of and only someone very good with Remove Curse could pull it off. But that's just me. Major Curses aren't very common in the campaigns I've played in and won't be in mine anyway.

The idea that Major Curses might come in College-specific flavors is still intruiging to me, though. Bear with me here. I could see a Major Curse by an Enchanter being the century-long sleep or the turning into a toad. I could see a Mind Mage's MC slowly driving a character mad or robbing him of his senses. I could see a Fire Mage's Deathcurse always culminating in the target somehow dying by fire, while a Water Mage's always ends in a watery grave. I think you see what I'm getting at here. This makes the spell's range a bit more restricted, but this idea is starting to work on me. If a Major Curse spell ever comes up in my campaign, I might institute this idea. But I still wouldn't let MCs be Dissipated :). Rationale, the spell is non-College specific, but its effects are necessarily "colored" through the filter of the caster's magical affinity. Just a little idea I thought I'd share as I thought of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 12:08 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Namers and curse removal (was: minor
curseremovalcost)

>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:
>
>> Your contention is drawn from an implication. It isn't in the ruleset.
>
>As I said, I make the opposite *assumption* that you do. The rules do
>not explicitly address the issue, so we are both forced to conjecture.

That IS what I said. You seem to be implying that I didn't say it.

>

>Oh, yes...one last thing: you have now heard of someone allowing
>College bonuses and penalties to apply to Curses--me.

This doesn't surprise me.

>
>> >I would agree that Namers cannot dissipate backfire curses (results
>> >above 61). A reversed effect (26-45) is quite a different matter:
>> >a Spell of Fireproofing which backfires and takes effect upon the
>> >caster rather than the intended target is still a Spell of Fire-
>> >proofing.
>>
>> Not my point. If the spell happens to be targetted on the Adept instead

of

>> someone else, then it is clearly Dissipateable. If the spell is reversed

so

>> that they are Water-proofed, for example, then it is not Dissipateable.
>
>I see. But there is no such backfire result, so the issue is moot.

There are as many backfire results as the DM has imagination and patience to
administer. Nevertheless, as I said in previous posts, this one, and now as
you have, the issue is indeed moot.

>> You have yet to show me any thing to convince me to alter the way I run

my

>> game. Even if there were no such explicit rule that said that Curses

could

>> not be Dissipated, I would still run my game that way. I believe it to
>> engender a better style of game.
>
>I haven't been trying to convince you to alter the way you run your
>game. In fact, I believe I have as much as said that I would (or do)
>run my game the same way! I am merely attempting to point out
>possibilities afforded by the rules as they are written, and to
>debate the merits of those possibilities. Thus far, at least, we
>are in agreement that Namers should not be able to Dissipate major
>curses.

Then, if this is the extent of the discussion, I would rather end it. Rules,
of and by themselves, matter very little to me.

>
>> >It really changes very little, unless you have a curse-intensive game
>> >world. Frankly, in our world nobody ever wants to be a Namer because
>> >they tend to be such one-trick wonders.
>>

>As I've said before, curses are quite rare in my game world. They
>may not be in yours, however...thus my caveat regarding "curse-
>intensive" worlds.

Since you don't know anything about my game, or even what variant of the
rules I'm using, what possible caveat could you offer?

>> I seriously doubt that it would widen anything. All that would happen is
>> that one of the players would be detailed to be the Namer, in much the

same

>> way that one of the players has to be the cleric in AD&D.
>
>Again, only if curses are encountered frequently enough to justify
>it.

If a group of players believe that Dissipation can remove Deathcurses, then
they're going to be pretty keen on having a Namer with them. After all, the
chance to Dissipate is so much greater than the chance to Remove Curse, and
the Backfire chance is lower, as well.
Given that Deathcurse allows for no saving throw, players are going to be
very keen to have someone who can remove them amongst their number.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

David Mason:

Our two groups here in Chicago do not allow PCs to play Greater Summoners.
Eventually, they all end up letting demons do all the fighting for them . . .
a disruption to the normal turn of play. They are so outrageous we rarely
even use them as NPCs. The Illusionist pretty much falls into the same
category. Anyone dedicated to the balance of the colleges can see the
inherent problems with these two. With some modifications they might be
worth salvaging, but "as is" they are garbage.

Hope this helps.

M. Andre Vancrown

In a message dated 4/17/99 11:01:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
jimarona@ihug.co.nz writes:

<< On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, David Mason wrote:

>
>> Does anyone allows players to be Greater Summoners, by the way? >>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Flavered curses. I love it!
BTW It was not I (David Mason) who asked about Greater Summoners, I replyed that I have always managed to make it unattractive enough that none has ever played one.

>>> <mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> 17/Apr/99 12:20:27 pm >>>
> You seem to be under the impression that Major Curse is a ritual. It
> is not; it is a spell. I don't think there is any argument (correct
> me if I'm wrong) about the Evil Eye or Damnum Minatum; obviously,
> they can be dissipated like any other spell.

You, sir, are quite right. If asked, I would've placed money that it was a ritual, but I look again and, lo and behold, it's a spell. Goodness! It's such a powerful and nasty spell, I guess I subconsciously assumed it -had- to be a ritual.

Well, I thought I understood the source of contention here, but I was looking in entirely the wrong place. Now I understand the heart of the argument, and it is a sticky one, isn't it? Well, I suppose if you assume that Major Curse belongs to -no- College, it can't be Dissipated. If you assume there's a version specific to -each- College, it can. It really does just come down to your personal philosophy on the matter, sigh.

I suppose, now that I've got my facts straight, that I would (will) run things this way. Ritual of Investment and Ritual of Warding have a version for each College. That just happens to fit in well with my own philosophy of how these Rituals function, and is consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with their descriptions. However, I would probably make the two spells in [84] non-College specific, just to prevent a Geas or a Major Curse from being Dissipated. I would do this because, one, I have the -impression- it's what the designers meant, and two, I like the idea that a Major Curse is very difficult to get rid of and only someone very good with Remove Curse could pull it off. But that's just me. Major Curses aren't very common in the campaigns I've played in and won't be in mine anyway.

The idea that Major Curses might come in College-specific flavors is still intruiging to me, though. Bear with me here. I could see a Major Curse by an Enchanter being the century-long sleep or the turning into a toad. I could see a Mind Mage's MC slowly driving a character mad or robbing him of his senses. I could see a Fire Mage's Deathcurse always culminating in the target somehow dying by fire, while a Water Mage's always ends in a watery grave. I think you see what I'm getting at here. This makes the spell's range a bit more restricted, but this idea is starting to work on me. If a Major Curse spell ever comes up in my campaign, I might institute this idea. But I still wouldn't let MCs be Dissipated :). Rationale, the spell is non-College specific, but its effects are necessarily "colored" through the filter of the caster's magical affinity. Just a little idea I thought I'd share as I thought of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups Spotlight:
"Kosovo-Reports" - Direct reports from Kosovo/Serbia/Yugoslavia.
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/5

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

It looks as though eGroups has changed their web page interface. On the downside, the intro web page gets cut off (which is not a good thing). But on the other hand, it looks like their posting interface is a little cleaner (we'll have to wait and see about that...) The other thing is that we now have Vault space to store files.

I have already posted the last two issues of the DragonQuest Newsletter (v5, numbers 02 and 03) in PDF format. You should be able to access them (and hopefully can download them, too) by going to the dqn-list page on the eGroups site and click on the 'Vault' button in the top toolbar in the window. Let me know if you have any trouble accessing these files.

By now, several of you have probably noticed that the old DragonQuest Newsletter Archive (the netcom/drache FTP site) is no longer accessible. This was not a site that I was maintaining personally. 'Drache' was a Newsletter subscriber who volunteered to set up the FTP archive and to collect materials and make them available. If you have downloaded any of the material from the Archive, or if you were a contributor to the Archive, I would like to begin collecting those materials again and try to reconstruct the Archive as completely as we can. There will also, most likely, be a mirror (or at least a duplicate) of the Archive at the DQPA site. By having the material in more than one place, we can hopefully avoid any potential loss in the future.

Please do NOT send any materials yet. Let me know what you have. I don't need to have 15 or 20 copies of the same thing arriving all at once. And if anyone has a complete list of what was in the Archive, that would be really helpful, too.

Rodger Thorm
dqn-list-owner@egroups.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Does anyone have any good matterial for Navel battles? I'm running a very marine campaign at the moment. Also does anyone have any idias of how spells and other magic can be used in thei environment.

I've assume most warships will be fireproofed, water elementals and summoned seacreaturs are popular and summoned seabirds are popular scouts.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> >> Your contention is drawn from an implication. It isn't in the ruleset.

> >As I said, I make the opposite *assumption* that you do. The rules do
> >not explicitly address the issue, so we are both forced to conjecture.

> That IS what I said. You seem to be implying that I didn't say it.

No, I was trying to emphasize that we are both guilty of the same
offense: to wit, making an assumption.

> >I haven't been trying to convince you to alter the way you run your
> >game. In fact, I believe I have as much as said that I would (or do)
> >run my game the same way! I am merely attempting to point out
> >possibilities afforded by the rules as they are written, and to
> >debate the merits of those possibilities. Thus far, at least, we
> >are in agreement that Namers should not be able to Dissipate major
> >curses.
>
> Then, if this is the extent of the discussion, I would rather end it. Rules,
> of and by themselves, matter very little to me.

Fair enough. However, if that is so, please refrain from issuing ex
cathedra pronouncements about what The Rules are. (This discussion
began because you declared that Namers could not Dissipate Major Curses,
as if The Rules were clear on that matter. You have since clarified
your position as being that you, personally, would not allow Namers to
Dissipate Major Curses in a campaign run by you, which is fine with me,
but is not what you said in the beginning.) In the future, a simple
"IMC" or "In my campaign..." would prevent any miscommunication.

> >As I've said before, curses are quite rare in my game world. They
> >may not be in yours, however...thus my caveat regarding "curse-
> >intensive" worlds.
>
> Since you don't know anything about my game, or even what variant of the
> rules I'm using, what possible caveat could you offer?

One purpose of the caveat is to cover unforeseen or unknown circumstances,
such as "what variant of the rules" you are using. I made a statement
which I believe to be true, and then pointed out a circumstance under
which I believe it would not be true. It's all pretty straightforward.

> If a group of players believe that Dissipation can remove Deathcurses, then
> they're going to be pretty keen on having a Namer with them. After all, the
> chance to Dissipate is so much greater than the chance to Remove Curse, and
> the Backfire chance is lower, as well.

Only IF Deathcurses are common enough events! Really, this isn't a
difficult concept. Let's assume there is a Special Knowledge Ritual of
Protection Against Lightning Strikes in the College of Air Magics. Will
your players be "pretty keen" on having an Air Adept in the party? I
submit that it depends on how often you, as GM, strike someone in the
group with lightning. If it happens once in every 1,000 adventures,
they probably won't worry about it too much. If it happens once in
every 3, they probably would.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: VancrownX@aol.com <VancrownX@aol.com>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 12:23 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: [dqn-list] minor curse removal cost ?

>David Mason:
>
>Our two groups here in Chicago do not allow PCs to play Greater Summoners.
>Eventually, they all end up letting demons do all the fighting for them . .

.

>a disruption to the normal turn of play. They are so outrageous we rarely
>even use them as NPCs. The Illusionist pretty much falls into the same
>category. Anyone dedicated to the balance of the colleges can see the
>inherent problems with these two. With some modifications they might be
>worth salvaging, but "as is" they are garbage.

Agreed. We have completely rewritten Illusionist, here. It has almost
nothing in common with its origins, other than being able to create things
that aren't really there.
Greater Summoners are just too tough. As you say, they are too tough to be
used anything more than occasionally.
The material in Greater Summonings is useful stuff to read, though.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Sun, 18 Apr 1999 VancrownX@aol.com wrote:

> Our two groups here in Chicago do not allow PCs to play Greater Summoners.
> Eventually, they all end up letting demons do all the fighting for them . . .
> a disruption to the normal turn of play. They are so outrageous we rarely
> even use them as NPCs. The Illusionist pretty much falls into the same
> category. Anyone dedicated to the balance of the colleges can see the
> inherent problems with these two. With some modifications they might be
> worth salvaging, but "as is" they are garbage.

The group I'm currently GMing has a Greater Summoner among them, and it
hasn't caused any problems yet <knock on wood>. I can certainly see the
potential for abuse, but here are two reasons I believe Greater Summoners
can easily be reined in:

1. Summoning demons is really, really *dangerous*. The rules make it
pretty clear that even Bound demons can turn on their summoners, and a
good number of them can't be Bound at all. And even if the PC summoner
is scrupulously careful when summoning demons and such, there is always
the possibility that an NPC could botch a ritual and let loose a very
pissed-off Demon King or something, which might then decide to hunt
down and take care of that pesky PC summoner who keeps bothering him...

2. CS47S (aka the Special Knowledge Counterspell of the College of
Greater Summonings). First off, every Namer knows it and can cast it
in a single Pulse. Second, it can be learned by any Adept. Third, it
can be Invested. True, it can be resisted; but given how difficult and
dangerous it is to summon and bind a demon in the first place, it truly
sucks to have the damn thing dismissed with a flick of your enemy's
wrist. In our game world, it is a rare (and somewhat foolhardy) group
of PCs that does not include at least one person with a decent chance
of casting CS47S; it is probably the favorite Invested spell, too--not
because it gets used often or anything, but simply because when you
finally do need it, you're *really* glad you've got it!

Also, keep in mind that things like the Shields which prevent backfire
of the Special Knowledge Rituals may not be readily available. Without
such a device, those rituals can be ridiculously dangerous.

I can see why some GMs might be loathe to allow PC Greater Summoners,
especially if they are uncomfortable with the idea of having to
ruthlessly kill them off when things go wrong. In my own case,
though I don't *like* having to do it, I have made it crystal-clear
to my players that Greater Summonings is the most dangerous College
they could ever choose, and that I will cut them no slack in handling
the entities they attempt to summon. So far, only one has had the
courage to try it (and he has kept his membership secret from the
other players for fear that they'll decide to kill him before he
screws up and gets them ALL butchered).

This is not to suggest that all of you should immediately reverse
your positions and allow PC Greater Summoners. I'm just pointing
out possible ways to curb the awesome power they can unleash.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 mortdemuerte@yahoo.com wrote:

> The idea that Major Curses might come in College-specific flavors is still
> intruiging to me, though. Bear with me here. I could see a Major Curse by
> an Enchanter being the century-long sleep or the turning into a toad. I
> could see a Mind Mage's MC slowly driving a character mad or robbing him of
> his senses. I could see a Fire Mage's Deathcurse always culminating in the
> target somehow dying by fire, while a Water Mage's always ends in a watery
> grave. I think you see what I'm getting at here. This makes the spell's
> range a bit more restricted, but this idea is starting to work on me. If a
> Major Curse spell ever comes up in my campaign, I might institute this idea.
> But I still wouldn't let MCs be Dissipated :). Rationale, the spell is non-
> College specific, but its effects are necessarily "colored" through the
> filter of the caster's magical affinity. Just a little idea I thought I'd
> share as I thought of it.

I like the idea, at least for NPC Adepts. (That is, I wouldn't restrict
PC Adepts in their use of Major Curse, but I might encourage them to keep
it in the right flavor.) I think Mr. Arona is right that the spells and
rituals in Section 84 should be treated as belonging to no College in
particular (as opposed to the Investment Ritual, et al.), and thus cannot
be Dissipated. Minor curses like Evil Eye and Damnum Minatum would still
be Dissipateable, of course, but backfire results over 60 would clearly
not be. In any case, I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Do we really have to make this into a "several million" post thread? I was
truly hoping that this list would become a valuable resource for DQ'ers, not
just another out of control "newsgroup" where all meaningful posts are
overrun by longwinded and endless attempts by stubborn individuals, intent
on getting in the last word, regardless of the fact that all onlookers have
become bored or have completely forgotten the point of the original
comments. While discussion and debate can be effective in determining how
things can or should occur, once it has reached this point, only the
combatants involved care what is written. This thread has reached the point
where those few still involved in the argument should move to directly
e-mailing each other so as to keep the "channels clear" for more topical and
valid communications. I for one have stopped reading this thread several
posts ago, and am now getting somewhat annoyed by the persistence of the
few, who seem egocentrically driven to load my mailbox with endless banter,
to the point, that I have written this e-mail, in hope of deterring this
behavior for the benefit of all.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 8:31 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: [dqn-list] minor curse removal cost ?

>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: VancrownX@aol.com <VancrownX@aol.com>
>To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
>Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 12:23 PM
>Subject: [DQN-list] Re: [dqn-list] minor curse removal cost ?
>
>
>>David Mason:
>>
>>Our two groups here in Chicago do not allow PCs to play Greater Summoners.
>>Eventually, they all end up letting demons do all the fighting for them .

.

>.
>>a disruption to the normal turn of play. They are so outrageous we rarely
>>even use them as NPCs. The Illusionist pretty much falls into the same
>>category. Anyone dedicated to the balance of the colleges can see the
>>inherent problems with these two. With some modifications they might be
>>worth salvaging, but "as is" they are garbage.
>
>
>Agreed. We have completely rewritten Illusionist, here. It has almost
>nothing in common with its origins, other than being able to create things
>that aren't really there.
>Greater Summoners are just too tough. As you say, they are too tough to be
>used anything more than occasionally.
>The material in Greater Summonings is useful stuff to read, though.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Well, I was browsing in my used bookstore today, when I came across
something that caught my eye. DQ1, The Shattered statue, an adventure for
AD&D and Dragonquest second edition...In the back, there was a copy of the
Rune Magic and Shaping magic schools from Arcane Wisdom...and all for 2.50.
It might be worth picking up, if you can find it. Not sure if you'd be able
to order it from TSR/WoTC or not.

Phil


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

These colleges are also unadulterated, not like the versions in 3rd Edition
DQ.

I agree that it is well worth picking up if you can still find it.



John F. Rauchert, DQN-LIST co-moderator

-----Original Message-----
From: phil [mailto:mames@unidial.com]
Sent: April 19, 1999 6:34 PM
To: dqn-list@egroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] DQ1

Well, I was browsing in my used bookstore today, when I came
across
something that caught my eye. DQ1, The Shattered statue, an
adventure for
AD&D and Dragonquest second edition...In the back, there was
a copy of the
Rune Magic and Shaping magic schools from Arcane
Wisdom...and all for 2.50.
It might be worth picking up, if you can find it. Not sure
if you'd be able
to order it from TSR/WoTC or not.

Phil



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 12:26 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Namers and curse removal (was: minor
curseremovalcost)

>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:
>
>> >> Your contention is drawn from an implication. It isn't in the ruleset.
>
>> >As I said, I make the opposite *assumption* that you do. The rules do
>> >not explicitly address the issue, so we are both forced to conjecture.
>
>> That IS what I said. You seem to be implying that I didn't say it.
>
>No, I was trying to emphasize that we are both guilty of the same
>offense: to wit, making an assumption.
>
>> >I haven't been trying to convince you to alter the way you run your
>> >game. In fact, I believe I have as much as said that I would (or do)
>> >run my game the same way! I am merely attempting to point out
>> >possibilities afforded by the rules as they are written, and to
>> >debate the merits of those possibilities. Thus far, at least, we
>> >are in agreement that Namers should not be able to Dissipate major
>> >curses.
>>
>> Then, if this is the extent of the discussion, I would rather end it.

Rules,

>> of and by themselves, matter very little to me.
>
>Fair enough. However, if that is so, please refrain from issuing ex
>cathedra pronouncements about what The Rules are. (This discussion
>began because you declared that Namers could not Dissipate Major Curses,
>as if The Rules were clear on that matter.

As I understand the rules, and they are admittedly a pretty poor collection
of rules as these things go, a Namer cannot dissipate Curses. I believe the
intention of the game designers was pretty clear, i.e. Curses were designed
to be Removed by that ritual, not Dissipated.
It is a matter of some surprise to me that you might seriously entertain the
notion that Namers might Dissipate a Curse. I believe it to be an excercise
in rules law to say that it was a reasonable interpretation of the ruleset,
however unstated that ruleset is on the matter.

You have since clarified

>your position as being that you, personally, would not allow Namers to
>Dissipate Major Curses in a campaign run by you, which is fine with me,
>but is not what you said in the beginning.) In the future, a simple
>"IMC" or "In my campaign..." would prevent any miscommunication.

I fear you would take any opportunity to miscommunicate.

>
>> If a group of players believe that Dissipation can remove Deathcurses,

then

>> they're going to be pretty keen on having a Namer with them. After all,

the

>> chance to Dissipate is so much greater than the chance to Remove Curse,

and

>> the Backfire chance is lower, as well.
>
>Only IF Deathcurses are common enough events! Really, this isn't a
>difficult concept.

The concept isn't. Your banal and bleating posts are, however, hard to
endure with anything like cogeniality.

Let's assume there is a Special Knowledge Ritual of

>Protection Against Lightning Strikes in the College of Air Magics. Will
>your players be "pretty keen" on having an Air Adept in the party? I
>submit that it depends on how often you, as GM, strike someone in the
>group with lightning. If it happens once in every 1,000 adventures,
>they probably won't worry about it too much. If it happens once in
>every 3, they probably would.
>

Namers have other strings to their magical bows, as well as making good
warriors or other character types. Having one that can restore characters
that have been Cursed makes them very attractive to parties, but still
doesn't make them very attractive to individual players. It's pretty
straightforward, really.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, David Mason wrote:

> Does anyone have any good material for Naval battles? ...

That's my project for over the summer break. I haven't started any work on
it yet, but I thought it would be good to complement the mass combat rules.
Unfortunatly, I haven't a clue where to start: I've been landlocked for the
majority of my life. Can anyone recommend any good books on ancient and
medieval naval warfare? The major inspiration for the details of my mass
combat rules came from Sun Tzu's Art of War (and the Book of Five Rings) --
anything similar to that for naval combat would be a great start.

This seems like a pretty big project, perhaps a little more complex than the
mass combat rules. This implies that the more abstract the strategy, the
better.

Thanks!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Todd E. Schreiber wrote:

> Do we really have to make this into a "several million" post thread? I was
> truly hoping that this list would become a valuable resource for DQ'ers, not
> just another out of control "newsgroup"...

[remainder of rant snipped]

I respectfully disagree with you, Todd. In order to have any sort of
meaningful debate, it is often necessary to post a dozen or so times, so
that the participants can fully explore the subject. Furthermore, this
particular thread has now covered at least three separate and distinct
topics: the reasonable cost for NPC curse removal, the power of Namers
to dissipate curses, and whether the Colleges of Greater Summonings and
Illusions are too powerful for PCs. I'm sorry none of these topics
interest you, but the solution is for you to ignore the messages or
unsubscribe from the listserv; those of us who want to discuss DQ are
going to be doing so.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>
>Agreed. We have completely rewritten Illusionist, here. It has almost
>nothing in common with its origins, other than being able to create things
>that aren't really there.
>Greater Summoners are just too tough. As you say, they are too tough to be
>used anything more than occasionally.
>The material in Greater Summonings is useful stuff to read, though.
>

Would you be interested in sharing this material with me? I would be
interested in seeing what you have done with Illusionists. I have never
had a PC play one in my campaign before (going on 14 years now) but always
hoped someone would. I would be interested in seeing the changes you made.


Jason Winter
Alarian@uswest.net
http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/dqn-list/?start=21

> Todd:
>
> We made swimming on par with the Horsemanship skill with a Multiple of 125 and kept it simple.
>
> M. Andre Vancrown
>

That is essentially what we did. Adding to that descriptions of what kinds of
things that a character could do at each rank.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so overwhelming?
Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive seems a balencing force...

>>> Jason Winter <Alarian@uswest.net> 20/Apr/99 03:13:50 pm >>>
>
>Agreed. We have completely rewritten Illusionist, here. It has almost
>nothing in common with its origins, other than being able to create things
>that aren't really there.
>Greater Summoners are just too tough. As you say, they are too tough to be
>used anything more than occasionally.
>The material in Greater Summonings is useful stuff to read, though.
>

Would you be interested in sharing this material with me? I would be
interested in seeing what you have done with Illusionists. I have never
had a PC play one in my campaign before (going on 14 years now) but always
hoped someone would. I would be interested in seeing the changes you made.


Jason Winter
Alarian@uswest.net
http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven't found the *right* job? It could be around the corner or around
the world. Let the experts relocate you into a professional IT/Managerial
position today. Jobs & Adverts.
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/76


eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>>Agreed. We have completely rewritten Illusionist, here. <...>

>Would you be interested in sharing this material with me?

No need to be selfish (; Could you instead give a synopsis for the
discussion group? I, for one, would be most appreciative. As
written, Illusions are the most powerful college (yes, even moreso
than Greater Summoners, as far as I'm concerned). Anything that makes
them more balanced as PCs would be just skippy as far as I'm
concerned.

>>Greater Summoners are just too tough.

I disagree. I admit that the Demons seem a little too eager and
willing to help, but the way I see it, that's their only flaw. In my
game, I pretty much disregard the book as far as what an 'acceptable
sacrifice' is, and play it by ear. Usually, the Demons demand all
kinds of unsavory things much harder to acquire than a single person.
Try instead, '20 pounds of human intestines, filled with a rare
spice', or maybe 'a pregnant female high priestess', etc. I admit
that these are probably the exact sort of 'game embellishments' that
made such a stink in the 80s, but I figure that if someone wants to be
evil, they're going to have to get down and dirty, and completely
morally reprehensible. You can imagine how depraved these sort of
acts can eventually get -- the more totally evil, the more
appropriate. I'm sure that there are plenty to think of that I
wouldn't even attempt putting onto a moderated discussion group.
The trick is to recognize that the Summoner-Demon interaction is
exactly what the college is all about. If that ever becomes rote,
then the college loses its purpose and flavor. Remember, these are
Demonic Masters of Evil, not spiritual accountants (ok, maybe one or
two of them are). Another major point you can't discount is how the
other PCs will react to the summoner. Heck, I lost a good friend of
several years due the way I consistently played a Black Mage -- these
sort of interactions should necessarily disgust every non-entity mage
in the party.
I happen to like Greater Summoners in gameplay -- they certainly
spice things up a bit. Plus, I just love slapping players with moral
quandries like, 'Summon Malthus to defend the city by sacrificing the
royal family, or watch the city burn? Your call.' It certainly
forces roleplaying, thats for certain.

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

> 2. CS47S (aka the Special Knowledge Counterspell of the College of
> Greater Summonings). First off, every Namer knows it and can cast it
> in a single Pulse. Second, it can be learned by any Adept. Third, it
> can be Invested. True, it can be resisted; but given how difficult and
> dangerous it is to summon and bind a demon in the first place, it truly
> sucks to have the damn thing dismissed with a flick of your enemy's
> wrist. In our game world, it is a rare (and somewhat foolhardy) group
> of PCs that does not include at least one person with a decent chance
> of casting CS47S; it is probably the favorite Invested spell, too--not
> because it gets used often or anything, but simply because when you
> finally do need it, you're *really* glad you've got it!

I've been reading through the section on Greater Summoners, and I can't find a rule which states that a demon may be generally dismissed by having the CS47 counterspell cast upon it. There are numerous references to the -Summoner- of the devil, imp, incubus, etc. being able to dismiss it with a counterspell, but I couldn't find anything to indicate that those who didn't summon the demon could do the same thing. Is this just a house rule you instituted (a good one, I think), or am I missing something in my skimming? A specific reference would be useful, since I will probably have a Greater Summoner PC in a party soon, and I'd like to have my ammunition ready, just in case. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Thanks, could I get a copy of your mass combat rules. For my pourposes it would probably work as a way of estimating results of individual ships boarding operations. Also a note, I decided that a fireball can wreck fireproofed sails with the blast effect.

>>> S Cordner <scordner@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> 21/Apr/99 02:42:08 am >>>
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, David Mason wrote:

> Does anyone have any good material for Naval battles? ...

That's my project for over the summer break. I haven't started any work on
it yet, but I thought it would be good to complement the mass combat rules.
Unfortunatly, I haven't a clue where to start: I've been landlocked for the
majority of my life. Can anyone recommend any good books on ancient and
medieval naval warfare? The major inspiration for the details of my mass
combat rules came from Sun Tzu's Art of War (and the Book of Five Rings) --
anything similar to that for naval combat would be a great start.

This seems like a pretty big project, perhaps a little more complex than the
mass combat rules. This implies that the more abstract the strategy, the
better.

Thanks!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntraNetics is a simple way to build your intranet or extranet.
Use our 20 customizable apps, or use our wizards to create your own.
Visit a demo: http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/12

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

<3.0.5.32.19990420001350.007cf63-@pop.roch.uswest.net> wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/dqn-list/?start=77

> >
> >Agreed. We have completely rewritten Illusionist, here. It has almost

> Would you be interested in sharing this material with me? I would be
> interested in seeing what you have done with Illusionists. I have never
> had a PC play one in my campaign before (going on 14 years now) but always
> hoped someone would. I would be interested in seeing the changes you made.
>

I am also curious to see how you run Illusions, if you don't mind sharing with the group? :) It's a vexing College to interpret, sometimes, and I like to see what other people are doing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

> These colleges are also unadulterated, not like the versions in 3rd Edition
> DQ.
>
> I agree that it is well worth picking up if you can still find it.
>
>
>
> John F. Rauchert, DQN-LIST co-moderator

Actually, if it's access to the unadulterated "lost" Colleges that people want, then I know that several people back at the WebRPG board have copies of the play-test version of Arcane Wisdom on disk. If you wanted it, you could get it pretty easy. I think I probably have a copy, although I'd have to look.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

My point, is that all that useful information is being wasted on the few
people who aren't completely bored with the overly long thread. I agree
that discussion can take many phases and pass through new and interesting
areas, but in that case, please post replys under a new thread name, so that
other onlookers may have the opportunity to learn and get back into the
discussion.

>I respectfully disagree with you, Todd. In order to have any sort of
>meaningful debate, it is often necessary to post a dozen or so times, so
>that the participants can fully explore the subject. Furthermore, this
>particular thread has now covered at least three separate and distinct
>topics: the reasonable cost for NPC curse removal, the power of Namers
>to dissipate curses, and whether the Colleges of Greater Summonings and
>Illusions are too powerful for PCs. I'm sorry none of these topics
>interest you, but the solution is for you to ignore the messages or
>unsubscribe from the listserv; those of us who want to discuss DQ are
>going to be doing so.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tired of searching for a job? Let the experts handle the work for you.
>Jobs & Advert's free Premiere Service will deliver open positions from
>their growing IT/Managerial database to your desktop.
>http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/79
>
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>Heck, I lost a good friend of
>several years due the way I consistently played a Black Mage -- these
>sort of interactions should necessarily disgust every non-entity mage
>in the party.
> I happen to like Greater Summoners in gameplay -- they certainly
>spice things up a bit. Plus, I just love slapping players with moral
>quandries like, 'Summon Malthus to defend the city by sacrificing the
>royal family, or watch the city burn? Your call.' It certainly
>forces roleplaying, thats for certain.

Why didn't the other players just kill your character, if he's so evil?
That would be role playing. I'm sure they regarded you personally, but the
characters, would flat out hate your character, or maybe not all of them.
Anyway anyone playing a good character, would take the first opportunity to
put a sword through your character. I'm not against playing a little evil,
but if I really disliked my friend's character's moral character, I'd kill
him in a heart beat. Good role players would understand that the social
dynamics of the party are just as important as the social dynamics of the
players.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

At 02:37 PM 4/19/99 +1000, you wrote:

>Does anyone have any good matterial for Navel battles? I'm running a very

marine campaign at the moment. Also does anyone have any idias of how
spells and other magic can be used in thei environment.

>
>I've assume most warships will be fireproofed, water elementals and

summoned seacreaturs are popular and summoned seabirds are popular scouts.

>

I DON'T have any matterial for Navel battles. But I DO have material for
Naval Battles. Check the spelling, please!

I have done several naval battles over the past few years and have found
some things that work, and some that don't. E-mail me directly to inquire.
gundi@mail.3rivers.net

>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>
>

--Jim

"Life is a team sport." --JG


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Personally, I would love to see "matterial" on Navel Battles! My favorite
maneuver is the Umbilical Toss.

8-)

John F. Rauchert

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Gunderson [mailto:gundi@sun.3rivers.net]
Sent: April 21, 1999 9:12 PM
To: dqn-list@egroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Sea Battles

I DON'T have any matterial for Navel battles. But I DO have
material for
Naval Battles. Check the spelling, please!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 1:14 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: [dqn-list] minor curse removal cost ?


I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so
overwhelming?
Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive seems a
balencing force...

A character has to choose to disbelieve. Until this happens, the illusion is
effective against the character.
This has two effects.
1) Illusionary magic is pretty deadly covering seriously nasty holes in the
ground with big, gnashy teeth.
2) Players start to disbelieve as a conscious action every 6 paces....Pretty
boring, and a lot of dice throwing...



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so overwhelming?
Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive seems a balencing force...
It has seemed to be a very flexible collage where creative players can accomplish a great deal, But a creative player will get more than the obvious out of any collage.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>>Heck, I lost a good friend of several years due the way I

consistently played a Black Mage -- these sort of interactions should
necessarily disgust every non-entity mage in the party.

>Why didn't the other players just kill your character, if he's so

evil?

The rest of the party was highly amoral. I distinctly remember the
time we (as a party) hunted down a Robin Hood-esque freedom fighter
trying to restore his kingdom by overthrowing a Vampire lord. We
ended up slaughtering all the 'Merry Men' and their families looking
for a specific item, then killing the vampire lord as well when we
couldn't find it. I just considered it opportunistic to turn the
slaughter into a ritual.

The player refused to play DQ with Loth-Nokrum the Damned in the party
shortly thereafter. Until then, the character managed to keep
everything private and subtle. But when the opportunity arose, it
just seemed like a good time to ask Labolas to teach a skill,
requiring a complete lack of subtlety. And the rest of the party was
entirely compliant about it -- they didn't care about the victims and
felt that having a Rank 10 Military Scientist around was a good thing
anyway.

If I knew it was going to cost me a friend, I would've never done it.
But who knew? The rest of my old playing group is still, 4 years
later, completely baffled by it -- no one saw it coming, least of all
me.

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Although I'm new to DQ, I've already found a book from JG called Heroes and
Villains, it has a new naval weapon in it. Hope this helps a little.
--Geoff

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so

overwhelming?

>Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive

seems a balencing force...

The main problem is that you have to choose to disbelieve, its not
automatic.


______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Never really had a problem with illusionists or Summoners. Almost
every party I've ever GM'ed has included an illusionist and I've only
had one PC summoner.
Illusionists are powerfull, but their art requires *TOTAL*
concentration, no running/horseback riding/etc while casting
maintaining an illusion. And their magic has no real effects.
An illusionist can 'create' a rope bridge across a chasm to fool
pursuers into trying to cross it, but as it is not real it will
support no weight and the first being to attempt to cross it will
fall right through. And his companions will see him fall through.

Thats the other limitation I put on illusion, the illusionist can
cover an object/person with an illusion to make it/him look like
something the same size/shape or bigger, but not smaller or invisible.
So the falling victim can't be made 'invisisble/ inaudible' so his
companions can't see him falling/screaming. A halfling can be covered
with an illusion to make him look as big as a human, but not vice
versa.

Is this any more powerfull than a mage who can shoot fireballs or
lightning?

For some reason only one person has wanted to play a summoner and he
mostly avoided summoning Demons, usually sticking to succubi/incubi.
Maybe its because Summoners have almost no power to start out - no
battle/defense magic - and what they do is difficult to succeed at
and VERY dangerous.
Maybe it would have gotten out of hand, the character didn't last long
enough to really find out.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Chee <mean_liar@hotmail.com>

>>>Greater Summoners are just too tough.
>
>I disagree. I admit that the Demons seem a little too eager and
>willing to help, but the way I see it, that's their only flaw. In my
>game, I pretty much disregard the book as far as what an 'acceptable
>sacrifice' is, and play it by ear. Usually, the Demons demand all
>kinds of unsavory things much harder to acquire than a single person.
> Try instead, '20 pounds of human intestines, filled with a rare
>spice', or maybe 'a pregnant female high priestess', etc. I admit
>that these are probably the exact sort of 'game embellishments' that
>made such a stink in the 80s, but I figure that if someone wants to be
>evil, they're going to have to get down and dirty, and completely
>morally reprehensible. You can imagine how depraved these sort of
>acts can eventually get -- the more totally evil, the more
>appropriate. I'm sure that there are plenty to think of that I
>wouldn't even attempt putting onto a moderated discussion group.
> The trick is to recognize that the Summoner-Demon interaction is
>exactly what the college is all about. If that ever becomes rote,
>then the college loses its purpose and flavor. Remember, these are
>Demonic Masters of Evil, not spiritual accountants (ok, maybe one or
>two of them are). Another major point you can't discount is how the
>other PCs will react to the summoner. Heck, I lost a good friend of
>several years due the way I consistently played a Black Mage -- these
>sort of interactions should necessarily disgust every non-entity mage
>in the party.
> I happen to like Greater Summoners in gameplay -- they certainly
>spice things up a bit. Plus, I just love slapping players with moral
>quandries like, 'Summon Malthus to defend the city by sacrificing the
>royal family, or watch the city burn? Your call.' It certainly
>forces roleplaying, thats for certain.

I suppose it's a question of what you believe about Demons, then.
Personally, I consider them to elementally evil, every single one of them,
and that some of them just have seriously good spin doctors writing
grimoires on their behalf.
If you want them in your game, then I would suggest that you'd have to throw
out more than the rules on the interaction between Demon and Summoner.
Additionally, I believe that the amount of time a game master might have to
spend dealing with a PC Summoner might be a little unfair, unless the rest
of the players are aware and involved. Demons are pretty complex buggers to
run, otherwise you'd run the risk of them being capricious and mischievous,
rather than sinister and calculating.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

At 00:21 21/04/99 MDT, you wrote:

>>>Greater Summoners are just too tough.
>
>I disagree.

Ditto

[snip various unpleasant demands demonsmay make for their services]

>but I figure that if someone wants to be
>evil, they're going to have to get down and dirty, and completely
>morally reprehensible.

While I can understand why, in general, Entity branch Magi tend to be evil,
there is actually no reason why there can't be exceptions. For example: A
Necromancer who is basically 'Good' but is obsessed with Death (in
particular avoiding it) and hence studies, and uses Necromancy. Or a
character who is willing to sacrifice his own eternal soul (ie: make the
Greater Pact) in order to obtain the power required to oppose evil using
evil's own weapons (a PC I once played over a period of a couple of years,
he wasn't evil, though he sometimes had to overcome the
violent/obscene/unpleasant urgings of his familiar in order to retain his
commitment to his war against Evil). Or a Greater Summoner who is basically
a scholar who raises extra-dimensional beings in the course of his quest to
learn everything about everything (again, he has to be careful, the
entities he is summoning are not pleasant, but that doesn't mean the
character's motives need neccessarily be evil).

Afterall, unlike D&D, DQ character's don't have simple Good/Evil
alignments, but can be complex personalities (just like humans in general)
who act from a variety of motives, even to the extent of using foul means
to achieve good ends.
[snip]

> The trick is to recognize that the Summoner-Demon interaction is
>exactly what the college is all about. If that ever becomes rote,
>then the college loses its purpose and flavor.

This is the key, as is keeping in mind that the Summoner can only cast
particular Rituals in specific circumstance (such as the phase of the Moon,
the location of the summoner (outside, on a mountaintop, in darkness, etc.,
etc.). Greater Summoning PCs can't just call up whoever they want, whenever
they want, they have to wait for the stars/elements/etc. to be in the
proper alignment to even attempt their rituals. Add in some very iffy cast
chances (especially for the more powerful or cooperative Demonic powers),
associated failure and/or backfire chances (with tis potentially
devestating consequences), the expense in terms csating components, and the
rarity of the 'Shields' to protect againstspecific Demon types, and the
college isn't really any more powerful than any other. It's all in how
imaginatively the Greater Summoner character/player is (which is equally
true of all the other colleges).

[snip]

To address a point raised in another post, IMC, when I ran, which is some
time ago, the only persons capable of dismissing a summoned Demon is the
caster or a namer with the appropriate counterspell. I believe that there
is a rules erference to that effect, but forgive me if I don't go searching
for it just now. ;)



Take care,


Phil Keast
(Melbourne, Australia)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Morgana & Phil Keast <keast@melb.alexia.net.au>

>At 00:21 21/04/99 MDT, you wrote:
>>>>Greater Summoners are just too tough.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
>Ditto
>
>While I can understand why, in general, Entity branch Magi tend to be evil,
>there is actually no reason why there can't be exceptions. For example: A
>Necromancer who is basically 'Good' but is obsessed with Death (in
>particular avoiding it) and hence studies, and uses Necromancy. Or a
>character who is willing to sacrifice his own eternal soul (ie: make the
>Greater Pact) in order to obtain the power required to oppose evil using
>evil's own weapons (a PC I once played over a period of a couple of years,
>he wasn't evil, though he sometimes had to overcome the
>violent/obscene/unpleasant urgings of his familiar in order to retain his
>commitment to his war against Evil). Or a Greater Summoner who is basically
>a scholar who raises extra-dimensional beings in the course of his quest to
>learn everything about everything (again, he has to be careful, the
>entities he is summoning are not pleasant, but that doesn't mean the
>character's motives need neccessarily be evil).
>

I agree that this is possible. I also think that the tenor of these colleges
tends to support characters of a divergent moral or ethical code than your
average Joe Bloggs. I would hesitate to say that these colleges, as written,
require a character to be evil, but they certainly support such a choice of
conduct.

>Afterall, unlike D&D, DQ character's don't have simple Good/Evil
>alignments, but can be complex personalities (just like humans in general)
>who act from a variety of motives, even to the extent of using foul means
>to achieve good ends.

D&D, and it's variant, AD&D, are very robust games, that have lasted longer
than any other game system. It suggests to me that something about these
games was done right in game design, and I suggest that alignments was one
of them. Admittedly, some of the initial interpretations of what was good
were a bit narrow. Often, the best definition of Lawful Good was
narrow-minded, intolerant bigotry, but as the game has evolved, so has the
'social philosophy' of the game.
When AD&D II came out, it said, either in the handbook or in another
supplement, that Paladins were Lawful Good, but in any conflict between Law
and Chaos, they were Good, first.
The reason I think alignments are a good thing, although not necessarily for
DQ, is that it provides a handle on the behaviour of a player's character.
This leads to a clearer idea of the character, and consequently, a clearer
performance of that character.

>[snip]
>> The trick is to recognize that the Summoner-Demon interaction is
>>exactly what the college is all about. If that ever becomes rote,
>>then the college loses its purpose and flavor.
>
>This is the key, as is keeping in mind that the Summoner can only cast
>particular Rituals in specific circumstance (such as the phase of the Moon,
>the location of the summoner (outside, on a mountaintop, in darkness, etc.,
>etc.). Greater Summoning PCs can't just call up whoever they want, whenever
>they want, they have to wait for the stars/elements/etc. to be in the
>proper alignment to even attempt their rituals. Add in some very iffy cast
>chances (especially for the more powerful or cooperative Demonic powers),
>associated failure and/or backfire chances (with tis potentially
>devestating consequences), the expense in terms csating components, and the
>rarity of the 'Shields' to protect againstspecific Demon types, and the
>college isn't really any more powerful than any other. It's all in how
>imaginatively the Greater Summoner character/player is (which is equally
>true of all the other colleges).
>

The players that took Summoners never, to my knowledge, summoned Demons when
they were adventuring. They would summon them when they were in a safe
place, surrounded by their allies, and ask for servants, like devils. This
is a fairly standard gift that many Demons provide, and the chance is
providing such an entity is listed next to their chance of being summoned.
Aside from the range of their immunities and their native abilities as
denizens of the Seventh plane, devils have Rank 10 in all magic of their
college.
Added to this, they can summon an Incubus, or Succubus to serve them for 5
to 14 days. Aside from their immunities and native abilities, they are Mind
mages (again, all magic at Rank 10), and Rank 10 Assassins.
These are pretty powerful abilities, really, and may invalidate some types
of player character types. Which is sad, really. Players should feel they
are special in some way, rather than overshadowed by another players
associates.

>[snip]
>
>To address a point raised in another post, IMC, when I ran, which is some
>time ago, the only persons capable of dismissing a summoned Demon is the
>caster or a namer with the appropriate counterspell. I believe that there
>is a rules erference to that effect, but forgive me if I don't go searching
>for it just now. ;)

I can't find anything anywhere that says that a Namer can dispel a summoned
entity of any sort. They can Dissipate entities summoned by spell (by the
use of their Ritual of Dissipation), but as far as I'm aware, they can't
Dissipate ritual magic.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 mortdemuerte@yahoo.com wrote:

> I've been reading through the section on Greater Summoners, and I can't find a rule which states that a demon may be generally dismissed by having the CS47 counterspell cast upon it. There are numerous references to the -Summoner- of the devil, imp, incubus, etc. being able to dismiss it with a counterspell, but I couldn't find anything to indicate that those who didn't summon the demon could do the same thing. Is this just a house rule you instituted (a good one, I think), or am I missing something in my skimming? A specific reference would be useful, since I will probably have a Greater Summoner PC in a party soon, and I'd like to have my ammunition ready, just in case. :)

In Ares #13, Gerry Klug (one of the game's creators) wrote an
article in which he attempted to answer some of the questions
readers had about the College of Greater Summonings. The
relevant text was: "Counterspells, as they relate to the
College of Greater Summonings, are used as a form of
banishment. When a General Knowledge Counterspell is cast
over an Imp, Devil, Succubi, Incubi, or Hero *by the Adept
who either was granted the companion or summoned the entity,*
that entity or companion is banished back to the dimension
from whence it came. A counterspell cast by anyone else will
have no effect whatsoever. If a Special Knowledge
Counterspell is cast over a Summoned Demon by *anyone,* that
Demon is banished back to the plane from whence it came.
Thus Namers become important individuals in the control of
the demon world on this plane. It should be emphasized here
that counterspells can only be *passively* resisted, and it
is up to the GM to decide which Demons, once summoned to
this plane, will resist being sent back."

I hope this clears things up for you.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Okay, I *know* I said I wasn't going to post anything more on
this topic...

And I *know* nobody really cares...

But when you're wrong, you're wrong. (Or at least, when the
other guy's right, he's right.) Anyway, I just happened to
find something in the rules to support Mr. Arona's contention
that the spells and rituals in Section 84 are *not* of ANY
College and thus cannot be Dissipated. [87.6] says: "All
spells and rituals described in Consequences (84) are learned
and improved upon in the same manner as College magic (see
87.4)." That implies pretty strongly that the stuff in 84
is not "College magic." So, for the record, it appears that
I was wrong to suggest that Namers might be able to dissipate
major curses. I recant. Mea culpa.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>The reason I think alignments are a good thing...

Part of the reason my players (all ~18 years old) like DQ is the lack
of alignments (the big draw is still the xp and skill system). This
is one of those entirely personal, no way to resolve debates. I agree
with you regarding fleshing out characters, but I'd say my biggest
draw to them (not big enough -- I still don't use them) is that it
helps to remind the players that they're heroes. This is also the
biggest drawback -- they should make that decision about their
character without a rule to guide them.

Totally off-topic and completely personal in any case. But an
interesting point about role-playing in general. Hmmm. As far as
alignments go, do you prefer DnD over Palladium? I always considered
the alignments from Palladium their only saving grace, and a little
more archetypal (and hence more usable, IMO).

<snip description of devils and Succubi/incubi>

>These are pretty powerful abilities, really, and may invalidate some

types of player character types. Which is sad, really. Players should
feel they are special in some way, rather than overshadowed by another
players associates.

This is really the only reason I have a problem with the College, and
the way I see it, its biggest flaw. As I sit here, my gut reaction is
to make Incubi and Succubi count as servitors, and therefore must be
granted by demons, which as I said earlier, always has a heavy price
in my games. A new player just joined, and chose to play a Greater
Summoner -- guess I'll break the news to him early.

As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
wondering.



______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> The players that took Summoners never, to my knowledge, summoned Demons when
> they were adventuring. They would summon them when they were in a safe
> place, surrounded by their allies, and ask for servants, like devils. This
> is a fairly standard gift that many Demons provide, and the chance is
> providing such an entity is listed next to their chance of being summoned.
> Aside from the range of their immunities and their native abilities as
> denizens of the Seventh plane, devils have Rank 10 in all magic of their
> college.

Actually, according to 47.7, they "exercise their Skills at Rank 15
and magic powers at Rank 20." (I hope you don't construe this
correction as "rules law," Jim! I'm just trying to help...)

The one problem I see with Demons concerns the Ritual of Investment.
Assuming that Demons know ALL the magic of their respective Colleges,
they can (in just one hour) Invest any item of the summoner's choice
with 20 charges of any spell of that College! The thought of my
players running around with 20 Spells of Dragon Flames at Rank 20
(525-foot range, D+81 damage [resist for half])...well, it ain't
pretty. The only way around the problem I can see is to rule that
Demons get pretty annoyed being summoned for such petty trifles,
and will exact an enormous price for such services. (But then,
that's the solution to pretty much everything they can do.)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

At 09:09 AM 4/22/99 -0600, you wrote:

>Personally, I would love to see "matterial" on Navel Battles! My favorite
>maneuver is the Umbilical Toss.
>
>8-)

Actually I like the 'Lint mortar"

>
>John F. Rauchert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Gunderson [mailto:gundi@sun.3rivers.net]
> Sent: April 21, 1999 9:12 PM
> To: dqn-list@egroups.com
> Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Sea Battles
>
> I DON'T have any matterial for Navel battles. But I DO have
>material for
> Naval Battles. Check the spelling, please!
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>
>

--Jim

"Life is a team sport." --JG


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com