--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@a...> wrote:
> > > That is about the closest I have got to getting any kind of
copyright
> > > confirmation.
> > >
> >
> > Really!? Did this come from their legal department? Can you
reproduce
> > that permission?
> >
> > Great news!
>
> Here is what I got. My question was Could I put a Dragonquest
Varient on my
> Website.
>
> Thank you for contacting Wizards, we apologize for the delay in
replying to
> your e-mail. In general, Wizards doesn't mind free fan creations.
Please
> identify Wizards as the owner of relevant trademarks and copyrights and
> include a disclaimer (see
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=contactinfo/legal for information).
> Wizards is not seeking to license any of our older properties at the
current
> time. If you are interested in updating a setting for publication
as a d20
> supplement, Wizards will discuss licensing options only if you
represent a
> publisher with a history of producing high quality d20 products and with
> full distribution to the hobby channel.
> Thank you for contacting Wizards.
>
> Andy Smith
> Publishing Intern
> Wizards of the Coast, Inc
>
> Mandos
> /s

>This, on the whole, is excellent news. It seems that we can do

>much as we like as long as we don't charge (and Wizards don't change
>their mind). Its interesting that there is no mention of

>on that page, it really does seem that poor old DQ is below

>
>David
>

>I've posted an updated DQ Index in the files section.
>(http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/files/DQindex.html)
>
>Let me know if there are other things that should be included in it
>that I have overlooked.
>
>--Rodger
>
>
>

> Hey folks!
> Just thought I would let you know how the character creation process
> went for my new DQ game. Three of the four players were able to make
> it, and we went over some of the minor changes that I have made.
> Those include the PC change from 5 to 8, adding new weapons, using a
> modified Social Standing chart, and adding Arcane Wisdom.
>
> Since I am also one of those who think that the benefit of having
> higher characteristics is not just compensation for not taking magic,
> I allowed anyony not going the magic route to sacrifice one
> characteristic point for experience points.
>
> Oh, and to ensure there was no monkey business, I had them use some of
> my own dice that are really big and easy to see.
>
> One of the players, the one I figured to be a problem, rolled a 36
> when trying for the Elf race. His was the closest roll we got. So,
> we have three humans: one child of bandits (4th), one child of
> barbarians (2nd), and one bastard child of farmers.
>
> No unusual aspects were rolled, except for the fact that the rolled,
> in succession, spring, summer, and autumn stars.
>
> The only problem seemed to crop up once experience points were rolled
> and were being spent. My problem child, I'll call him Jerry, after
> looking at magic colleges, skills, weapons, and such, said "These
> starting experience points suck. I need about 1,000 to make a good
> starting character." One of the other players mentioned that they
> are, after all, starting characters, and can't be good at everything.
> I also mentioned that he would be surprised at how quickly experience
> points rack up and he can increase his skills and spells. He said
> "After picking a magic college (Necromancy) and using 100 points for
> Assassin skill, I only have 40 points, which means I can only get one
> other thing."
>
> I personally think he was upset because one of the other two players,
> David, decided to go without magic and he got more experience points
> to start. David has never really liked playing magic using
> characters, so to me this was not unexpected. He rolled a modest
> level of character points to begin with, so he had to carefully juggle
> them to get good stats, but also leave one point that he could
> sacrifice to get the experience. He picked some interesting weapons,
> and a rather smart collection of skills.
>
> The third player got extremely lucky and rolled ambidexerous for his
> handedness. We both commented that with all the characters he has
> made for DQ, and he has made a lot, that this was the first one that
> was ambidexerous. He has his own book (which we are going to finish
> removing from the nearly missing binding and scan) and has been
> thinking about what he wanted to play for a couple of weeks. He is
> playing a human, college of Sorceries of the Mind, wielding a glaive
> (subtle, eh?) and a weapons I cannot remember. He picked Ranger skill
> and was probably done making his character about an hour or so before
> the others.
>
> So, we currently have:
> Human, fighter type, with skills like astrologer, beastmaster, and
> horsemanship.
> Human necromancer with assassin skill and most likely a dagger (I
> forgot to look at his weapon choice)
> Human, mentalist sorcerer, who can track you down and smack you around.
>
> Should be interesting to see what the other player makes.
>
> Stephen Miller
> Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Stephen,
>
> I really appreciate your sharing this process with us. There

> to be one "problem-child". How much exp do you award for swapping

> point? In my games, i have always encouraged non-spellcasting

> make their MA 5, and have the rest of the stats that much higher

> spell casters.

> In my games, i have always encouraged non-spellcasting players to
> make their MA 5, and have the rest of the stats that much higher

> spell casters.

> The only problem seemed to crop up once experience
> points were rolled

> "After picking a magic college (Necromancy) and
> using 100 points for
> Assassin skill, I only have 40 points, which means I
> can only get one
> other thing."

>
> For me at least, I do not see where they get that great of an
> advantage having characteristics a little higher. If you figured
> that the character has a 5 MA, that is only 10 below average. If you
> divide them up between the characteristics a fighter will need, it
> only means you are adding an average of approximately 2 points each.
> That's not appreciably higher, really.
>
> Stephen Miller
> Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
>

> > For me at least, I do not see where they get that great of an
> > advantage having characteristics a little higher. If you figured
> > that the character has a 5 MA, that is only 10 below average. If you
> > divide them up between the characteristics a fighter will need, it
> > only means you are adding an average of approximately 2 points each.
> > That's not appreciably higher, really.
> >
> > Stephen Miller
> > Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
> >
>
>Interesting. Now if you were to spread the points evenly, you have a
>great point. But let's say the character had a an EN of 15, and
>decided raise it 3 of those 10 points. Now the EN is 18, and a
>monster needs greater than 6 effective damage to produce a stun,
>instead of 5. I think this could make a huge difference in combat.
>Or perhaps the character is on the cusp of getting an extra TMR
>point. It all depends on how you allocate the points initially. My
>other question is; what is the advantage of having an MA greater than
>5 if the character has no intention of casting spells? It is the
>only stat in the game that has one use. WP is used for skills, as
>well as resisting spells. MD is used for combat, and is essential to
>many skills. But if you are not planning on casting spells, then
>there is no need for MA. Am I missing something fundamental? I
>don't have my rule book handy

>>>For me at least, I do not see where they get that great of an
>>>advantage having characteristics a little higher. If you figured
>>>that the character has a 5 MA, that is only 10 below average. If you
>>>divide them up between the characteristics a fighter will need, it
>>>only means you are adding an average of approximately 2 points each.
>>>That's not appreciably higher, really.
>>>
>>>Stephen Miller
>>>Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Interesting. Now if you were to spread the points evenly, you have a
>>great point. But let's say the character had a an EN of 15, and
>>decided raise it 3 of those 10 points. Now the EN is 18, and a
>>monster needs greater than 6 effective damage to produce a stun,
>>instead of 5. I think this could make a huge difference in combat.
>>Or perhaps the character is on the cusp of getting an extra TMR
>>point. It all depends on how you allocate the points initially. My
>>other question is; what is the advantage of having an MA greater than
>>5 if the character has no intention of casting spells? It is the
>>only stat in the game that has one use. WP is used for skills, as
>>well as resisting spells. MD is used for combat, and is essential to
>>many skills. But if you are not planning on casting spells, then
>>there is no need for MA. Am I missing something fundamental? I
>>don't have my rule book handy
>>
>>
>
>No, you have it exactly right. There is no point--absolutely none--in
>having an MA score if you're not going to be an Adept.
>
>And I'm stunned at the notion that an average increase of 2 points in PS,
>AG, EN, MD, *and* WP could be considered trivial. I don't have the books in
>front of me, but isn't that about 50,000 XP worth of improvement?
>
>-Cameron
>
>

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

> There are a couple of things I considered quite extensively before I
> began offering the characteristic point exchange for the magically
> disinclined. The first and foremost concern was player happiness. It
> is, after all, a game, something meant to be fun. If players feel
> that their choice of character direction means they miss out on
> something everyone else gets, then their enjoyment of the game is
> lessened.
>
> This leads us to the second point: visual versus virtual gain. When a
> player decides on taking a magic college, they have an immediate
> visual gain. They get talents, spells, and rituals that they can use
> immediately. The player who decides to not take a magic college does
> not get this immediate visual gain. They get what I call a virtual
> gain. The benefits are not there right away, except in a most
> abstract way. Sure, they can use bigger and nastier weapons, but only
> when they get experience points to buy the weapon knowledge. Sure,
> they can take more hits and are less likely to be stunned, but if
> there are not a great many combat situations then this will not come
> into play. You see, it's all about perception. I can tell a player
> "You know, those higher stats are a real benefit, you wait and see,"
> but I know that when they see the other players able to use their
> character creation benefit from the start, they will feel like they
> are being short changed.
>
> I know that this is how some players feel, because it was the way I
> felt when I first started playing. I had some great character
> concepts for a daring swashbuckler type of character. I started
> making my character, and noticed that by not taking a magic college I
> was basically missing out on some free experience points that the
> others were getting. I thought then, and still feel this way, that
> the benefits of a magic college far outweigh the benefits of higher
> characteristics. This is especially true if you are playing in a
> short duration campaign. Playing a character for two years (for us
> about 40 game sessions) where everyone else has benefits from the
> start, and your benefits only kick in late in the campaign, does not
> make the campaign as entertaining as it could be. After all, time is
> precious and I do not want to waste it playing a character that I feel
> is being given the short shrift.
>
>
> Stephen Miller
> Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>From: "Stephen Miller" <curmudgeon.gamer@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [DQN-list] Magic versus non-magic
>Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:08:24 -0000
>
>There are a couple of things I considered quite extensively before I
>began offering the characteristic point exchange for the magically
>disinclined. The first and foremost concern was player happiness. It
>is, after all, a game, something meant to be fun. If players feel
>that their choice of character direction means they miss out on
>something everyone else gets, then their enjoyment of the game is
>lessened.
>
>This leads us to the second point: visual versus virtual gain. When a
>player decides on taking a magic college, they have an immediate
>visual gain. They get talents, spells, and rituals that they can use
>immediately. The player who decides to not take a magic college does
>not get this immediate visual gain. They get what I call a virtual
>gain. The benefits are not there right away, except in a most
>abstract way. Sure, they can use bigger and nastier weapons, but only
>when they get experience points to buy the weapon knowledge. Sure,
>they can take more hits and are less likely to be stunned, but if
>there are not a great many combat situations then this will not come
>into play. You see, it's all about perception. I can tell a player
>"You know, those higher stats are a real benefit, you wait and see,"
>but I know that when they see the other players able to use their
>character creation benefit from the start, they will feel like they
>are being short changed.
>
>I know that this is how some players feel, because it was the way I
>felt when I first started playing. I had some great character
>concepts for a daring swashbuckler type of character. I started
>making my character, and noticed that by not taking a magic college I
>was basically missing out on some free experience points that the
>others were getting. I thought then, and still feel this way, that
>the benefits of a magic college far outweigh the benefits of higher
>characteristics. This is especially true if you are playing in a
>short duration campaign. Playing a character for two years (for us
>about 40 game sessions) where everyone else has benefits from the
>start, and your benefits only kick in late in the campaign, does not
>make the campaign as entertaining as it could be. After all, time is
>precious and I do not want to waste it playing a character that I feel
>is being given the short shrift.
>
>
>Stephen Miller
>Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@m...> wrote:
> This is probably a silly idea, but if I ever get to run a DQ game
> again, I plan on tieing MA to magical resistance (low MA corresponds to
> low MR) to help resolve this problem. I think 3*WP+MA was where I left
> it, but do not remember for sure.

My own personal feeling is that this runs counter to DQ philosophy.
Magic is of benefit, but also a vunrabillity.  If you have the flaw of
magical abilliy you are more suseptable to it.  This modification
would have the effect of increasing the MR of Adepts.  But when it
comes right down to it its your World and if you feel it
counter-balances some of the weaknesses of adepts - fine

David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@m...> wrote:
> This is probably a silly idea, but if I ever get to run a DQ game
> again, I plan on tieing MA to magical resistance (low MA corresponds to
> low MR) to help resolve this problem. I think 3*WP+MA was where I left
> it, but do not remember for sure.

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

3*WP+MA would make all Magic Resists run in the 60-100% range.  This would not help Adepts, but make them weaker yet.

 

Alby

I vaaguely recall thinking something like 15 + 2*WP - MA
and ignoreing the non mage bonus to magic resistance.because
it was now governed by there lower MA...

-- 
Google Me at : Decision Driven Rolegaming

-- Lance Dyas
The Decision Driven Gaming Center
"Creating a language for describing  how we do things to enable better visualization  in roleplay."
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005

> Anybody else have the article (my magazines are not currently

>  

Hello:

 

Dragon Magazine had "The Warrior Alternative" in issue #86. I don't have the issue in front of me, but I seem to recall that a character received a pool of experience points if he or she did not choose a school of magic.

 

Anybody else have the article (my magazines are not currently available).

 

Later.

James D. Collins

Painted Frog Productions

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005

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

>Dragon Magazine had "The Warrior Alternative" in issue #86. I don't have
>the
>issue in front of me, but I seem to recall that a character received a pool
>of experience points if he or she did not choose a school of magic.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@m...> wrote:

> Has anybody provided a copy of the Dragonquester's Notebook to
> any of the lists? It sounds like they might be interesting.

>During character generation non-magic users always placed Magical
>Aptitude (MA) at their minimum value. At first, our group believed
>that making MA useless to non-magic users was an intentional design
>concept to give character point bonuses to non-magic users. However,
>when groups play for decades thier thoughts change.
>
>Now our thought is that MA should effect all players in some way.

> The DragonQuester's Notebook articles were reprinted in the
> DragonQuest Newsletter, over a course of a few issues.

>> During character generation non-magic users always placed Magical
>> Aptitude (MA) at their minimum value. At first, our group believed
>> that making MA useless to non-magic users was an intentional design
>> concept to give character point bonuses to non-magic users. However,
>> when groups play for decades thier thoughts change.
>>
>> Now our thought is that MA should effect all players in some way.
>
> Okay, I've gotta ask...
>
> Why?

> >During character generation non-magic users always placed Magical
> >Aptitude (MA) at their minimum value. At first, our group believed
> >that making MA useless to non-magic users was an intentional design
> >concept to give character point bonuses to non-magic users. However,
> >when groups play for decades thier thoughts change.
> >
> >Now our thought is that MA should effect all players in some way.
>
> Okay, I've gotta ask...
>
> Why?
>
> -Cameron

>
>
> I am not making my case very well (I have a head cold so this is harder
> to put together than I would like). Please understand that I am trying
> to open a discussion rather than end one. My simple proposal has been
> shot down (probably rightfully so as presented) but I THINK the idea
> behind it (its motivation) is valid.
>
> If any characteristic is reduced or inflated, it should affect the rest
> of the character in some way. Each character is the sum of all of its
> parts - but I think we are focusing on just the base characteristics
> and their immediately derived values which could make the discussion
> easier. Looking at MA, which is basically a representation of how well
> a character is 'tapped in to the mana field' it makes sense that higher
> values of MA will make casting magic easier and lower MA will make it
> tougher.
>
> The idea behind my proposal is that a character with a higher MA will
> better understand the nature of the mana directed at him (or her) and
> be better able to 'resist' it. WP is still necessary to 'direct that
> resistance' or to be able to 'focus whatever mechanism is actually
> happening' that causes the spell to fail to take effect. It makes MR a
> more robust and involved derived characteristic as well as providing
> motivation to consider ALL the characteristics for every character
> created.

> > >Now our thought is that MA should effect all players in some way.
> >
> > Why?
>
>If you mean, why over time our thoughts changed. In part it changed
>because of situations that occurred during play.

>- A player asked why would a non-magic user ever want to increase MA
>unless they wanted to become a magic user. And the answer was, they
>never would.

>- Players created invested items with the intent on having non-magic
>users activate them. This reduced the risk to the magic user for
>invested spells, with no reduction with succeess with the item.

>- All the other primary characteristics effect ALL characters in
>multiple ways.

>- Most important was we asked ourselves why should MA be only effect
>magic users and not all aspects of magic. That was the deciding
>factor, because MA should affect all aspects of magic.

>I think our beloved DQ is actually more of a combination of these, since
>many of the characteristics kind of serve multiple duties, although it is
>shaded towards the discreet side. What I THINK this means is that a
>combination of characteristics applies for most derived characteristics.
>Thus something like MR would be affected by WP and MA. Certainly
>everybody's outlook and philosophy will be different. Note that I THINK the
>game was designed with all characters being spell caster's so the idea of
>non-mages seems to break the model down a bit.

>I am not making my case very well (I have a head cold so this is harder to
>put together than I would like). Please understand that I am trying to open
>a discussion rather than end one. My simple proposal has been shot down
>(probably rightfully so as presented) but I THINK the idea behind it (its
>motivation) is valid.

>The idea behind my proposal is that a character with a higher MA will
>better understand the nature of the mana directed at him (or her) and be
>better able to 'resist' it.

>It makes MR a more robust and involved derived characteristic as well as
>providing motivation to consider ALL the characteristics for every
>character created.

>I hate rambling so I will end this many words later than I should have. We
>are all free to play any way we wish. The game still works as written as
>near as I can tell, it is just this one odd area (non-mage creation) that
>seems to be a huge problem if not handled with a little care.

>Hey folks!
>In the small amounts of free time I seem to have recently, I have
>been editing/modifying/correcting the weapon descriptions in Edi's
>Compiled Weapons Chart. I've plunged through most of the swords and
>have begun work on the hafted weapons. When I get a section complete
>I will post the info here.
>
>One thing that has come up time and again is, wouldn't it be nice to
>have illustrations to go along with the written descriptions? So, I
>have begun to look for royalty free clipart and illustrations of the
>various weapons. Then it dawned on me, maybe someone has done this
>already, or has at least started it.
>
>So, I was wondering if anyone has a collection of clipart,
>illustrations, or photographs of any of the weapons in the Compiled
>Weapons Chart. If necessary, I can give you the edited descriptions
>and you can check and see if your items match.
>
>Eventually I will compile the whole work into an illustrated weapons
>guide for DragonQuest. I'll even include weapon cards with all the
>stats for a weapon and its picture all on a card you can print out.
>
>Well, back to the grindstone!
>
>Before I go, here's one of the descriptions I have completed.
>Estoc: A long, straight thrusting sword whose blade typically has a
>lozenge shaped or hexagonal cross-section, or more rarely a
>triangular one. The blade is very stiff and ideal for thrusting and
>piercing plate armor. It is generally sharpened only near the point
>and is virtually edgeless otherwise. Blade length may be up to almost
>four feet. They are used with two hands, with the second hand often
>gripping the blade, and are similar to great-swords (but are
>unrelated to later rapiers).
>
>Stephen Miller
>Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Hey folks!
> In the small amounts of free time I seem to have recently, I have
> been editing/modifying/correcting the weapon descriptions in Edi's
> Compiled Weapons Chart. I've plunged through most of the swords and
> have begun work on the hafted weapons. When I get a section complete
> I will post the info here.
>
> One thing that has come up time and again is, wouldn't it be nice to
> have illustrations to go along with the written descriptions? So, I
> have begun to look for royalty free clipart and illustrations of the
> various weapons. Then it dawned on me, maybe someone has done this
> already, or has at least started it.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone has a collection of clipart,
> illustrations, or photographs of any of the weapons in the Compiled
> Weapons Chart. If necessary, I can give you the edited descriptions
> and you can check and see if your items match.
>
> Eventually I will compile the whole work into an illustrated weapons
> guide for DragonQuest. I'll even include weapon cards with all the
> stats for a weapon and its picture all on a card you can print out.
>
> Well, back to the grindstone!
>
> Before I go, here's one of the descriptions I have completed.
> Estoc: A long, straight thrusting sword whose blade typically has a
> lozenge shaped or hexagonal cross-section, or more rarely a
> triangular one. The blade is very stiff and ideal for thrusting and
> piercing plate armor. It is generally sharpened only near the point
> and is virtually edgeless otherwise. Blade length may be up to almost
> four feet. They are used with two hands, with the second hand often
> gripping the blade, and are similar to great-swords (but are
> unrelated to later rapiers).
>
> Stephen Miller
> Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon

> Hey folks!
> In the small amounts of free time I seem to have recently, I have
> been editing/modifying/correcting the weapon descriptions in Edi's
> Compiled Weapons Chart. I've plunged through most of the swords and
> have begun work on the hafted weapons. When I get a section complete
> I will post the info here.
>
> One thing that has come up time and again is, wouldn't it be nice to
> have illustrations to go along with the written descriptions? So, I
> have begun to look for royalty free clipart and illustrations of the
> various weapons. Then it dawned on me, maybe someone has done this
> already, or has at least started it.
>
> So, I was wondering if anyone has a collection of clipart,
> illustrations, or photographs of any of the weapons in the Compiled
> Weapons Chart. If necessary, I can give you the edited descriptions
> and you can check and see if your items match.
>
> Eventually I will compile the whole work into an illustrated weapons
> guide for DragonQuest. I'll even include weapon cards with all the
> stats for a weapon and its picture all on a card you can print out.
>
> Well, back to the grindstone!
>
> Before I go, here's one of the descriptions I have completed.
> Estoc: A long, straight thrusting sword whose blade typically has a
> lozenge shaped or hexagonal cross-section, or more rarely a
> triangular one. The blade is very stiff and ideal for thrusting and
> piercing plate armor. It is generally sharpened only near the point
> and is virtually edgeless otherwise. Blade length may be up to almost
> four feet. They are used with two hands, with the second hand often
> gripping the blade, and are similar to great-swords (but are
> unrelated to later rapiers).
>
> Stephen Miller
> Ancient Gamer and Curmudgeon

>> The idea behind my proposal is that a character with a higher MA will
>> better understand the nature of the mana directed at him (or her) and
>> be
>> better able to 'resist' it.
>
> The problem with this idea is that the available evidence suggests
> just the
> opposite--that characters with high MAs are *more* susceptible to
> magical
> influences *despite* (or perhaps because of) their natural affinity for
> them.

> No, I meant "Why do you think MA should affect all players in
> some way?" (And just to make sure no one feels like they're
> under attack, I don't intend these questions in any nasty way.)

> >- Players created invested items with the intent on having
> > non-magic users activate them. This reduced the risk to the
> > magic user for invested spells, with no reduction with
> > succeess with the item.
>
> This seems to be one of the primary purposes of the Investment
> Ritual, to my way of thinking. But okay, I can accept a
> different point of view.

> >- All the other primary characteristics effect ALL characters in
> > multiple ways.
>
> A 5 MA has the same effect on ALL characters: they can't cast
> spells or perform minor magic very well (or in some cases,
> at all). That non-Adepts don't *care* whether they can do
> those things is not really the point.

> >- Most important was we asked ourselves why should MA be only
> > effect magic users and not all aspects of magic. That was
> > the deciding factor, because MA should affect all aspects
> > of magic.
>
> That seems like an overly broad statement, which assumes that
> a high MA should *positively* affect "all aspects" of magic.
>
> For example, is Magic Resistance an "aspect of magic?" If so,
> then a high MA should increase one's MR, right? But the system
> clearly implies that a talent for magic (high MA) actually makes
> one more *susceptible* to magical influences (because non-Adepts
> gain a bonus to MR that Adepts do not).

> That would be rules evidence. Non-mages MR is WP+20, mages MR is WP +
> 5 per hour spent in Purification, maximum of three hours, so WP+15 at
> most, for at most 30 hours at Rank 0.

> That would be rules evidence.  Non-mages MR is WP+20, mages MR is WP +
> 5 per hour spent in Purification, maximum of three hours, so WP+15 at
> most, for at most 30 hours at Rank 0. 
>  
> I personally don't see anything wrong with non-mage characters.  Could
> you please elaborate what was wrong with non-mage characters in your
> games?  I don't understand what you mean by reduced
> healing/enhancement effectiveness.

> One thing that has come up time and again is, wouldn't it be nice

> have illustrations to go along with the written descriptions? So,

> have begun to look for royalty free clipart and illustrations of

> various weapons. Then it dawned on me, maybe someone has done this
> already, or has at least started it.

> What happened in the game with one non-mage is that the non-mage
> imbalanced most encounters. The mage types were not very effective in
> any combat that posed anything remotely resembling a challenge to the
> non-mage. Admittedly it has been a LOT of years since this happened
> and I have probably forgotten most of the actual details. We used that
> 6500 EXP bonus to character creation method which may have (probably
> did) contribute to the problem.
>
>
> The healing thing is about the non-mages natural 'resistance' to
> healing magic based on a potentially higher WP/MR.
>
>
> Given that I am not active in any DQ game, I should probably bow down
> to the superior knowledge of the rules that the rest of you (active)
> players possess. My proposal was just a thought brought about by
> memories of a problem that happened many years ago and is partly to
> mostly shrouded in the veils of lost youth (definitely not wasted
> youth, just no longer here that I can find without new glasses). I
> even screwed up the MR formula!
>
>
> I do still like the idea of MR being tied to some combination of WP
> and MA, though. It appeals to my sense of what reality could have been
> if the universe had followed a slightly more consistent and rationale
> set of creation laws. If I ever get to play again...
>
>
> I envy those of you actually playing!
>
>
> Helvetica "Be who you are and
> say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who
> matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>
>
> Love is a full time job, with fringe benefits.
>
>
> "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make
> them all yourself."
>
>

> Steve (and anyone else interested),

> You are right about there being some material already there. Have a
> look at the image files in this group's Files.