Further to my last post. You can get 8 weapons to rank 8 for a cost of
42000. The enchantment mage can get 8 magic-things to rank 8 for 34,200.
The warrior can pay for some of this to lower costs and having rank 8
glaive, falchion and javelin isnt bad...and the mage is very good at
ventriliquism, opening doors and countering his own spells....

johnD

>From: Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [DQN-list] Mages and Warriors
>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT)
>
>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a point: I
>think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to become
>adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There are
>very
>few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive in
>XPs to
>get rk 8 with skills. For a mage, it is a lot easier to get rk 8 with
>spells,
>and be a hero, thus gaining more XPs in adventures and inter-adventures.
>In the long run, it is better to be an adept.
>To somewhat balance this situation, I adopted the WARRIOR skill I found
>somewhere in the net (I think it was at Shariana's pages (Thank you
>JKahane)),
>adding a new rule: the ability to raise a weapon's level 1 rank above the
>tabulated limit, at the XP cost of that last rank, when the WARRIOR skill
>rk is
>greater or equal than the new level the character wants to attain with the
>weapon.
>Then at warrior rk 5 you can raise shield to rk 5, at rk 8 you can get
>battleaxe to rk 8, and you can attain warrior level 10, as you must have
>shield
>rk 5 to become warrior level 10.
>I hope all this explanation is not too confusing or boring. Best regards...
> Arturo
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Informaci�n de Estados Unidos y Am�rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
>Vis�tanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

Hullo, Deven,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 04:07:08 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>This happens in real life, so why not in role-play? The GM can be creative
>about it. PCs can not (perhaps "should not" would be a better phrase) be
>100% independent. Why can't the local Noble or Captain of the Guard or Red
>Lantern Madame twist a few arms and have the young "cousin", nephew/neice,
>"child of someone I owe a favor to" be unloaded on the "dream team"???
>
>I for one find "dream teams" to be boring after a while. I retired a hero
>PC for this reason, and started again with a bare bones new character. It
>is amazing how much more interesting it is when a party has a "kid" to
>protect.

Yep, I've got a Friday night campaign that's been going on for
years, with characters who have aged twenty-five to forty years.
Several of the players are playing the children of their original
characters in that game. It's amazing when you get lines like, "The
Palace of Ontoncle? Didn't mom and dad go there years ago and clean
the place out? I thought the son of the new Baron had moved in there
years ago..." Ah, nostalgia, memories, and history of campaigns... :)

....."It is important to remember to never, never invoke anything that you can't
banish!" - Genelan, Adept of Greater Summonings

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

Hullo, Deven,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 03:21:33 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

>> >If new characters come along and are overshadowed too
>> >severely by much more experienced PC's, I just brevet
>> >them a certain number of Ranks and (rarely) Attribute Points
>> >to bring them to a more experienced level, though still not
>> >to the level of PC's who've been in the game for the duration.
>>
>> But see, this is where questions start to come up. How many Ranks
>> do you assign them? On what basis do you assign the Ranks? Why
>> aren't they playing new characters, from scratch as well? See this is
>> where some of the really neat questions start to get asked.
>
>Our GM never gave these kinds of gifts. As PCs we either protected the PC
>"kid" or left him behind if we thought it would get too tough. There have
>been times when a "kid" would roll a critical hit or something and save the
>day. My only retired character would never had made it to hero if a first
>adventure character, rolled up per the generation rules, had not saved the
>party. Having PCs of differing abilities and levels is just part of the DQ
>way.

This is one of the more interesting elements of the "in
character" experience with DRAGONQUEST. How often does a group of
player consist of "mixed" levesl of characters in terms of their
experience with life (what the DQ system calls Mercenary, Adventurer,
and Hero)? The idea of taking care of the young NPC or the PC "kid"
who comes into the game once the other players have all advanced to
high Mercenary or low/high Adventurer level status adds a whole new
dimension to the scenario where it occurs and to the DRAGONQUEST
experience. Overall, I agree with your entire post, Deven, and have to
say that I had a similar experience myself as well back in the mid-80's
when I got to play DQ for a year and a half.

.....Common sense tells you that the Earth is flat.

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

Hullo, Deven,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 03:30:53 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

[stuff snipped for brevity]
>> Hmm, well the table in DQ, 2nd Edititon, page 11, gives out a
>> very basic amount of XPs, based on the character's Order of Birth, and
>> nothing more, since there were no EXP Multipliers given in that
>> edition. (This seems to have been something that was added in the
>> Social Status expansion that appeared in Dragon Magazine.) How does
>> one create a starting character group to take on a total of five orcs,
>> when the characters will have anywhere between 10 and 250 Experience
>> Points to allot to abilities and all? That's not a lot, and talk
>> about your *bare* starting character.
>>
>A smart GM will have the non-random encounters fit the party. I remember
>many new character deaths that can be attributed to random encounters.

Yes, this is one of the things that fantasy roleplaying games have
suffered from ever since the art of rpg began, the random encounter.
<shudder> While I think a lot of the time random encounters serve a
useful function more or less, I also think that a smart GM also knows
when to use them, and when not to use them. For example, if the
characters are travelling through some terrain from a city to the cave
system where the dungeon is (remember this is only an example, folks!
<g>), if the GM has some real nasty terror for them to fight in the
cave system, it behooves the GM not to use so many random encounters or
random encounters with serious threat potential that the characters
arrive at the cave system with barely enough Fatigue and Endurance to
go on. The death of young, startng characters at the
hands/claws/whatever of random encounters is just one of the pitfalls
that awaits GMs in many systems, but particularly in DragonQuest.

What's your take on novice characters taking on natural animals?
The key with random encounters is always Defense, and most animals
have higher Agility and Defense than the typical party that faces them.


And, that, overall raises the question about how folks feel about
random encounters in the game...

Personally, I use random encounters where they fit, and usually
do up a small chart to fit the area they happen to be travelling
through. I generally do not add a new monster because, "Oooh, look at
the cool new beastie that I found that can be used in woods!" Unless
I can justify this new creature being in the area in question ("Why
have we never seen this creature in the past, even though we've
travelled through this area a thousand times?"), I stick with the
"regular" random encounter beasties that are found on the nice DQ chart
and table.

I also use random encounters in situations where the player
characters are having too easy a time of things or to spice things up
for them, but rarely will I make it something deadly if I want them to
get to where they are supposed to be going relatively intact. And
sometimes random encounters with a merchant caravan or other, regular
people from the world makes for a nice diversion for the players and a
reminder of the "rea world" of the game environment.

....."It is important to remember to never, never invoke anything that you can't
banish!" - Genelan, Adept of Greater Summonings

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

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@c...> wrote:

>
> Mind you, this raises an interesting point... How many folks
> have added Colleges of Magic to the game because they've liked what
> they saw in literature or because they had a neat concept strike them
> for a new College?

I've seen some additional colleges, most of which can be found through
the links on the DQPA site.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Portal/7471/DQ/rmsu/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3362/DRAGON_QUEST/magic.html

Those two have most of them and the White Magic variations are in the
DQOS document. Rodger Thorm is also working on a College of Sun Magics
and we've tossed preliminary ideas for one back and forth, and it
looks very promising so far.

I've several priesthood type colleges to put together but a very low
priority right now, and they'll mostly be cut-paste jobs from existing
colleges, with talents being different, and they'll be for non-human
priesthoods anyway, for a pantheon of gods of an advanced
lizardman-like species. Of course, I'm going to have to check your
religion rules first to see if I can use those instead of or in
addition to what I had planned.

Edi

Bruce Probst wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:20:31 -0700, "D. Cameron King"
><monarchy2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We saw no reason to impose such a condition. (I'd say
> >you might just as well refuse to teach Speak Common to
> >a person with a hearing aid...or bar people who need
> >spectacles to read from entering public libraries.)
>
>Neither are in the same league (or even relevant in the same game world).
>Rather, try this example: a person with 10 PS and 10 MD asking for
>admission
>to a "only Rank 4 broadsword users admitted" club <g>. If you can't do it,
>you can't do it.

We could continue to exchange hypotheticals ad infinitum
(what if a guy with 20 PS, 20 MD, and Rank 4 in Broadsword
who has had both his arms ripped off by an ogre wants to
join your club?), but the real issue, it seems to me, is that
the idea of someone joining a College of Magic just to learn
one of its Talents offends your personal gaming sensibilities,
so you'd have found some in-game rationale to prohibit it.

And, as I said before, you'd be well within your rights as
GM to do so. I've done the same thing myself countless
times over the years. But in this case, it didn't offend
the sensibilities of anyone in our group, so it was
perfectly okay.

> >(By the way, how exactly
> >would one "demonstrate his raw MA talents," anyway?
>
>By the wise and mystical tests that the Colleges use to determine whether
>applicants are suitable or not, of course.

Of course. :-)

>Or, to put it another way, I
>somehow don't see that they determine that an apprentice is suitable by
>merely stuffing General Knowledge into his head and seeing whether they
>"stick" or not. <g>

I never discussed it with anyone else in my group, but I
guessed I've always envisioned it more in that way than
the "entrance exam" way you're proposing. (It may also
be important that we never imagined the Colleges as
being actual *places* where you went and studied,
but simply as various philosophies of magic. So if you
wanted to learn the General Knowledge of the College
of Illusions, you might pay tuition at some University
of Magical Studies or you might just apprentice yourself
to an experienced Illusionist willing to teach it to you.
Given that set of assumptions, there'd be no way for
any group of "Wise Elders" to stop you from learning
the GK of "their" College. But I digress.) As we saw it,
someone who lacked the minimum MA to become a
member of a College would have just "washed out of
the program" at some point in his attempt to learn its
GK; "No, no, no, you bungling, incompetent moron!
If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times,
it's 'abra-cada*bra*,' not 'abra-cada*broo*!' Get out!
I'll waste no more of my valuable time trying to teach
someone so utterly hopeless!"

>I think motivational tests would be part of the whole shebang too. Since
>the PC in your example clearly wanted one thing and one thing only, the
>Wise
>Elders would know this loser didn't *deserve* to learn their Secret
>Knowledge.

We didn't assume the existence of any "Wise Elders," or
that they'd *care* about anyone's motivations for learning
their style of magic. But again, we also didn't conceive of
the Colleges as unified organizations with common goals,
as it seems perhaps you do.

>Finally, was your PC aware that to use his Talent he could never be in
>contact with Cold Iron? (Talents suffer the same magic restrictions as
>Spells and Rituals.)

Yes, he was aware of that. He was a high-AG warrior-type
who only wore leather armor anyway. His weapons were all
silvered for use against silver-vulnerable monsters, and he
didn't care about his Base Chance of success because all
he really wanted Witchsight for was to see in the dark.

>It seems to me to have been a long and complicated way
>of getting not much in return,

Absolutely. Which was undoubtedly one of the reasons
why none of us particularly objected to him doing it. I
mean, if he wanted the Talent *that* bad...

>and a rather blatant "rort" of the system....

Which is, of course, your *real* objection. :-)

>But as you say, your campaign, your rules.

Precisely. As long as your group is having fun, you're
playing the game right.

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
limits after all.

--Loki

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Probst [mailto:bprobst@netspace.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:54 PM
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Mages and Warriors

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo
<aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a

point: I

>think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to

become

>adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There

are very

>few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive

in XPs to

>get rk 8 with skills.

This is very true. In my game, I removed the upper limit on Ranks with
weapons; all weapons can advance to Rank 10 (although for most they
start to
get *very* expensive to push them higher than the limits imposed by the
rules).

I also expanded the Skills list with a bunch of relatively-cheap but
still
important options (e.g., Climbing for non-thieves).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ





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

I'm not going to remove the rank limits at all. They do, in my opinion, reflect reality quite well. There's just so many ways you can bash someone with a mace or point and shot a crossbow which requires a lot less skill than a true bow, while things like the rapier, dagger, katana and most other swords have a lot more possible techniques that can be used and require more skill to master.

Loki Freyr wrote:

> I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
> reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
> complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
> club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
> used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
> limits after all.
>
> --Loki
>

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:05:48 -0300, gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

>Maybe someone did it and I couldn't find it but, there is some place where I
>can find the "Hex side" of the DQ monsters, or I must use my imagination and
>my self-criteria?

Assuming you mean "hex size", the DQ rules (2nd edition+) define 3-hex,
4-hex and 7-hex monsters. The creature description is supposed to describe
what template applies, and in the absence of a description one must assume
that it's a regular single-hex character. This works for *most* creatures,
but ....

Unfortunately, the same rules also describe creatures that fit other
patterns, e.g., some are described as "2-hex", and some are clearly much
bigger than even 7-hex. There are also problems with humanoid gigantic
creatures that can be created magically, that clearly would be bigger than
"3-hex" and yet not be adequately represented by one of the other shapes.
(A Rank 20 elemental, for instance, that might be easily summoned by an
annoyed demon, could be around 50' tall.)

I wrote up some informal rules years ago about gigantic multi-hex humanoids,
2-hex beasts and assorted other combinations ... it's not particularly
difficult, it's just a matter of deciding what size should be represented by
what template, and where the "front", "side" and "rear" hexes should go.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:48:39 -0700, "Loki Freyr" <loki@faralloncapital.com>
wrote:

>I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
>reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
>complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
>club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
>used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
>limits after all.

Well, there's a simple game rationale for starters: heroes can only become
heroes by becoming expert in rapier, or glaive, or whatever? There are no
heroes wielding broadswords as their "master" weapon of choice? It just
strikes me as a bizarre world-view.

Secondly, I simply don't agree that a master club user can never know as
much about *his* weapon as a master rapier user knows about *his*. Not
having any weapon skills myself, I don't know how "realistic" this is, but
it offends my sense of "universal balance"; I think anyone who wants to be
the best darn club-user the world has ever seen ought to have that chance.

Finally, with the PS and MD restrictions on weapons (which I have no problem
with), some characters may simply never be able to learn those weapons that
have access to high ranks, yet be perfectly competent fighters in all other
respects. I think even the "little guy" should have the opportunity to have
something that they excel in when fighting.

I'd also point out that the game never gives us any reason why certain
weapons have high ranks and certain other weapons don't. We can hem and haw
and draw certain observations, but in the end if there's any particular
"pattern" as to what makes a "hero class" weapon and what doesn't, I've
never been able to discern it. Which just makes it look completely
arbitrary, to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Bruce Probst wrote:

> Well, there's a simple game rationale for starters: heroes can only become
> heroes by becoming expert in rapier, or glaive, or whatever? There are no
> heroes wielding broadswords as their "master" weapon of choice? It just
> strikes me as a bizarre world-view.

A hero doesn't necessarily need to have the weapon needing the most skill. Not everything needs to get to rank 10. I'd certainly happily play a hero who used a two-handed sword (max rank 5, iirc), or a mace or even a scythe. It's not about how much you can munchkin out the character, I outgrew that long ago with the assistance of an excellent GM. I want my characters to be people, and I'll play them accordingly. If the character's choice gives him a handicap in this regard, that's just tough. I'll live with it.

>
> Secondly, I simply don't agree that a master club user can never know as
> much about *his* weapon as a master rapier user knows about *his*.

The master club user will quite probably know as much about his weapon as the master rapier user does about his, but the catch is that those weapons are different. If you look at the weapons and which have what maximum ranks, in the swords it becomes immediately obvious that it's the fencing style blades (rapier, estoc, main gauche) that have the highest ranks. This is because they all use the point to inflict damage, and there's a huge number of ways to stick that point into the enemy. The feints, parries, deflections, footwork, stabs and everything, there's an endless variety of combinations and it requires high skill to master them all. Watch an Olympic (or even lower level competitive) fencing bout between skilled swordsmen some time and you'll see.

With a club, in contrast, the only way to inflict damage is by smashing the other guy with the blun, heavy end. You can do that with an overhead chop, side swing, backswing, diagonal swing and in some cases underhand swing (I suppose), but the number of maneuvers you can use is much more limited and easier to master. If you try swinging something like a mace around and then repeat the procedure with a fencing blade, you'll immediately notice the difference. The shape and weight of the weapon determines how it acts according to physical laws when used (momentum of swing etc), and the limits derive from there.

> Not having any weapon skills myself, I don't know how "realistic" this is, but
> it offends my sense of "universal balance"; I think anyone who wants to be
> the best darn club-user the world has ever seen ought to have that chance.

To counter this, removing the rank limits from the weapons offends my sense of realism so deeply that I'll never even consider it. Two different approaches, and I guess we'll both use whatever works for us.

>
> Finally, with the PS and MD restrictions on weapons (which I have no
> problem with), some characters may simply never be able to learn those
> weapons that have access to high ranks, yet be perfectly competent fighters in
> all other respects. I think even the "little guy" should have the opportunity to
> have something that they excel in when fighting.

The restrictions make sense for the most part, and the competence of individual warriors comes out of using their individual strengths to full advantage. There is also one more aspect to this: Warrior vs soldier.

A warrior is someone who excels in individual combat and feats of armsmastery and will shred you to pieces one on one. He'll cut the soldier up in no time.

A soldier is someone who may not individually be the next Drizz't Do'Urden or Conan the Barbarian, but he knows how to work in concert with others and take the maximum benefit out of coordination and teamwork. It's a historical fact that professional armies of competent soldiers under competent leadership who have played to their strengths have slaughtered "armies" composed of warriors, every time, even against ridiculous numerical odds. Caesar's Romans against the Gauls, English archers and men at arms the French Knights at Crecy and Agincourt, British troops against the native Africans, Conquistadors against the Native Americans, and one of the latest incidents, US special forces in the Black Hawk Down incident against the Somalis (regarded as a catastrophe in the West, which it was because of incompetent leadership, but losses of 18 to 900-1000 speak for themselves...).

Obviously, playing FRPGs focuses greatly on the warrior aspect and leaves the set-piece battles between armies largely unaddressed, which is fine by most of us. But skill in a particular weapon alone does not a hero or even a competent fighter/warrior/soldier make.

>
> I'd also point out that the game never gives us any reason why certain
> weapons have high ranks and certain other weapons don't. We can hem and
> haw and draw certain observations, but in the end if there's any particular
> "pattern" as to what makes a "hero class" weapon and what doesn't, I've
> never been able to discern it. Which just makes it look completely
> arbitrary, to me.

Simple enough, there was never a single weapon that was intended to be a "hero-class" weapon, imho. The limits seem sensible enough to me, but could be because as a kid I used to play a lot at being knights and warriors at our summer place, with wooden swords and clubs and spears and axes. They handle differently and you just can't do as much with some as you can with others. You'll notice that for example the polearms aside from glaive and spear have a max rank of 5 across the board, and this easy enough to explain. Most of them are useless in individual combat and were meant to be used in mass formations against cavalry. You can only use them so many ways. Spears can double as quarterstaff and be used that way pretty easily and the glaive has a sword-blade at the end of a pole which makes for more maneuvers than you could do with e.g. a bec-de-corbin, which was a very specialised polearm. A poleaxe weighs so much that you can only swing it two or three ways (and if you hit, you almost automatically score a kill).

If you ever get a chance to visit a good museum of medieval weapons where you can actually see the different kinds of killing implements for yourself and then imagine trying to use them, you'll get a very good grasp of how different they are and some idea of what their limitations would be.

This is my few cents on the issue anyway, what I think are the reasons behind the limits, but I'm not going to chastise anyone if they prefer to play without limits. I would not like it personally, but not everyone is required to like the same things.

Best regards,
Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

I agree with Esko / Loki and cant recall ever myself considering removing
weapon rank limits, though I guess a few of my players have asked for it to
be taken into 'consideration'...

JohnD

Who GMed DQ for the first time in about 18 months last nite and couldnt
remember where anything was in the rulebook!!

>From: Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Weapons rank limits
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:46:14 +0300 (EEST)
>
>I'm not going to remove the rank limits at all. They do, in my opinion,
>reflect reality quite well. There's just so many ways you can bash someone
>with a mace or point and shot a crossbow which requires a lot less skill
>than a true bow, while things like the rapier, dagger, katana and most
>other swords have a lot more possible techniques that can be used and
>require more skill to master.
>
>Loki Freyr wrote:
> > I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
> > reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
> > complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
> > club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
> > used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
> > limits after all.
> >
> > --Loki
> >
>
>............................................................
>Maksuton s�hk�posti aina k�yt�ss� http://luukku.com
>Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittym� www.mtv3.fi/liittyma
>

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile

<snip>

>
> >
> > Secondly, I simply don't agree that a master club user can never

know as

> > much about *his* weapon as a master rapier user knows about *his*.
>
> The master club user will quite probably know as much about his

weapon as the master rapier user does about his, but the catch is
that those weapons are different. If you look at the weapons and
which have what maximum ranks, in the swords it becomes immediately
obvious that it's the fencing style blades (rapier, estoc, main
gauche) that have the highest ranks. This is because they all use the
point to inflict damage, and there's a huge number of ways to stick
that point into the enemy. The feints, parries, deflections,
footwork, stabs and everything, there's an endless variety of
combinations and it requires high skill to master them all. Watch an
Olympic (or even lower level competitive) fencing bout between
skilled swordsmen some time and you'll see.

I will alow a hero who wants to pay through the nose an extra rank or
even two

> Simple enough, there was never a single weapon that was intended to

be a "hero-class" weapon, imho. The limits seem sensible enough to
me, but could be because as a kid I used to play a lot at being
knights and warriors at our summer place, with wooden swords and
clubs and spears and axes. They handle differently and you just can't
do as much with some as you can with others. You'll notice that for
example the polearms aside from glaive and spear have a max rank of 5
across the board, and this easy enough to explain. Most of them are
useless in individual combat and were meant to be used in mass
formations against cavalry. You can only use them so many ways.
Spears can double as quarterstaff and be used that way pretty easily
and the glaive has a sword-blade at the end of a pole which makes for
more maneuvers than you could do with e.g. a bec-de-corbin, which was
a very specialised polearm. A poleaxe weighs so much that you can
only swing it two or three ways (and if you hit, you almost
automatically score a kill).

I have to disagree with the specifics of this arguement. I went to a
demonstration of fighting skills at the Royal Armouries. They did a
demo of Pole axe fighting based on 15th and 16th century manuals.
This was one-on-one combat in full 15th century plate armour. It was
increadible - the amount of skill in using it efectively; it was like
a dangerous dance. I also noticed that they didn't just use the
head, they used the butt and mid section of the shaft as much as the
head, in much the same way as a quaterstaff. They also used the
weapon to parry very effectivly, very important as no shields were
used. It deffinatly made me re-think pole arms and most of mine now
go to 7 or 9.

My take on this is that if the weapon is studied enough new ways will
be found of using it.

<snip>

David

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

>
> I will alow a hero who wants to pay through the nose an extra rank or even two

Hey, whatever suits your group and your own preferences. :-)

>
> > Simple enough, there was never a single weapon that was intended to
> > be a "hero-class" weapon, imho. The limits seem sensible enough to
> > me, but could be because as a kid I used to play a lot at being
> > knights and warriors at our summer place, with wooden swords and
> > clubs and spears and axes. They handle differently and you just can't
> > do as much with some as you can with others. You'll notice that for
> > example the polearms aside from glaive and spear have a max rank of 5
> > across the board, and this easy enough to explain. Most of them are
> > useless in individual combat and were meant to be used in mass
> > formations against cavalry. You can only use them so many ways.
> > Spears can double as quarterstaff and be used that way pretty easily
> > and the glaive has a sword-blade at the end of a pole which makes for
> > more maneuvers than you could do with e.g. a bec-de-corbin, which was
> > a very specialised polearm. A poleaxe weighs so much that you can
> > only swing it two or three ways (and if you hit, you almost
> > automatically score a kill).
>
> I have to disagree with the specifics of this arguement. I went to a
> demonstration of fighting skills at the Royal Armouries. They did a
> demo of Pole axe fighting based on 15th and 16th century manuals.
> This was one-on-one combat in full 15th century plate armour. It was
> increadible - the amount of skill in using it efectively; it was like
> a dangerous dance. I also noticed that they didn't just use the
> head, they used the butt and mid section of the shaft as much as the
> head, in much the same way as a quaterstaff. They also used the
> weapon to parry very effectivly, very important as no shields were
> used. It deffinatly made me re-think pole arms and most of mine now
> go to 7 or 9.

Well, this means I'm probably going to have to eat crow for dinner tonight where the individual engagements are concerned. At least I don't have any better evidence to offer. Using the butts and shafts would make sense, as it's a fool who leaves any part of his weapon's possibilities unused. However, a question: were the weapons used in the demonstration halberds or the lochaber type poleaxes that have this two-foot long, one foot wide blade stuck on a four-foot shaft? Because when I talk about poleaxes, that's the type I mean, halberds are another kettle of fish entirely and I can readily see how it would require more skill.

The fact that polearms, especially the spearlike ones such as spetum, were mostly used for mass engagements is still unchallenged, though, no?

>
> My take on this is that if the weapon is studied enough new ways will be found of using it.

Usually yes.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

> However, a question: were the weapons used in the demonstration

halberds or the lochaber type poleaxes that have this two-foot long,
one foot wide blade stuck on a four-foot shaft? Because when I talk
about poleaxes, that's the type I mean, halberds are another kettle
of fish entirely and I can readily see how it would require more
skill.

It was indead a halbard-like pole-axe

> The fact that polearms, especially the spearlike ones such as

spetum, were mostly used for mass engagements is still unchallenged,
though, no?

I've tried this using my son as a victim - err I meen helper. Long
weapons give an advantage, even one-on-one. If you have something big
like a 2 handed sword, a spear, even a lochaber axe your opponent has
to get past it to get at you. The threat of a sword swinging in a 9
foot (3 metre) wide arc deters most from going near. If you know
what you're doing the blade is back before the enemy has recovered
enough to leap in. If your opponent gets past the point you're in
trouble of course, as you are if you're not ready as it takes a
couple of seconds to get things swinging as you would like. I allow
a person with a weapon longer thar the other by 3 feet to always go
first and for him to repulse the other in the same way he would
repulse a close manouvre.

I appreciate that this is a personal choise and I'm not forcing it on
anyone

David

Hullo, Steven,

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> Well, I have some new questions for the FAQ files
>>that need to be addressed by folks, and was wondering
>>what folks might think of this stuff. Any answers that folks
>>want to toss into the mix on these are more than welcome...
>
>> 4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it operate
>>and what does it do for me?
>
>I'll go ahead and get the ball started with my two
>cents.

Please do...

>I want to start this by saying what an interesting concept
>I find to be locked up in these three words: The Adventurer's
>Guild. It seems to say a very great deal about the kind of
>world your players are in.

Yes, I would certainly have to agree with you on this point. The
term and the concept says a lot about the DQ world that one is playing
in, and gives some expectations of its own.

>Adventurers, by nature, tend to be outcasts in society
>of one sort or another. Misfits who couldn't or
>wouldn't accept the more standard lives of the
>craftsman, the farmer, the noble son. They are
>necessarily an iconoclastic and independent bunch, and
>not likely to be held in high-regard by any
>"civilized" society (until an individual performs
>deeds so heroic people have to acknowledge him or
>her). So, one aspect of an Adventurer's Guild is that
>it is a society within society for these outcasts.

[rest of post snipped]

>Well, that was long. But, those are just a few ideas I
>have about what an Adventuring Guild is, how it
>operates, and what service (monetary or social) it
>provides. I hope this seeds a little discussion. I'd
>love to know what the Guild has been like in other
>people's campaigns.

To be honest with you, I think that was one of the most
insightful messages I've read in some time about the game and about one
of the more interesting elements of the game world that never really
came to fruitiion. I was wondering if you'd permit me to use the text
of this post verbatim in the FAQ since it seems most appropriate.

....."While it's fine to forgive your enemies, never forget to learn their True
Names." - Claysia, Naming Adept

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

Hullo, JohnR,

In a message of Monday, August 25th, 2003, you wrote:

>>3. What are True Names, and how do they work?
>
>In order to spark discussion here is my take on True Names (basically)

Always a good move, and discussion sparking is nice - even if this
list has a lot of it right now. :)

>Before Creation there was Silence (or maybe Total Sound
>without Form). Then the Creator Gods spoke and gave form
>to the sound and the sound gave way to form.

[rest of Creation and True Name stuff snipped]

I rather like the interpretation that you use here for the origins
of True Names, how they came to be, and what they can be used for.
I'm interested to see what other folks have to say on the subject,
although I do wish that folks would change the subject lines on the
messages at times.

.....An inch of gold cannot purchase an inch of time. (Chinese Proverb)

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

Hullo, Arturo,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>To somewhat balance this situation, I adopted the WARRIOR
>skill I found somewhere in the net (I think it was at Shariana's
>pages (Thank you JKahane)),

Yep, that was my website, and the new section of Skills that are
posted up there. Glad to see you liked the skill.

>adding a new rule: the ability to raise a weapon's level 1 rank
>above the tabulated limit, at the XP cost of that last rank, when
>the WARRIOR skill rk is greater or equal than the new level the
>character wants to attain with the weapon.

Now this sounds like a good addittion to the skill... Any chance
you can post the paragraph section of this to the mailing list? I'd
like to see the write-up on this, if possible.

Hullo, Bruce,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:02:13 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>>1. What spells can cause damage to Endurance and what spells
>>can only do Fatigue damage?
>
>As best as I can recall, no spell does damage *directly* to EN if the
>target still has FT remaining. One could house-rule that certain
>specific spells do EN on a "special" result, but if so they wouldn't
>gain the "doubling" effects that normally accrue on a "special".

This is one of those questions that hasn't really come up in any
of my DRAGONQUEST campaigns or sessions, t be honest, but it's one that
was submitted to me a while back in the "Ask Shariana" section of my
website. At the time, I gave an answer that was very much along these
lines. Unless someone else has a comment to make on this that adds to
the discussion of this subject, perhaps this is the best answer for the
FAQ?

>>2. Are illusions (College of Illusions) "real"?
>
>I guess this question is asking "do the illusions exist outside
>of the target's perception?" I would say "no". (Some games,
>e.g., RuneQuest, treat illusions as "temporary reality" but I don't
>see anything in the DQ write-up to indicate that it should be
>true for this game.)

As the rules stand, I would have to agree with this answer. The
only real problem that I've had, and several other GMs have had (based
on posts I've seen on mailing lists) and the like is that there is the
question that arises about whether the illusions are all in the mind or
whether they are external. That's the next question that needs
answering.

>>3. What are True Names, and how do they work?
>
>That's a complicated question. I think the writeup in the
>Namer's College is as good a "general" summary as you
>can get. Anything more detailed falls into the
>"campaign-specific" mode.

Agreed, for the most part. What did you think of JohnR's
comments on this question? Was that campaign specific as well?

>4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it operate and what
>>does it do for me?
>
>In my campaign, it doesn't. I don't like the concept and think it's silly
>metagaming.

Ah, one of the better answers. :) A lot of people either like
the AG business or loathe it. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say,
"I can take it or leave it."

....."It's always instructive how different cultures view the same reality.
Where a Peacekeeper sees defense from attack, we see solitude for piety." - Tahleen (FS; RiB)

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

Hullo, Jim,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:01:12 -0000, ryumaou01 wrote:

>> When push comes to shove, two things are important here.
>>Having a Mage player character in the party is not a good reason
>>to suddenly give a whole bunch of additional EXPs to create
>>one's character with.
>> Second, and more importantly, I always got the impression that
>>the "Warrior Alternative" article was written by someone who
>>had never played or GMed DRAGONQUEST at all.
>>
>> But again, we'll just to agree to disagree. :)
>
>Perhaps we just see a difference in extremes.

Perhaps. :)

>I certainly didn't like the extremes the "Warrior Alternative" took
>the percieved problem. And, I really liked the inverse application
>of the EXP for Attribute points rule.

I'm not sure I know which rule you're taking about here. Was it
someone else on the list who posted this?

>Of course, a mage can use this to sacrifice, say, Physical
>Strength to get more skills, but the balance is still struck by
>a non-mage sacrificing MA points for more EXP.

I don't know if there's a lot of balance there. 10 points for MA
that a non-mage can put into other Characteristics, when one calculates
the value of the XPs, is really not a "compensation" for the Mage if
they're putting it into spells, talents and rituals. Look at how many
different aspects of the character the Characteristics affect. Each
Characteristic affects all sorts of elements of the character (Magic
Resistance and Fear checks, Encumbrance, ability to use weapons or not
to use weapons, and a host of other factors).

That's really my only other comment on this subject. So we'll
just have to agree to disagree and all that. :)

.....Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

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

Hullo, Bruce,

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:32:35 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> Mind you, this raises an interesting point... How many folks
>>have added Colleges of Magic to the game because they've
>>liked what they saw in literature or because they had a neat
>>concept strike them for a new College?
>
>I've *wanted* to, but never actually gotten around to doing so.
>No time when I was actively playing the game, and no interest
>when I wasn't <g>.

To be honest, I like creating new material that I want to add to
the DQ rules that I use, but I've been doing that for some 20+ years
now. It becomes habit to do a bit of work on new material for the
game when I'm running it. When I'm running another game or when I'm
not gaming (which is very rare these days, as the Friday night group
plays as often as it can) I don't work on the DQ stuff; I work on the
game that I'm running. Makes more sense to do it that way to me, at
any rate.

>Whereas some people seem to have written up Colleges merely to fill what
>they perceive as apparent "gaps" in the system. The umpteen different
>versions of the "College of White Magics" seem to bear this out, whereas
>it's my opinion that what some might call "White Magics" is more properly
>called "organised religion" -- which as we know the DQ rules indicate is
>very non-magical in nature.

Yep, that is very much the case, and I agree with you on this.
On the subject of new Colleges, the only ones I've written up and added
to the system are ones that I feel are needed and make sense to have.
Faerie Magics, Thaumaturgic Magics, Gypsy Magics, and Witchraft all got
created for the game by me because of my interest in those subjects,
because I felt they would be useful, and because two players asked me
for Gypsies and Witches (which do fit rather nicely into the game world
that I've got set up). Image Magics I've discussed on the mailing list
and why I like it, so I don't need to go there. White Magics (my
variant of it) made sense to me because of how religion and priestly
things work, and because Black Magics need an opposite, per se. I've
done a variant of Spider Magics because I ratehr liked the Mike
Jeffries' books and because I felt they would make an interesting
variant for an "evil" College of Magics other than the usual. I'm not
sure why I put the Time Magics in, other than to say that I really do
like time travel and the like, but would never dream of seeing it
abused in DQ. And Shamanism, well... I like shamans. :) The only
other real concept of magic that I want to get into is Dream Magics,
but that can perhaps be included in the material on Shamanism.

>Rather, the perceived "gaps" that I've seen are mostly Colleges for
>non-human practitioners of magic. It's always seemed odd to me that,
>for example, a human and a lizard-man might sit side-by-side at the
>same College <g>. I know, that's a gross simplification of the "College"
>concept, but I think it rather more likely overall that your lizard-man
>shaman down in the swamp simply learns stuff that's *different* to
>what a human might learn.

One could even argue that this is one of the flaws of the College
system. An elf Earth Mage shouldn't have the same, identical spells
that a Human Earth Mage has, and when one gets into some of the other
races, well the differences are even more highlighted, aren't they?
But this is more a racial view of things, rather than a magical view of
things, perhaps.

>Similarly, if we adhere to the Ursula le Guin model of "Naming", then
>(a) all dragons should be Namers (which somewhat limits them,
>magically) and (b) True Names should mean more than they (apparently)
>do.

Yes, that was something that always puzzled me and made me think
about the Le Guin books and the Namer College. I don't think that
Dragons need to be limited to one College, mind you, given what they
are, and so one could automatically have all Dragons be Namers as well
as having other magic as per the rules. That would certainly make them
more fearsome and interesting to deal with. The name of the game,
after all, is DRAGONQUEST. <g>

>To partially counteract this I added some spells to Naming
>Magics (e.g., shape-shifting) and also tried to more rigorously
>define what knowing someone's True Name actually means,
>but that's still only a partial solution. (I also added True Name
>effects to a couple of other Colleges.)

That's interesting stuff to hear. Since I knew that Naming was
based on _Earthsea_, I actually use the concept of Names as its found
in the books for the game world and the Naming concept. It makes
things rather interesting, and puts a good kind of slant into one or
two elements of character creation. I've added a few spells to Naming
myself, but was curious, what sort of stuff you put into it?

>In play I often fudged it, by occasionally letting "unusual" NPCs
>(as in, weird monster types) use magic that were clearly (as far
>as the players were concerned) NOT spells from any College that
>they knew about (although they were still spells, and suffered the
>usual restrictions of same). But I never organised this in any
>"formal" sense.

I've done the same thing, but pretty much followed your route of
not really giving it a formal organisation. And I've got a couple of
weird, odd spells and rituals that folks have encountered in the
campaign - notably Kedron's Ritual of Merging Forms (which is a focal
point in one scenario), and the Spell and Ritual of Sex Change (a mage
in the distant past who was known as a trickster, created this because
of a particular nasty divorce from his wife, and took an interesting
form of revenge; there are ten known items, called the Gems of Sex
Change, that exist. No one knows if he created them or if they were
created based on his work), and some others that I'm rather fond of.
Like using AW to make spells and rituals, so everything I've done is
done "by the book" in this regard.

.....My computer had a virus, so I downloaded some chicken soup.

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

Hullo, Bruce,

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:46:06 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> Exactly. A character who starts as a non-Mage is at least
>>effective most of the time at what he does in combat, assuming
>>he chose combat skills, but for Mages, well...it can be a bad
>>thing in the beginning of one's career. :)
>
>Oh yes. A beginning "fighter" type can be assumed to be at
>least vaguely competent at fighting. A beginning "rogue" type
>can be assumed to be at least vaguely competent at doing his
>stuff (and might be vaguely competent at fighting as well). But
>there's no guarantee that a beginning mage is competent at
>*anything*, magic least of all!

Yep, agree with you...and I love the odd fact that low-Ranked
mages are relatively incompetent at what they do, given the high chance
of backfire and the other chance that the target will resist the spell.
At least a fighter knows what he's dealing with when fighting an
opponent, although the Defense factor has to be dealt with. Based on
Defense, one usually will have a good idea of whether it's a good idea
to fight this particular enemy, or whether it's time to deal or get the
heck out of there.

>Survive and gain experience for a few adventures and by that point
>the "fighter" is virtually guaranteed to be at least OK at what he does,
>ditto the "rogue". There's still no such guarantee for the poor mage!

Yeah, sad isn't it? <g>

>There's no question that mages can, eventually, become quite
>powerful. But for most it's quite a long road to travel to get to
>that point.

I know that, although sometimes I don't think that players who
want to play mages are "aware" of this fact.

>There is one advantage that mages have, though: a mage
>who expends most of his XP on increasing Rank in spells
>(which is, after all, what you would expect) tends to have a
>*lot* of free time on his hands. (Compare the weeks it takes
>to improve Skills and the multiple-weeks it takes to improve
>Weapon Ranks.) Hence the mage tends to accumulate a
>lot of "down-time" XP on a daily rate.

True. Mind you, Rune Mages have to spend time to fashion
runesticks (and it's hellish when one deals with sets of three or five
or whatever), so the "downtime" is somewhat lost there. Of course,
Rune Magics isn't your typical College. :)

>He can't spend it any faster but it does tend to give him more
>to spend, which I see as something of a balancing factor for
>their overall uselessness early in their career.

Yep, agreed. :)

See, one of the places where I differ with a lot of folks here is
on the beginning XPs to create the character. While I did the same
that everyone here seems to do when I first started running DQ, I
eventually came up with a starting XP system that I can live with, and
which my players haven't girped about all that much. I worked out the
average cost for each Rank overall with the skills, and then came up
with a number of points to give players to create their characters
with, in addition to the number of XPs one starts with in section 8.4
or 8.5. The points are

Mercenary, Low 2.000
Mercenary, High 8.000
Adventurer, Low 10,000 - 30,000
Adventurer, High 32,000 - 50,000
Hero 65,000+

There. That should cause some debate. :)

.....Standards are wonderful; there's *so* many to choose from!

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

Hullo, Cameron,

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:04:40 -0700, D. Cameron King wrote:

>Okay, I'll take a stab at some of these.

Good stuff. The more, the merrier. :)
>
>>1. What spells can cause damage to Endurance and what spells
>>can only do Fatigue damage?
>
>I'm not aware of any spell that inflicts "only" Fatigue damage.
>Most (if not all) damaging spells inflict Damage Points, which
>are always applied to Fatigue first and then Endurance when
>Fatigue is exhausted. This is also explicitly stated in [18.4].

Ah, yes... I had forgotten about that little section on the rules.
:)

>Thus, unless its description specifies differently, *any* spell
>that inflicts Damage Points "can cause damage to Endurance."

Good point. :)

>>2. Are illusions (College of Illusions) "real"?
>
>The only guidance we have on this that I'm aware of is the
>following (from the Magic System Designer's Notes, section
>97 of the unpublished Arcane Wisdom supplement): "In
>answer to the ever present theoretical question, the
>illusions do actually exist; they are not simply inside the
>viewer's mind."
>
>Additional support for this view may be inferred from the
>fact that Illusionists gain a bonus to their Base Chance of
>casting spells for having high WP, regardless of the viewer's
>WP, while Sorcerers of the Mind, in contrast, gain a similar
>bonus only if their WP is greater than their target's WP
>(and a penalty if it is lower). This suggests that Sorcerers
>are interacting with their target's mental processes in a
>way that Illusionists are not.

Hmm, I hadn't really considered it from the Willpower point of
view, but that's a very good argument, when taken into account with the
material from AW.

>>3. What are True Names, and how do they work?
>
>To gain a full understanding of True Names (whether
>Generic or Individual) in DQ, one really must read
>Ursula K. LeGuin's "A Wizard of Earthsea." The Magic
>System Designer's Notes identify LeGuin as the
>source of inspiration for the College of Naming
>Incantations.

[rest of explanation snipped]

>(Hmm. Not as brief a summation as I was aiming
>for, but that's the best I can do!)

Nope, it wasn't a brief summation, but it was a very good one. :)


>>4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it operate and what
>>does it do for me?
>
>I'm not touching this one. (Personally, I think the
>rules speak pretty well for themselves on this, anyway.)

A good answer, and I'm going to dig out the copy of DQ I'm using
and read the AG material in there again.

.....Computer (n.): A device designed to speed up and automate errors.

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

Hullo, Edi,

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:42:20 -0000, esko_halttunen wrote:

>I've several priesthood type colleges to put together but a very low
>priority right now, and they'll mostly be cut-paste jobs from existing
>colleges, with talents being different, and they'll be for non-human
>priesthoods anyway, for a pantheon of gods of an advanced
>lizardman-like species. Of course, I'm going to have to check your
>religion rules first to see if I can use those instead of or in
>addition to what I had planned.

So, out of curiosity, have you looked at the Priest skill yet?
If so, any comments so far? (I haven't heard a lot of comments from
anyone on it, other than David over on the DragonQuestCathedral ml.)

In my campaign, the weapon limits were removed long ago (Late 1980's). The
main reason being I was Gm'ing a campaign while in the military (US Navy)
and we played (and I kid you not, and yes I had no life at the time) from
10pm to 6am Monday through Friday and from Noon to 10PM on
Sundays. Needless to say gaming in the same campaign for 50 hours a week
for close to 3 years the DQ rules more than started to break down. Players
were maxing out in tons of weapons just to spend their exp. Much of the
time they had little to no interest in the weapons they were taking, it was
just a way to spend their exp. Stats were getting maxed etc. There was a
LOT of demand to remove all the level limits on everything. In the end,
what I did was to remove all limits on everything. (Yes, no limits at
all). The way I did this was to double the exp cost of everything every
level once they got to the max level on the charts. This gave the players
a goal they were actually interested in attaining instead of just blowing
exp because they had it while making it REALLY expensive to get to the
higher ranks. Over the years, the system has been modified more, but for
the campaign I was running at the time, the doubling worked very well. The
players were happy because they were able to spend the exp on stuff they
wanted, but it was expensive enough that it didn't throw the balance off.

Another change that was made was to mages. If a mage was able to achieve
rank 22 in 22 spells, they became an Arch-mage and it was considered they
had mastered their college. Because of this they were able to take up a
second college of magic without restriction (well there were some common
sense restrictions).

Anyway in the end, removing the limits didn't adversely effect the campaign
at all and we call became true believers in getting rid of the limits.




At 05:48 PM 8/27/2003, you wrote:

>I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
>reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
>complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
>club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
>used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
>limits after all.
>
>--Loki
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Probst [mailto:bprobst@netspace.net.au]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:54 PM
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Mages and Warriors
>
>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo
><aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a
>point: I think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to
>become adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There
>are very few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very

expensive

>in XPs to get rk 8 with skills.
>
>This is very true. In my game, I removed the upper limit on Ranks with
>weapons; all weapons can advance to Rank 10 (although for most they
>start to get *very* expensive to push them higher than the limits imposed

by the

>rules).
>
>I also expanded the Skills list with a bunch of relatively-cheap but
>still important options (e.g., Climbing for non-thieves).

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

Hullo, Bruce,

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:54:02 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a point: I
>>think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to become
>>adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There are
>>very few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive
>>in XPs to get rk 8 with skills.
>
>This is very true. In my game, I removed the upper limit on Ranks with
>weapons; all weapons can advance to Rank 10 (although for most
>they start to get *very* expensive to push them higher than the limits
>imposed by the rules).

You've actually got me quite interested in the mechanics you're
using to raise Ranks for weapons and shiields above the maximum Rank
given on the chart. Any chance of posting the rule here, or sending
it to me in private e-mail, as I would like to add this to the House
Rules that I am using.

.....Will som eone pleas fi x th s Bl** dy K ey b orad?

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

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:13 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

>Unless someone else has a comment to make on this that adds to
>the discussion of this subject, perhaps this is the best answer for the
>FAQ?

Well, feel free to quote me if you like. Someone else did make the point
that spells as written only do generic "damage points" which are only
applied to EN when there's no more FT, which I think is worth mentioning.

>The
>only real problem that I've had, and several other GMs have had (based
>on posts I've seen on mailing lists) and the like is that there is the
>question that arises about whether the illusions are all in the mind or
>whether they are external. That's the next question that needs
>answering.

Well, my answer would be "no". The illusion is working on the target's
mind; if the target doesn't *have* a mind the illusion can have no effect on
it. If you toss a pebble into an illusionary pit, the pebble doesn't "fall"
anywhere -- although onlookers might *believe* that it does.

> Agreed, for the most part. What did you think of JohnR's
>comments on this question? Was that campaign specific as well?

Err, didn't read it in detail, sorry.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Here's something to stimulate even more discussion ;--)

With obveous exceptions (such as Namers) Colleges are a product of
culture, different cultures will have different colleges with
different collections of spells - discuss

I don't mean the alignments, these seem to be fundamental to the way
magic works

David

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:11:55 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

> That's interesting stuff to hear. Since I knew that Naming was
>based on _Earthsea_, I actually use the concept of Names as its found
>in the books for the game world and the Naming concept. It makes
>things rather interesting, and puts a good kind of slant into one or
>two elements of character creation. I've added a few spells to Naming
>myself, but was curious, what sort of stuff you put into it?

I made Namers more important to the campaign world by making them the local
"trustworthy types" -- since I figure they *have* to be, they're the guys
who go around and hand out True Names! They're also the generic
"repositories of magical wisdom".

IIRC, I made the Ritual of Remove Curse General Knowledge for Namers -- or
maybe I made it a Special Knowledge Ritual that they could use their Naming
Bonuses on, one or the other -- so that Namers are the guys you go to when
you need a Curse removed (e.g., backfire results). By giving them the
"Naming" bonuses the Base Chance of successfully removing the curse actually
enters reasonable levels -- and it makes sense for the PCs to invest some
trust in their local Namer (who might also be a PC) by telling him their
True Name.

I didn't actually *write down* more than a few brief notes, alas:

First I made some mods to the bonuses table:

*Namer has never before encountered target’s generic type -25

*Namer does not know (has not learned) target’s Generic True Name -15

*Each Rank > 0 Namer has achieved with Generic True Name of inanimate object
or non-sentient being 5

*Each Rank > 0 Namer has achieved with Generic True Name of sentient being
3

*Achieving Rank 0 with Individual True Name of sentient being 5

*Each Rank > 0 Namer has achieved with Individual True Name of sentient
being 10

Additional Special Knowledge that was Planned (but not written):

Spell of Paralysis (S-3)

This is your basic "hold it right there, bub!" spell.

Spell of Shape-Shifting Self (S-4)
Spell of Shape-Shifting Others (S-5)

I remember that with the shape-shifting spells there was to be a chance,
somewhat similar to Shapechanger characters, that if you stayed in the
"alternate" form too long you would forget your original form. This would
then be treated as a "curse" that only another Namer could remove (sounds
familiar, right? <g>).

Ritual of Item Divination (R-2)
Ritual of Name Summoning (R-3)
Ritual of Transmutation (R-4)

Item Divination was the game method of finding out about magic items --
there doesn't seem to be any other "identify item" equivalent in DQ, unless
Shapers have some ability in that regard (and if they don't, this Ritual
should probably be on their books, too).

Name Summoning was to be a means of summoning an individual whose True Name
you know, like Lesser Summoning.

Transmutation is obviously the old lead-into-gold trick.

In short, the way I saw Naming was to make it about dealing with the
fundamental nature of things, and how to alter or manipulate that nature.

Hope that's of some interest!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:03:43 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

> You've actually got me quite interested in the mechanics you're
>using to raise Ranks for weapons and shiields above the maximum Rank
>given on the chart. Any chance of posting the rule here, or sending
>it to me in private e-mail, as I would like to add this to the House
>Rules that I am using.

That one's easy. The cost to improve a weapon skill by one Rank is double
the cost of the previous Rank. Just keep doubling.

(Also remember the extra XP cost involved if you have to train yourself,
rather than be trained by someone who already has the higher Rank. Since
"higher Rank" in these weapons is going to be, by definition, "unusual", it
could be hard to find suitable trainers.)

If you want to push yourself past the "accepted" limits, you have to push
*hard* <g>.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:32:23 -0000, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>With obveous exceptions (such as Namers) Colleges are a product of
>culture, different cultures will have different colleges with
>different collections of spells - discuss

A very good point. For example, the concept of "four elements" was very
much a Western European one (Greek Philosophy, specifically). In China (and
by extension practically everyone that they had contact with), they tended
to believe in "five elements" -- "fire", "metal", "wood", "water", "soil".
So an Eastern "College of Wood Magics", say, would make perfect sense.

Would a wild woodchuck wield weird wood magic?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Actually, my first thought when you posted that was
the College of Metal Magics, or maybe Steel... Hmm,
how would *that* work, given the rules as they stand
regarding cold iron? *Would* it work at all? I don't
think it would, unfortunately.
I've always thought it would be interesting to adapt
the DQ rules to an Asian environment, like a mythic
China or Japan. Not what the designers intended, I
realize, but I think they'd mostly be a good fit.
Just that damn cold iron stuff.
Thoughts on that?

Thanks,
Jim
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruce Probst <bprobst@netspace.net.au>
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: Colleges of Magic

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:32:23 -0000, "dbarrass_2000"

<david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>

>wrote:
>
>>With obveous exceptions (such as Namers) Colleges

are a product of

>>culture, different cultures will have different

colleges with

>>different collections of spells - discuss
>
>A very good point. For example, the concept of "four

elements" was very

>much a Western European one (Greek Philosophy,

specifically). In China (and

>by extension practically everyone that they had

contact with), they tended

>to believe in "five elements" --

"fire", "metal", "wood", "water", "soil".

>So an Eastern "College of Wood Magics", say, would

make perfect sense.

>
>Would a wild woodchuck wield weird wood magic?
>
>------------------------------------------------------

----------

>Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au

--
"It's better to light one candle
than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
http://www.christophers.org

Ah, but this very interesting idea would take into account the issue with "cold iron." Perhaps it would restrict the effects to *true* cold iron (stuff smelted from meteorite debris), or have a spell similar to "Armor of Earth" - with the obvious penalties to stealth, of course ;-)

Or the College of Metal Magics would be opposed by Wood and Water, neither of which you could be in contact with to practice Metal Magics...
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: J. K. Hoffman [mailto:ryumaou@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:56 AM

Actually, my first thought when you posted that was the College of Metal Magics, or maybe Steel... Hmm, how would *that* work, given the rules as they stand regarding cold iron? *Would* it work at all? I don't think it would, unfortunately.
I've always thought it would be interesting to adapt the DQ rules to an Asian environment, like a mythic China or Japan. Not what the designers intended, I realize, but I think they'd mostly be a good fit. Just that damn cold iron stuff.
Thoughts on that?

Thanks,
Jim
--- Original Message ---
From: Bruce Probst <bprobst@netspace.net.au>
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: Colleges of Magic

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 16:32:23 -0000, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>With obveous exceptions (such as Namers) Colleges are a product of
>>culture, different cultures will have different colleges with
>>different collections of spells - discuss
>
>A very good point. For example, the concept of "four elements" was very
>much a Western European one (Greek Philosophy, specifically). In China (and
>by extension practically everyone that they had contact with), they tended
>to believe in "five elements" -- "fire", "metal", "wood", "water", "soil".
>So an Eastern "College of Wood Magics", say, would make perfect sense.
>
>Would a wild woodchuck wield weird wood magic?

ok, finally have time to dive back into this list!

Something I dabbled with ages ago, never finished (nor playtested), was a
college of Metal magics. The idea is twofold - the first being effects upon
metallic objects, the second being taking attributes of metal and applying
them to other substances, or even living creatures. Dwarves can rank the
magics of this college at a 10% discount.

As I've recently moved, my notes are lost in space somewhere, but here's
what I can recall off the top of my head:

Talents
cost same as witchsight for E&E unless specified otherwise
1. Evaluate metals & ore as merchant of equal level
2. Rank Craftsman: smithing at 1/2 listed cost
3. Detect metals as Craftsman: prospector or rank prospector at 1/2 listed
cost
4. Automatic Sage knowledge of metals, mining/refining. If Sage/Knowledge
skills not used, it can be assumed that character knows anything typical in
the fields of mining, refining, smithing, prospecting.
5. If character has Merchant skill, automaticaly gains metal works as extra
area of knowledge

General Knowledge spells:
repair metal
repairs breaks in metal items

purify metal
removes impurities from alloys, ores

follow vein
determine path of vein of ore, knows where to dig to follow the
motherlode. Range, radus increases with level

heat/freeze metal
can heat up metal to the point where it can be worked, likewise can
freeze it. Exact temp & duration depends on Rank. Range also increases by
Rank, starting with touch + [rank] ft.

analyze metals
similar to talent, but where talent gives general info (ie, this is
iron ore), this spell immediately informs the caster of the properties of a
given metal in great detail.


General Knowledge Rituals:
Shape Metal
reshape a metal object into another object(s) of equal mass


Special Knowledge spells:
Strength of Iron (1)
increases targets strength

Skin of Iron (1)
increases targets DEF

Speed of Quicksilver (1)
increases targets movement rate

Glint of Silver (1)
adds to attack rating

Weight of Lead (1)
increases weight/mass of target, as well as density.

transmute metal
convert one metal into another temporarily


1. Can also be cast on items as a 1-hour ritual. Duration then changes to
hours instead of minutes / Rank.


Special Knowledge Rituals:
Create Golem
similar to the various golem rituals, except this can use any freely
available source of metal. The various metals can have different effects:
iron: basic model
lead: adds poison damage
copper: less damage, but higher Atk & Def ratings
tin: faster movement rate

Transmute metal
similar to spell of same name, except this is a permanent change.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:56:14 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Actually, my first thought when you posted that was
>the College of Metal Magics, or maybe Steel... Hmm,
>how would *that* work, given the rules as they stand
>regarding cold iron? *Would* it work at all? I don't
>think it would, unfortunately.
>I've always thought it would be interesting to adapt
>the DQ rules to an Asian environment, like a mythic
>China or Japan. Not what the designers intended, I
>realize, but I think they'd mostly be a good fit.
>Just that damn cold iron stuff.
>Thoughts on that?

Lots of spells manipulate metal, cold iron included. Look at the "Heat
Metal" spell in, um, College of Fire? Or is it Necromantic? (Not that I
understand what it's doing *there*.) Any way, the point is a spell can
manipulate metal just fine -- it's not the same as the caster being in
*contact* with it.

There's a "Wall of Iron" spell in Earth Magics, isn't there? I would assume
that "Soil" and "Metal" magics would both take appropriate cues from "Earth"
magic (with some other appropriate specialised spells).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:56:14 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Actually, my first thought

when you posted that was

>the College of Metal Magics, or maybe

Steel...  Hmm,

>how would *that* work, given the rules as they stand
>regarding cold iron?  *Would* it work at all?  I don't
>think it would, unfortunately.
>I've always thought it would be

interesting to adapt

>the DQ rules to an Asian environment, like a mythic
>China or Japan.  Not what the designers intended, I
>realize, but I think they'd mostly be a good fit. 
>Just

that damn cold iron stuff.

>Thoughts on that?

Lots of spells manipulate metal, cold iron included.  Look at the "Heat
Metal" spell in, um, College of Fire?  Or is it Necromantic?  (Not that I
understand what it's doing *there*.)  Any way, the point is a spell can
manipulate metal just fine -- it's not the same as the caster being in
*contact* with it.

There's a "Wall of Iron" spell in Earth Magics, isn't there?  I would assume
that "Soil" and "Metal" magics would both take appropriate cues from "Earth"
magic (with some other appropriate specialised spells).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@netspace.net.au    ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759  SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:56:14 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Actually, my first thought

when you posted that was

>the College of Metal Magics, or maybe

Steel...  Hmm,

>how would *that* work, given the rules as they stand
>regarding cold iron?  *Would* it work at all?  I don't
>think it would, unfortunately.
>I've always thought it would be

interesting to adapt

>the DQ rules to an Asian environment, like a mythic
>China or Japan.  Not what the designers intended, I
>realize, but I think they'd mostly be a good fit. 
>Just

that damn cold iron stuff.

>Thoughts on that?

Lots of spells manipulate metal, cold iron included.  Look at the "Heat
Metal" spell in, um, College of Fire?  Or is it Necromantic?  (Not that I
understand what it's doing *there*.)  Any way, the point is a spell can
manipulate metal just fine -- it's not the same as the caster being in
*contact* with it.

There's a "Wall of Iron" spell in Earth Magics, isn't there?  I would assume
that "Soil" and "Metal" magics would both take appropriate cues from "Earth"
magic (with some other appropriate specialised spells).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@netspace.net.au    ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759  SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:57:54 -0300, gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

>By the way, I sugest to allways create an opposite college when you talk to
>create another elemental. Sound better.

Hey, don't tell me, tell those pesky ancient Chinese philosophers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:57:54 -0300, gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

>By the way, I

sugest to allways create an opposite college when you talk to

>create

another elemental. Sound better.

Hey, don't tell me, tell those pesky ancient Chinese philosophers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@netspace.net.au    ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759  SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a five way split (interesting how Air doesn't fit in), you would get two opposites for each branch. It could be that there is one major and one minor, arranging them around a pentagon & looking clockwise. Opposite from a corner is a side; the leading point is the major opposition and the following point (clockwise) is the minor opposition. There would be full penalties for opposing branch for the one and half for the other. We would need to research Chinese literature to see how they viewed things. They may not see any opposition at all, but instead all working in Harmony.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Probst [mailto:bprobst@netspace.net.au]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:38 PM

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:57:54 -0300, gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

>By the way, I sugest to allways create an opposite college when you talk to
>create another elemental. Sound better.

Hey, don't tell me, tell those pesky ancient Chinese philosophers.

Bruce Probst wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:48:39 -0700, "Loki Freyr" <loki@faralloncapital.com>
>wrote:
>
> >I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
> >reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
> >complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
> >club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
> >used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
> >limits after all.
>
>Well, there's a simple game rationale for starters: heroes can only become
>heroes by becoming expert in rapier, or glaive, or whatever? There are no
>heroes wielding broadswords as their "master" weapon of choice? It just
>strikes me as a bizarre world-view.

Before I weigh in on this topic, let me say that I, too,
have found the maximum rank limits to be somewhat
arbitrary and occasionally unreasonable (Javelin going
up to Rank 10 while Spear goes only to Rank 5, for one
example). Nevertheless, I would not remove the caps.

Of course heroes can become heroes and be experts
with weapons other than the rapier, glaive, etc. The
fact that one cannot achieve Rank 8 with a certain
weapon in no way prevents one from attaining Rank
8 with other weapons (or in Skills like Horsemanship,
Courtesan, or Speak Language). Now, a hero may
*prefer to use* a weapon that is unsuitable for
certain, very intricate fighting maneuevers, and
still be a hero. But I don't think he should be able
to use a crude club to Parry attacks as well as a
rapier-master, all else being equal.

There are simply some things you can do with
one weapon that you can't with another. For
example (and I know you don't always appreciate
my analogies, Bruce :-)), you can't use a dagger
to make a two-handed Class B Multiple Strike, so
why should you be able to use a crude club to
execute fancy Parries?

>Secondly, I simply don't agree that a master club user can never know as
>much about *his* weapon as a master rapier user knows about *his*. Not
>having any weapon skills myself, I don't know how "realistic" this is, but
>it offends my sense of "universal balance"; I think anyone who wants to be
>the best darn club-user the world has ever seen ought to have that chance.

He does. It's just that "the best darn club-user
the world has ever seen" is Rank 5, not Rank 10.

I have no weapon skills, either, and I tend to agree
with your sense of "universal balance" (in this case, at
least). But I'm also aware that maximum ranks are
one of the balancing factors that make certain
weapons viable in the face of otherwise-superior
options. To some degree, this can be mitigated
by making the XP cost for high rank with desirable
weapons undesirably high, but you're almost certain
to have any two people disagree as to what those
costs should be.

>Finally, with the PS and MD restrictions on weapons (which I have no
>problem
>with), some characters may simply never be able to learn those weapons that
>have access to high ranks, yet be perfectly competent fighters in all other
>respects. I think even the "little guy" should have the opportunity to
>have
>something that they excel in when fighting.

Anyone fit to go adventuring can use a dagger,
and that goes up to Rank 9.

>I'd also point out that the game never gives us any reason why certain
>weapons have high ranks and certain other weapons don't. We can hem and
>haw
>and draw certain observations, but in the end if there's any particular
>"pattern" as to what makes a "hero class" weapon and what doesn't, I've
>never been able to discern it. Which just makes it look completely
>arbitrary, to me.

As I said, there does seem to be a degree of
abitrariness to the maximum ranks, but for the
most part the reasoning behind the rules
is obvious. One of the major advantages
(in DQ) of a weapon like Rapier is the ability to
Repulse potential grapplers and Parry melee
attacks. Indeed, a rapier-master with his back
to a wall (or fellow swordsman) can hold off a
veritable army of attackers indefinitely at Rank
10, Repulsing attempts to Grapple him and
Riposting attackers to death. Give that ability
to *every* club-wielding would-be Hero and
you've significantly changed the nature of
combat in the game.

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Unless you want to go the Far Eastern route, I don't see why Colleges of Metal or Wood Magics would be necessary at all. Both of those would be subsumed under Earth Magic in the traditional Western four-element split, with fire influencing metals somewhat and water influencing plants.

The Earth College already has wall of iron for metals as already pointed out, as well as some other spells if I'm not completely mistaken, and it also has spells that affect plants (plant growth, speak with plants etc.). New colleges are all fine and well, but at least I'd rather see first if something new can fit under the domain of exiting ones to avoid unnecessary clutter. I don't think anybody wants to have a huge number of very narrowly defined, rigid colleges that basically duplicate existing skills (whether original to DQ or added later in supplements such as Rodger Thorm's PBA or Stephen Clark's DQ Worldly Endeavour) with a few extras thrown in.

IMHO (or should that be imnsho? Well, you decide...), of course.

Edi


............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Hi, John--

> Hullo, Edi,
>
> So, out of curiosity, have you looked at the Priest skill yet?
> If so, any comments so far? (I haven't heard a lot of comments from
> anyone on it, other than David over on the DragonQuestCathedral ml.)

I haven't had time yet. :-(
I intended to do that yesterday, but I had to slog through 186 (Yes, count'em, a bleeding 186!) backlogged DQN-List messages in my mailbox I hadn't had time to go through earlier, including all of the Character creation discussion of the past few days. Took me three and a half hours. I'll read the Priest stuff on the weekend and email you on Sunday or Monday.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Ok, this is a spinoff of the Colleges of Magic thread, and ties to them somewhat.

I've always found some of the divisions in the Branches of Magic (Elementals, Thaumaturgy and Entities) downright stupid, and would like to hear some other opinions. I've no problem with the Thaumaturgies and Entities as such, it's Elementals mostly that piss me off, namely the inclusion of Celestial Magics there. Their connection to the true Elemental colleges is...what, precisely? Additionally, Celestial Magics is more like three colleges all rolled into one than a single college, and while it does work, it could work a whole lot better.

Rodger and I had a discussion regarding this (I guess that was mainly me talking, though) when we went over his Sun Magics draft. I was, and still am, of the opinion that Celestial Magics should be a Branch of Magic all on their own, with a College of Sun Magics and a College of Moon and Stars, which we basically already have, the Star Mages from the original Celestial Magics. (I must note that this is my view, Rodger's view of the Sun College was as one of the Entities, and he has very sound reasons for it that I do agree with, the viewpoint is different than what I have taken, but quite valid and perfectly reasoned out.)

This would sort of orphane the Shadow Weavers and Dark Mages, but since the Celestial Magics (the Branch) as a whole deal with the heavenly bodies that produce light for the world, these two would be easy to incorporate to the new model. Dark Mages draw their power from the absence of light, and Shadow Weavers would be, as they are now, in the middle of the two, since shadows are the interplay of light and darkness. I guess they'd stay in Moon and Stars, though you might have Dark Mages (or Night Mages) of the Sun College if anyone bothers to go to the length of designing reverse spells for them. And if you change Star Mages to Moon and Star Mages, you'd have yet another division where their modifiers for the moonlit and moonless nights would probably have to be opposites. This last would increase complexity even further, which is not such a good thing on its face, but I don't think it's overly unwieldy. Not for me anyway. And it'd have the benefit of making the divisions of the branches consistent. As things stand right now, Celestial Magics as it was written into the DQ rules is the odd college out, something which I really hate because I'm very partial to it myself (especially Shadow Weavers).

Thoughts?

One other question: With all the colleges added by the people who've played DQ for a long time and that are available online, what does the Thaumaturgy/Entities division look like? With just DQ and AW, Entities is leading 6 to 4, and with the addition of White, Fey, Spider, Time and that fifth one, how does it stand? Fey is obviously Thaumaturgy and White an Entity college, what about the rest?

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

I believe the original idea behind the Celestial College was the five
element system.

Aristotle proposed the 4 element system, fire, earth, water and air;
but later in his life he introduced a fifth element. This was the
element of Ether and was to balance the other 4. This was the medium
through which the celestial bodies moved and had various mystical
properties. I suspect this where the DQ college came from. So In my
world the Celestial college is a true elemental college

David

> I believe the original idea behind the Celestial College was the five
> element system.
>
> Aristotle proposed the 4 element system, fire, earth, water and air;
> but later in his life he introduced a fifth element. This was the
> element of Ether and was to balance the other 4. This was the medium
> through which the celestial bodies moved and had various mystical
> properties. I suspect this where the DQ college came from. So In my
> world the Celestial college is a true elemental college

This is something I didn't know. I'm not very familiar with the works of the different philosophers, so no surprise there. At least this won't bug me as much as it uded to now. Thanks. :-)
I'm still going to spin Celestials off as their own Branch in my world, because I'm more inclined to think that way, but now I have an explanation that makes sense..

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Hi everyone,

sorry for cross-posting

The latest draft of my rules I promiced sometime this week is in the
files section of the cathedral news group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonQuestCathedral/. Its called
Spirits and Religion V1.1.pdf

The next draft will probably include ideas from John's priest skill,
but it may take some time :--)

To encourage those who haven't read it here's the contents from the
doc

X. Spirits
98. Physical World Spirits
99. Boundary Sprits
100. Other Plane Spirits
101. Faerie
102. Ego Combat
103. The College of Shamanism
104. The College of Fey Magics
XI. Religion
105. Magical Religions
106. Priests of Magical Religions
107. Religious Magic
108. Graeco-Roman Pantheon
109. Religions of the Powers of Light
110. Cleric of the Powers of Light

There is a changes document with it so you can see what's been
changed from version 1.0

Enjoy

David

If that was at the Royal Armouries in Leeds (UK)then what I saw was a pole
axe type device, of a rather short-ish nature (barely bigger than a man).
Lucky enough when I was there to try on a full suit of chain and a kite
shield. I am not small, im pretty strong and not particularly unfit but I
can imagine getting tired quiet qucikly never the huge reductions in MD you
get cos your shields in the way and the fact your PC should drop quite a
bit. I did look the part so my PB should have least gone up a notch or two.
Basically dont think you should try and over-simulate / go into 'too much'
realism as you can get real bogged down.

JohnD

>From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Weapons rank limits
>Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:20:26 -0000
>
>
> > However, a question: were the weapons used in the demonstration
>halberds or the lochaber type poleaxes that have this two-foot long,
>one foot wide blade stuck on a four-foot shaft? Because when I talk
>about poleaxes, that's the type I mean, halberds are another kettle
>of fish entirely and I can readily see how it would require more
>skill.
>
>It was indead a halbard-like pole-axe
>
> > The fact that polearms, especially the spearlike ones such as
>spetum, were mostly used for mass engagements is still unchallenged,
>though, no?
>
>I've tried this using my son as a victim - err I meen helper. Long
>weapons give an advantage, even one-on-one. If you have something big
>like a 2 handed sword, a spear, even a lochaber axe your opponent has
>to get past it to get at you. The threat of a sword swinging in a 9
>foot (3 metre) wide arc deters most from going near. If you know
>what you're doing the blade is back before the enemy has recovered
>enough to leap in. If your opponent gets past the point you're in
>trouble of course, as you are if you're not ready as it takes a
>couple of seconds to get things swinging as you would like. I allow
>a person with a weapon longer thar the other by 3 feet to always go
>first and for him to repulse the other in the same way he would
>repulse a close manouvre.
>
>I appreciate that this is a personal choise and I'm not forcing it on
>anyone
>
>David
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile