On Fri, 7 May 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> >You've misunderstood my position. It is not that the Colleges mean
> >something more than the rules say they are, it is that a character is
> >more than just his stats and abilities say he is.

> I quite agree. He is what his player says he is. Not what I say he is, or
> what you say he is.

No. A character is not "what his player says he is." A character is
what his player *makes* him, by the process of *role-playing*.

> >> I like the idea of a fighter who learns the Mind College so they can
> >> Resist Pain, and who is utterly pathetic when it comes to casting. If the
> >> player wants to develop their College later on, that's fine...

> >I like that idea, too. What I don't like is the idea of a *player* who
> >has his character join a College just so they can Resist Pain. See the
> >difference?

> Practically? No.

Then I don't know how to explain it to you.

> >> In general, I believe it is best to let players have a free hand, when it
> >> comes to character design...It is, after all, the area of the game they
> >> are most qualified to make decisions about.

> >No argument there.

> What, then, are you saying? On the one hand, you say that you would refuse
> to allow a player the choice of a character that is clearly within the
> rules, and that does not, at least as far as I see, create imbalance or
> unfairness within the game. Yet, on the other, you agree with me that there
> is no particularly good reason to limit a player's choices for their
> character.
> I consider these positions to be dichotomous.

I think we'd better just give up trying to communicate. I never said I
would *refuse* to allow a player the choice, only that I would discourage
him from making that one. And part of my reason for doing so would be to
avoid creating imbalances and unfairness within the game. Yet I do agree
with you that there is no *justifiable* reason to limit a player's choice
(i.e., refuse to give him the option). The positions are not dichotomous,
incompatible, or contradictory.

If you want to say anything more on the subject, why don't you just e-mail
it to me alone? I doubt very much that anyone else is interested in our
endless bickering (though I, for some reason, never seem to tire of it).



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Fri, 7 May 1999, David Mason wrote:

> Do people play illusions in wards as preprogramed entirely, allow some
> ability to react to cicumstances, ban them completly or what?

Good question. I make them entirely preprogrammed.

> Do people allow Concentration length spells in wards if the caster is
> close enough to "take up" concentration?

No. The presence or absence or distance of the caster from the Ward when
it is triggered is entirely irrelevant. Certain spells with a duration of
"Concentration" are not (IMO) suitable for Wards: Spells of Controlling,
for example. For those that are suitable (say, Web of Flames), I would
simply use the maximum duration. If there is no maximum duration *and*
the spell is suitable, you'd need a Namer and 39Q-1.

> How about concentration length spells having effect for 1 round?

What's a "round"? One Pulse? If so, it would likely be too short a
duration to make much difference.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Though I have only subscribed to the list for a short term I must
compliment all users for the good conduct under which debates and
discussions are undertaken. Not only are the topics well discussed
often by those with quite opposing views but if an apology is given it
sems to be done so with well meaning with any extra added snide
comments and such. This compares well to other 'lists and groups' I
have subscribed (and lurked) with.
I have almost finished work on my ideas for a 'good' black magician
seeing how well recieved one of my players 'good' necromancer was, and
look forward to receiving well structured comment on it , whether in
agreement or not.

My thanks for a well run list

John R Davis
Nottingham, England.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Does anyone allow Sorcerer's of the Mind to automatically resist the effects
of the AGONY spell? This spell is, well, it is what it is . . . the joy of
watching one of your PC walk around and slaughter your host of NPC's, who can
literally do nothing in their own defense unless they resist, and then they
are at a serious disadvantage . . . at half-action. Drives a GM to drink!
Any strategies for countering this spell, other than its banishment or use to
wipe out the offending group, would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Fri, 7 May 1999 VancrownX@aol.com wrote:

> Does anyone allow Sorcerer's of the Mind to automatically resist the effects
> of the AGONY spell? This spell is, well, it is what it is . . . the joy of
> watching one of your PC walk around and slaughter your host of NPC's, who can
> literally do nothing in their own defense unless they resist, and then they
> are at a serious disadvantage . . . at half-action. Drives a GM to drink!
> Any strategies for countering this spell, other than its banishment or use to
> wipe out the offending group, would be greatly appreciated!

It does say that Sorcerors are "more or less immune to pain," so it
would not be unreasonable to conclude that a Spell of Agony would
have no effect on them. On the other hand, a GM might also decide
that the Spell trumps the Talent, or strike the balance by allowing
Sorcerors to completely ignore the Spell if they resist, and suffer
only the -30 Strike Chance/half-Action effects if they don't.

Frankly, I've never had any problem with the Spell of Agony being
out-of-balance. Its low Base Chance (10%) seems like enough of a
limitation. Also, keep in mind that its not a real good spell for
a PC to use unless he is completely alone--in which case, the GM
probably won't mind his being able to incapacitate so many foes.
(That is, unless the GM *wants* the Adept to die for some reason.)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

A couple points here.

1. Sorcerers of the mind are "immune to pain" therfore the Agony spell has
no affect on them.

2. The agony spell effects friends and enemies equally. So unless the Adept
is alone, he can very likely bring about the demise of a party member as
well.

Also, all those affected are restricted to a pass action, which still allows
some movement (2 hexes and a facing change) so in the case of multiple
enemies, some can simply scurry away.

As GM, you can overcome this spell by throwing multiple non magic using
enemies at the Adept. The non-magic using creatures will have a fairly
decent Magic resistance, allowing many of them to still attack, though at
the reduced rate. If the Adept is with a party, the enemies should have
easy pickings of the Adepts fellow party members as they suffer from the
agony spell. The Adept will be forced to drop the spell, to allow his
fellows to defend themselves. If the Adept is alone, he'll be hard pressed
to defeat multiple enemies single handedly.

Of course there will still be situaions where a limited number of enemies
will be faced, and all could fail their magic resistances. An option is to
allow a passive MR roll every pulse that a creature is affected, until he
regains some ability to move.

Depending on whether you play the spell as a concentration spell, you could
do the following:

Assume the Adept has to maintain concentration to make the spell work. This
will not allow him to do much more than take a pass action himself (move 2
hexes) during the spell. He would be unable to attack or launch another
spell. Of course this would cause the spell to be of limited offensive
usefulness.

Assuming that the spell is not a concentration spell, and that the Adept
could go on and cast another spell or attack, while the Agony spell
continued. Just have an enemy run into the area a pulse or two after the
spell was cast. These new creatures would not be affected by the spell, and
could attack the Adept freely without any harm. Of course the Adepts fellow
party members could wait back a distance in reserve to counter such a move.
In which case, the Adept will be exposed to a pulse or two of attacks before
his spell is released, and should be a fairly dangerous prospect.

So overall, the Agony Spell can really ruin a designed attack, but its not
overly powerful, as many spells can ruin a planned attack.

>Does anyone allow Sorcerer's of the Mind to automatically resist the

effects

>of the AGONY spell? This spell is, well, it is what it is . . . the joy

of

>watching one of your PC walk around and slaughter your host of NPC's, who

can

>literally do nothing in their own defense unless they resist, and then they
>are at a serious disadvantage . . . at half-action. Drives a GM to drink!
>Any strategies for countering this spell, other than its banishment or use

to

>wipe out the offending group, would be greatly appreciated!
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>M. Andre Vancrown
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

> Do people play illusions in wards as preprogramed entirely, allow some
> ability to react to cicumstances, ban them completly or what?

Good question. I make them entirely preprogrammed.

> Do people allow Concentration length spells in wards if the caster is
> close enough to "take up" concentration?

No. The presence or absence or distance of the caster from the Ward when
it is triggered is entirely irrelevant. Certain spells with a duration of
"Concentration" are not (IMO) suitable for Wards: Spells of Controlling,
for example. For those that are suitable (say, Web of Flames), I would
simply use the maximum duration. If there is no maximum duration *and*
the spell is suitable, you'd need a Namer and 39Q-1.

I've always done it that way to, but it occured to me there dosn't seem to be any particular reason. Control person is the most striking example. Perhaps a willpower and/or perception roll to see how swiftly the adept works out what's going on...

It also occures to me that spells such as Telekinesis could be put in a ward, the caster would need to specify somthing already in the area to be moved in a particular way, Eg "that stone to be moved 20 feet north", and concentrate as if moving it. This could make accuracy a bit limiting (no mid-flight correction) and if the stone were taken away before the ward was set off then the spell would fail.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Hi All, does anyone use the prospecter skill from Starsilver Trek in their DQ
game? Is it any good? Does anyone use the variants presented in Dr4agon
in their games? If so which ones and are they any good? Thanks for the
feedback
--Geoff

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

We've made an adjustment to the Mind talent. Rather than absolute immunity
to stun, it adds 1 per rank to the amount of damage necessary to cause stun
to the adept. Also, no magic of any college will work while in contact with
more than two arrowheads' worth of untreated iron, so a grunt's going to be
wearing leather or bronze armor and having to pay for silvering all of his
weapons.

We've only had one player try the warrior with mind magics option - he didn't
survive long enough to test the situation.

Russ Jones
rjonesdq@aol.com
members.aol.com/rjonesdq/dqrules

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>

>
>> Practically? No.
>
>Then I don't know how to explain it to you.

This is a pointless comment.

>I think we'd better just give up trying to communicate. I never said I
>would *refuse* to allow a player the choice, only that I would discourage
>him from making that one. And part of my reason for doing so would be to
>avoid creating imbalances and unfairness within the game. Yet I do agree
>with you that there is no *justifiable* reason to limit a player's choice
>(i.e., refuse to give him the option). The positions are not dichotomous,
>incompatible, or contradictory.
>

And yet, you have shown no occasion where it is unbalanced or unfair.

>If you want to say anything more on the subject, why don't you just e-mail
>it to me alone? I doubt very much that anyone else is interested in our
>endless bickering (though I, for some reason, never seem to tire of it).

I am not interested in continuing this line of discussion with you unless
you are going to say something germane.
I'm not particularly fond of bickering, either.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

If I remember correctly, the big deterant to PC's using agony is the effect on their own party. I would say mind sorcerers are not impaired by the spell (but I make it clear to players that the pain is still felt and the victim will probably want to avoid it). Would the Mind Shield spell or the abilities of a Healer also prevent the spells effects? Beserkers and some (other) insane folk would just be provoked by the spell. Also, of course the mindless golums and such are immune. If an adept aquired a reputation for use of the spell, potential oponent would go to some trouble to get their hands on the counterspell and/or the mindshield (perhaps invested in items?)
Hope this helps!

>>> <VancrownX@aol.com> 8/May/99 01:27:35 am >>>

Does anyone allow Sorcerer's of the Mind to automatically resist the effects
of the AGONY spell? This spell is, well, it is what it is . . . the joy of
watching one of your PC walk around and slaughter your host of NPC's, who can
literally do nothing in their own defense unless they resist, and then they
are at a serious disadvantage . . . at half-action. Drives a GM to drink!
Any strategies for countering this spell, other than its banishment or use to
wipe out the offending group, would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

The "Orc Slave" storyline was set soon (2-3 years) after the orcish people were "freed" from the powers of darkness in one of the great confrontations between light and dark. The reason this happened is I think all the PC races should be free to choose their path, while other sentiant races are bound to one side or the other or comitted to neutrality. When such confrontations begin, those sentiants bound to one side or the other may make a willpower check to resist the call if they want to. Most wouldn't try to resist for feer of social alianation and being killed as deserters/traitors/heretics etc.

In the most recent such confrontation the "Free Orcish League" sent a small contingent for the light. They addopted the surcoat of concentric red rings on front and back...

Stories of a small band of dark "heros" winning humanity freedom from the light, the elves being granted freedom as part of a "deal" with the dark and legends of how goblinkind may be freed go with this plot.
Powerful PCs may one day free goblinkind! If anyone runs (or has run) such a story, I would like to integrat it into the folklore of my game.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

The immunity to stun gives a warrior which is otherwise not brilliant a distinct "Flavour", the tenacious "Keeps on coming" type. Perhaps if players want this ability but don't want to play characters as if they've spent years learning their magic, the ability should be available elsewhere. Such as a warrior profesion, martial artist and/or allow a "Limited membership" of the collage?

Limited collage membership could involve getting talents and maybe a few general spells. The iron restrictions would still apply but the MA wouldn't. I know this is going the opposit direction on MA limits, but it means a player can get the talents which add a distinct style to a character without needing to adopt a collage.

Perhaps a "Gift" of a talent could be inborn in a person from a magical world. Each such gift could add 0.1 to the xp multiple.

>>> <RJonesDQ@aol.com> 11/May/99 11:51:56 am >>>

We've made an adjustment to the Mind talent. Rather than absolute immunity
to stun, it adds 1 per rank to the amount of damage necessary to cause stun
to the adept. Also, no magic of any college will work while in contact with
more than two arrowheads' worth of untreated iron, so a grunt's going to be
wearing leather or bronze armor and having to pay for silvering all of his
weapons.

We've only had one player try the warrior with mind magics option - he didn't
survive long enough to test the situation.

Russ Jones
rjonesdq@aol.com
members.aol.com/rjonesdq/dqrules

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

We play that stun only occurs on when you take an endurance hit for 1/3 or
more, not fatigue. It wasn't a planned deviaiton, we simply misinterpreted
the rules when we began playing, and now would never go back to stuns
occuring on fatigue. Our characters rarely wear anything heavier than
leather (due to realistic role playing, which does not include characters
walking around town or travelling in plate all the time), and would spend
entire combats being stunned. Not to mention, the enemy, which has a bad
enough time avoiding stuns as it is. Using such a rule, if you are willing
to change, would not make the stun immunity so desirable. I truly feel that
the stun on fatigue is not such a great rule, and I would understand why
players would desire making there fighters mind mages. Correct the stun
rule, not the mind talent, and the problem should correct itself.

>We've made an adjustment to the Mind talent. Rather than absolute immunity
>to stun, it adds 1 per rank to the amount of damage necessary to cause stun
>to the adept. Also, no magic of any college will work while in contact

with

>more than two arrowheads' worth of untreated iron, so a grunt's going to be
>wearing leather or bronze armor and having to pay for silvering all of his
>weapons.
>
>We've only had one player try the warrior with mind magics option - he

didn't

>survive long enough to test the situation.
>
>Russ Jones
>rjonesdq@aol.com
>members.aol.com/rjonesdq/dqrules
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

You might consider looking at Orcish Liberators, a racial discipline from
the EarthDawn game...It sounds very similar to what you're doing.
Some of the material on the race is available amongst the game literature,
as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 2:02 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Free Races


The "Orc Slave" storyline was set soon (2-3 years) after the orcish people
were "freed" from the powers of darkness in one of the great confrontations
between light and dark. The reason this happened is I think all the PC
races should be free to choose their path, while other sentiant races are
bound to one side or the other or comitted to neutrality. When such
confrontations begin, those sentiants bound to one side or the other may
make a willpower check to resist the call if they want to. Most wouldn't
try to resist for feer of social alianation and being killed as
deserters/traitors/heretics etc.

In the most recent such confrontation the "Free Orcish League" sent a small
contingent for the light. They addopted the surcoat of concentric red rings
on front and back...

Stories of a small band of dark "heros" winning humanity freedom from the
light, the elves being granted freedom as part of a "deal" with the dark and
legends of how goblinkind may be freed go with this plot.
Powerful PCs may one day free goblinkind! If anyone runs (or has run) such
a story, I would like to integrat it into the folklore of my game.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Mon, 10 May 1999, David Mason wrote:

> Would the Mind Shield spell or the abilities of a Healer also
> prevent the spells effects? Beserkers and some (other) insane
> folk would just be provoked by the spell. Also, of course the
> mindless golums and such are immune.

How would a Mind Cloak interfere with a Spell of Agony? What
abilities of a Healer (other soothing pain, which also puts the
patient to sleep) would help? I see no reason why mindless
creatures would be immune to the spell, either, unless they
are immune to pain and stunning in general. (Some golems are
immune to any magic which does not affect the substance of
which they are composed, anyway.) Undead would probably be
immune, though, since they can only be stunned for the Pulse
they are struck in--seems reasonable to conclude that they
don't feel "pain" or anything like it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

I don't have access to Earthdawn. Is it at all possible to send information to me on the topic?

>>> "Jim Arona" <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> 11/May/99 01:24:27 pm >>>

You might consider looking at Orcish Liberators, a racial discipline from
the EarthDawn game...It sounds very similar to what you're doing.
Some of the material on the race is available amongst the game literature,
as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 2:02 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Free Races


The "Orc Slave" storyline was set soon (2-3 years) after the orcish people
were "freed" from the powers of darkness in one of the great confrontations
between light and dark. The reason this happened is I think all the PC
races should be free to choose their path, while other sentiant races are
bound to one side or the other or comitted to neutrality. When such
confrontations begin, those sentiants bound to one side or the other may
make a willpower check to resist the call if they want to. Most wouldn't
try to resist for feer of social alianation and being killed as
deserters/traitors/heretics etc.

In the most recent such confrontation the "Free Orcish League" sent a small
contingent for the light. They addopted the surcoat of concentric red rings
on front and back...

Stories of a small band of dark "heros" winning humanity freedom from the
light, the elves being granted freedom as part of a "deal" with the dark and
legends of how goblinkind may be freed go with this plot.
Powerful PCs may one day free goblinkind! If anyone runs (or has run) such
a story, I would like to integrat it into the folklore of my game.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

I also run a campagn with little armor. The party are all at sea most of the time and the tropical setting also makes heavy armour both rare and uncomfortable. I find the stunned characters are very easy to kill unless other party members help *quickly*. It may help others with this problem to go through rules for disengageing and moving in combat situations.

I like the stun rule as is because:
- A nemisis can stun their opponent and then flee leaving their minions to engauge the party and delay pursuit.
- For speed and flow of large encounters I usualy assume any common grunt level enemy will be taken out of a battle when hit well once or twice (dead, incapacitated, stunned for the duration, playing dead or just without the moral to engauage the enemy again). This take the paperwork out of the heros ploughing through the footmen to get to the main encounter and only works when the footmen are clearly outclassed by the PC's. It's a dramatic licenc thing>

>>> "Todd E. Schreiber" <schreib@platinumcrown.com> 11/May/99 02:19:50 pm >>>

We play that stun only occurs on when you take an endurance hit for 1/3 or
more, not fatigue. It wasn't a planned deviaiton, we simply misinterpreted
the rules when we began playing, and now would never go back to stuns
occuring on fatigue. Our characters rarely wear anything heavier than
leather (due to realistic role playing, which does not include characters
walking around town or travelling in plate all the time), and would spend
entire combats being stunned. Not to mention, the enemy, which has a bad
enough time avoiding stuns as it is. Using such a rule, if you are willing
to change, would not make the stun immunity so desirable. I truly feel that
the stun on fatigue is not such a great rule, and I would understand why
players would desire making there fighters mind mages. Correct the stun
rule, not the mind talent, and the problem should correct itself.

>We've made an adjustment to the Mind talent. Rather than absolute immunity
>to stun, it adds 1 per rank to the amount of damage necessary to cause stun
>to the adept. Also, no magic of any college will work while in contact

with

>more than two arrowheads' worth of untreated iron, so a grunt's going to be
>wearing leather or bronze armor and having to pay for silvering all of his
>weapons.
>
>We've only had one player try the warrior with mind magics option - he

didn't

>survive long enough to test the situation.
>
>Russ Jones
>rjonesdq@aol.com
>members.aol.com/rjonesdq/dqrules
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

I agree that none of these conditions grant immunity to the Agony spell.
These things just don't read that way according to the rulesbook.

Thanks anyway!

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

[snip]
How would a Mind Cloak interfere with a Spell of Agony?
- I suggest it may be said to hide the caster's mind from a mental attack. This assumes that this is a mental rather than physical or just plain magical form of attack. The interpretation can affect other bits (see below).

What abilities of a Healer (other soothing pain, which also puts the patient to sleep) would help?
- I hadn't thought sooth pain put them to sleep, just makes them hazy (willpower to concentrate). This was the ability I had in mind, and even with my interpretation, the healer staying close or in contact is going to be inconveniant.

I see no reason why mindless creatures would be immune to the spell, either, unless they are immune to pain and stunning in general. (Some golems are immune to any magic which does not affect the substance of which they are composed, anyway.)
- I go with the assumption that all mindless creatures are immune to pain. Pain being a function of the nervous system (which most, if not all mindless monsters lack).

Undead would probably be immune, though, since they can only be stunned for the Pulse they are struck in--seems reasonable to conclude that they don't feel "pain" or anything like it.
I wonder if greater undead can feel pain? they have free will, minds the ability to recognis damage. This could be a new thread.

It has since occured to me that drugs could provide protection from this spell. It would depend on where you decide the spell attacks the target and where the drug blocks pain. If the drug affects the nerves in the body and the spell goes strait to the brain, the drug makes no difference. If they come in at the same point or the drug works "deeper", the drug would provide protection.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

> I see no reason why mindless
>creatures would be immune to the spell, either, unless they
>are immune to pain and stunning in general.

I suppose "mindless creatures" is a rather broad stroke, but any creature
that is alive and has a nervous system is subject to pain. Therefore, I
would assume that the giant amoeba would feel the effects, but undead would
not, as they are not alive, but do have nervous systems. However, Vampires,
would be susceptible, as though they are undead, they are alive as well. I
use the fact that they require nourishment to survive, therefore, they are
not completely dead. Golems of course are neither alive nor do they have
nervous systems, so they would be immune to pain, regardless of other spell
immunities.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

>... The presence or absence or distance of the caster from the Ward when it
>is triggered is entirely irrelevant. Certain spells with a duration of
>"Concentration" are not (IMO) suitable for Wards: Spells of Controlling,
>for example...

Just as a devil's advocate, I'd like to say that I expressly permit these
spells to be placed in a ward. Specifically, I remember a certain wizard's
tower that had a ward invested that caused its victim to have the
subconcious urge to harm his companions. I can't remember the entire
specifics, but I definitely came my own conclusion that certain
concentration effects can be sustained by a suitably warded area, so long as
the ward only worked in that area. I believe that each concentration ward
would have its own specific considerations, but I think that to subscribe to
hard and fast rules can be especially limiting in a game like DQ, with its
otherwise rigidly defined spell effects. It avoids a players sense that no
matter what happens, they've read the magic section, and so they assume that
the result of any magical event can be easily codified.


______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Thanks, all, for your suggestions! Most of this is common knowledge and of
little help . . . still, I had to fish!

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
everything is sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.

Quite a pickle.

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Todd E. Schreiber wrote:

> However, Vampires,
> would be susceptible, as though they are undead, they are alive as well. I
> use the fact that they require nourishment to survive, therefore, they are
> not completely dead.

Of course, most vampires are also Sorcerors of the Mind, and thus
cannot be stunned anyway...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

[snip]
Just as a devil's advocate, I'd like to say that I expressly permit these
spells to be placed in a ward.
- How do you handel control spells in this situation?

It avoids a players sense that no matter what happens, they've read the magic section, and so they assume that the result of any magical event can be easily codified.
- find a useful part to this is the invention of new spells. Whats in the book are the "standerds" that everyone knows about. Other spells are only known by specific groups (cults, families, students of a particular teacher etc)

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Obviously, he would be an extremely powerful character, to have high rank in
Agony and have a 26 modified Agility. Therefore, the enemy should be high
level as well. Any GM worth his weight in pickles should be able to make a
challenge for the little monster. And if he's so tough, go try that trick
on a dragon.


-----Original Message-----
From: VancrownX@aol.com <VancrownX@aol.com>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 10:51 AM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: SOM's and AGONY

>Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
>action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
>everything is sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.
>
>Quite a pickle.
>
>M. Andre Vancrown
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

If the problem is the spell, as written, change the spell.
You have a number of alternatives. You could make it a cone shaped spell,
you could give it a small area of effect, you could say that targets that
resist the primary effects of the Agony are allowed a resistance against
the -30 and slowing effects, as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: VancrownX@aol.com <VancrownX@aol.com>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 2:48 AM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: SOM's and AGONY

>Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
>action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
>everything is sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.
>
>Quite a pickle.
>
>M. Andre Vancrown
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Well, I don't have a soft copy, and I'm not going to type it all
out...There's a whole book full of the stuff...
The book's name is EarthDawn Companion 2.Most gaming shops will have a copy
of it, I'd say.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 2:47 AM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Free Races


I don't have access to Earthdawn. Is it at all possible to send information
to me on the topic?

>>> "Jim Arona" <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> 11/May/99 01:24:27 pm >>>

You might consider looking at Orcish Liberators, a racial discipline from
the EarthDawn game...It sounds very similar to what you're doing.
Some of the material on the race is available amongst the game literature,
as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 2:02 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Free Races


The "Orc Slave" storyline was set soon (2-3 years) after the orcish people
were "freed" from the powers of darkness in one of the great confrontations
between light and dark. The reason this happened is I think all the PC
races should be free to choose their path, while other sentiant races are
bound to one side or the other or comitted to neutrality. When such
confrontations begin, those sentiants bound to one side or the other may
make a willpower check to resist the call if they want to. Most wouldn't
try to resist for feer of social alianation and being killed as
deserters/traitors/heretics etc.

In the most recent such confrontation the "Free Orcish League" sent a small
contingent for the light. They addopted the surcoat of concentric red rings
on front and back...

Stories of a small band of dark "heros" winning humanity freedom from the
light, the elves being granted freedom as part of a "deal" with the dark and
legends of how goblinkind may be freed go with this plot.
Powerful PCs may one day free goblinkind! If anyone runs (or has run) such
a story, I would like to integrat it into the folklore of my game.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

This seems a situation to me where more role-playing and less
rule-interpreting might help. Over the years I played (very infrequently
now) from time to time a character or group of characters would develop a
particular combination of faculties which would be very difficult for the DM
to deal with. One combination I was part of was a dark mage/thief paired up
with a frost giant with very high attributes.

The DM's ultimate solution for our persistant thrashing of his constructed
scenarios was to handle it within the game. The more powerful we became, the
more notorious we got. The richer we became, the more of a target for other
adventurers we became. Eventually a fight with a number of sorceror/pirates
and a roc turned out badly for the giant of our pair and the poor dark mage
was left on his own thereafter.

So, for your situation, perhaps your necromancer/halfling will attract the
attention of some mind mage/unarmed combat expert halfling with equivalent
physical abilities from far away who will make it a solemn quest to bring
this character to justice. Or, perhaps something else (knowing nothing about
the world you have set up.)

Another DM I played with years ago would have had a simpler solution to this
type of situation. He simply would have provided a group of long-range
archers to be in an attacking party. Assuming your necromancer is up to a
range of 180 feet as rank ten, he still will be vulnerable to a group of
bowmen, say rank 4 firing from 200 feet. (With a strike chance ultimately of
around 30-40% each--or even less). Enough firepower and virtually anyone
becomes vulnerable.

Of course, the point isn't to simply find a way to take the character out,
but to find a way to set up your world so it's fun for you and him or her to
continue to play in. Thus, perhaps the mere knowledge that such a force of
bowmen is out there after him may give you enough of an ability to channel
the person to accomplish what you want.

It seems worth remembering that the GM is empowered to make whatever changes
in the rules he or she wishes. Don't worry too much about being consistent
across all portions of the rules. Sometimes they won't necessarily make
sense with one another and that's okay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

VancrownX@aol.com wrote:

>
> Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
> action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
> everything is sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.
>

So, this brings up in my mind smthg my group were discussing a few years
ago. The DQ rules say that "a few ounces (of iron) is sufficient to
prevent the workings of all but racial Talent magic". In that case, why
not just slow down the halfling necro (or any other mage) by putting a
large iron arrowhead into them ? A normal broadhead arrowhead is ~ 1oz;
if the GM doesn't like the idea of double normal size "anti-mage"
arrows, use a javelin or a harpoon ... Thoughts anyone ?

Ben
________________________________________________________________________
Ben Davis ben@aubergine.demon.co.uk
"You can make me do it, but you can't make me do it with dignity"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

>>> "Todd E. Schreiber" <schreib@platinumcrown.com> 11/May/99 02:42:05 pm >>>

> I see no reason why mindless
>creatures would be immune to the spell, either, unless they
>are immune to pain and stunning in general.

I suppose "mindless creatures" is a rather broad stroke, but any creature
that is alive and has a nervous system is subject to pain. Therefore, I
would assume that the giant amoeba would feel the effects, but undead would
not, as they are not alive, but do have nervous systems. However, Vampires,
would be susceptible, as though they are undead, they are alive as well. I
use the fact that they require nourishment to survive, therefore, they are
not completely dead. Golems of course are neither alive nor do they have
nervous systems, so they would be immune to pain, regardless of other spell
immunities.

I consider the giant amoeba and similar beasties to not have a nervous system as such. I have assumed they are like their smaller cousins and use chemical floating around for internal communication. I've studied biology so I guess I've brought that knowledge with me withou thinking of other options. Not having a brain to register pain, I would assume a simple stimulus-response system conmtroles their behavior. Serious damage (stunning) might still disrupt communications. Perhaps in a setting where such enemies are common, spells to target them would be devised, perhaps in the water collage?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

>Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
>action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
>everything in sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.

Ahhh, I see. I will assume that any character of such might will have
enemies, and these enemies will be aware of his particular talents.

Therefore, they decide to use, oh, say 3 reasonably skilled archers equipped
with a potion of walking unseen and poisoned arrows, one of which is skilled
enough as a ranger to hide them effectively in addition to their
unseen-ness. This is assuming that the PC is guilty of flaunting his power
enough that someone wants him dead. The archers can stand a good distance
away, hide invisibly, and simply shoot the poor halfling until he collapses.
Then they shoot him some more. Or they could do something _really_
underhanded and just poison his food at the next inn.

Of course, this tactic tends to work on most all PCs, and I would hardly
call it fair. However, if your main NPC is angry enough and has been foiled
enough and lost many faceless minions, then sure he'd do it.

Another option is to have a group of equally-as-badass-as-the-PCs good guys
come looking for this "evil and possessed halfling that commands the dead".
Give them invested items with counterspells against Necromancy (they know
he's a major mojo-slingin' super dangerous Necromancer already). Watch the
fun. This sort of thing can be as overblown as you want, involving more
than just a few do-gooder NPCs, (think of the angry villagers from the
Frankenstein movies, the ones with the pitchforks). If the halfling doesn't
die, then the other PCs may be persuaded to cease hanging around him as he
constitutes too large a threat to be near.

The "Angry Villagers" option is a really great one. Wait for him to
massacre a few more people near a center of population. Ensure a survivor,
and then have a mob of about 50 people show up with pitchforks and rocks.
Eventually, _someone_ is going to get a lucky hit in, and teach the halfling
a lesson. You needn't kill him, but a nice heapin' helpin' of humble pie
ought to do him some good.

Than again, you may encourage him in his dastardly ways and simply give up
trying to challenge him. Once the other players begin to complain of
boredom, point at the halfling and kindly ask the other players to convince
him to retire. Until then, let them have their fun slaughtering peasants
and the like.

All these solutions are combat-oriented and require you to flex your GM
muscle, and you risk getting spotted for your arbitrary use of your infinite
power -- not something players usually react kindly to.
The final option, and the route I take most often with powerful characters,
is to reduce the amount of combat in the campaign. I've been running my
group now for about 6 or 7 sessions now without more than a single combat
per session, and have to say that the campaign is running great. The
players roleplay more, I bookkeep less, and everyone still has fun. Find
other ways to challenge the character -- you're going to have to eventually
anyway. The combats I run now (for the most part) are either climactic
battles or an excuse for the PCs to feel good about themselves; there's no
need for you to feel obligated to attempt to defeat the halfling in normal,
stand-up non-ambush combat.


______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

>>> <VancrownX@aol.com> 11/May/99 02:55:47 pm >>>

Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
everything is sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.

Quite a pickle.

M. Andre Vancrown

- Nasty. Am I right in thinking the problem is that the Agony spell is becoming a "solveall" for combat situations, leaving the other party members on thesidelines?
How about throwing hostages and or civilions into the mix (eg a mugging in town or an ssasin in the pub?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

>>> <RJonesDQ@aol.com> 11/May/99 11:51:56 am >>>

We've made an adjustment to the Mind talent. Rather than absolute immunity
to stun, it adds 1 per rank to the amount of damage necessary to cause stun
to the adept. Also, no magic of any college will work while in contact with
more than two arrowheads' worth of untreated iron, so a grunt's going to be
wearing leather or bronze armor and having to pay for silvering all of his
weapons.

We've only had one player try the warrior with mind magics option - he didn't
survive long enough to test the situation.

- That change would certinly make the talent worth ranking.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

> Just as a devil's advocate, I'd like to say that I expressly permit these
> spells to be placed in a ward.

> - How do you handle control spells in this situation?

I make the controlling aspect of the spell pre-determined, and in a specific
manner. Something on the lines of, "you feel compelled to go to the nearby
pool and jump in". I definitely wouldn't let the instructions of a control
spell in a ward be determined at the time of the ward's activation.

> It avoids a players sense that no matter what happens, they've read the magic

section, and so they assume that the result of any magical event can be easily
codified.

> - find a useful part to this is the invention of new spells. Whats in the

book are the "standards" that everyone knows about. Other spells are only
known by specific groups (cults, families, students of a particular teacher
etc)


Yeah, there's no denying how important it is to generate magical effects
that are beyond the scope of player familiarity. I especially like it when
the players get flustered and say things like, "That's impossible! No spell
can do that!" They need that pulling the rug out from underneath them every
once in a while, just to keep things from being too rote. Keeps 'em coming
back for more.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

<e0a9b59e.2469125-@aol.com> wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/dqn-list/?start=226

> Hmmm, when the PC is a halfling Necro with a 26 modified agility and double
> action, he does not need the other party members. He runs around killing
> everything is sight . . . and nothing can get away from him.
>
> Quite a pickle.
>
> M. Andre Vancrown
>

Boy, turn your back for a little while, and there's suddenly a hundred more posts around here. Wow!

Anyway, I've been following this Agony line, and there's one point I'm confused about. Does this halfling have a habit of casting this spell regardless of whether the other party members are in range or not? This is the impression I got. If he's as high rank with this spell as he seems to be, they would have to be standing very far away from him -not- to be affected.

If so, I feel there's a role-play problem here. This is the spell of AGONY. If he has a habit of casting this where other PC's receive the brunt, I don't understand why they haven't beaten him to death yet. Heck, if I was a party member and I even -thought- the halfling was about to cast that spell again while I was in range, I'd either flee at a dead run, jump him before he finished casting, or shoot him. No party of characters (sane characters, anyway) would allow themselves to be habitually placed in torment, no matter how advantageous to combat it was.

On the other hand, if your party has a system worked out whereby the halfling runs into combat ahead of them and immobilizes the enemy, then I'm confused again. That spell has a very long range at high rank. He's a halfling, so 26 AG or not, he only has 1/2 TMR. That would put him in missile weapon range as the -only- target for a long time, and it only takes one arrow to eliminate his ability to cast. He's got a high defense, but it only takes one lucky arrow strike in one combat, and he'd be swarmed by the enemy and butchered before the other party members could come to the rescue. Although perhaps someone has been casting Walk Unseen/Invisibility on him before he runs out to the enemy?

Anyway, I'm obviously missing an essential point here. Could you clarify? How is this spell typically used, in what type of tactical situations? What is the spell's actual Rank, and does the Halfling have other abilities that augment his effectiveness here, such as Assassin skill or an item of Invisibility?

Oh, incidentally, I don't know if this is how you have been playing it, but I wouldn't assume that Agony would remove the target's ability to defend itself. The spell says that if it fails to resist, it can't take any other action but to Pass. However, with the exception of something like Evading, I believe a purely defensive stance is a Pass Action. I don't read being Agonized as the same as being Stunned, where you explicitly have no defense and aren't conscious of your surroundings. Otherwise, I believe the spell would say targets are Stunned. If you haven't been giving targets defense, perhaps this would help slow down the Halfling's butchery? :)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Speaking of talents and such, how do you handle 37T-3?
The description says only that its adds 5 (+1 per Rank)
to the Adept's chance of detecting an ambush. But the
example of role-playing in Chapter I (page iii) seems
to suggest that it works like some kind of danger-o-
meter. And the Experience Multiple (300) seems a bit
high for only a small bonus to ambush detection.

Does anyone apply this talent more broadly than the
description provides? If you do, what are its limits
(range, for example--sight, or increasing with Rank)?



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ben Davis wrote:

> So, this brings up in my mind smthg my group were discussing a few years
> ago. The DQ rules say that "a few ounces (of iron) is sufficient to
> prevent the workings of all but racial Talent magic". In that case, why
> not just slow down the halfling necro (or any other mage) by putting a
> large iron arrowhead into them ? A normal broadhead arrowhead is ~ 1oz;
> if the GM doesn't like the idea of double normal size "anti-mage"
> arrows, use a javelin or a harpoon ... Thoughts anyone ?

I've never been very intrigued by the iron-arrowheads-stuck-in-an-
Adept-interfering-with-his-magic concept. While I suppose that it
is true that half a dozen or so cold iron arrowheads would affect
an Adept in that way, it seems to me that he'd have more immediate
problems to worry about--like no Fatigue Points left for casting
spells anyway, -3 AG per arrow, concentration checks, & possibly
having to recover from stun, to name just a few...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Do others also play it that vampires may keep their origional collage (either as well or instead of SOM?)

>>> "D. Cameron King" <hacking@ucdavis.edu> 12/May/99 08:49:22 am >>>
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Todd E. Schreiber wrote:

> However, Vampires,
> would be susceptible, as though they are undead, they are alive as well. I
> use the fact that they require nourishment to survive, therefore, they are
> not completely dead.

Of course, most vampires are also Sorcerors of the Mind, and thus
cannot be stunned anyway...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

According to the book . . . 3 iron arrows that stick would be enough to
prevent the adept from using mana.

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Typically, Mustard (our Halfling hero), to his credit, stays away from
casting his Rank 20 Agony spell, unless the group is in a serious jam . . .
then he will let it fly and the other characters usually agree with this
usage during tactics . . . so they don't mind one bit. He is extremely
difficult to hit, since he is powered up with defense spells, etc., so . . .
the problem isn't with the character per se, it is with the inherent power of
the spell . . . which is ridiculous . . . a 300+ 'radius . . . how many orcs
can you fit into this radius?? Also, unless I am mistaken, the caster is not
affected by this spell . . . so he is NOT at half action.

I am amazed at the level of interest this question has generated. Hehe.

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

OKOK, the solution we settled on is that those who resist the effects of the
spell do not suffer the half action penalty . . . not perfect, but an attempt
to bring this under control.

Thanks for all your comments, I think.

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

> Speaking of talents and such, how do you handle 37T-3?
> The description says only that its adds 5 (+1 per Rank)
> to the Adept's chance of detecting an ambush...

> Does anyone apply this talent more broadly than the
> description provides? If you do, what are its limits
> (range, for example--sight, or increasing with Rank)?

Absolutely. I give Mind Mages a PC-based (plus applicable bonuses,
including Sensitivity to Danger) roll to determine if they are capable of
detecting danger, a la "spidey sense". This doesn't mean that they're aware
of any specifics, but I certainly clue them in to feeling that something is
amiss.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Thu, 13 May 1999 swiles@insti.physics.sunysb.edu wrote:

> He's a halfling, so 26 AG or not, he only has 1/2 TMR.

Huh? Halflings have no TMR modifier. With a modified AG of
26, the little sucker's moving at TMR 8 and getting a two-
action combo every Pulse...



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

I've been watching this thread, and it occured to me that nobody has brought up Magic Resistance (either
Passive or Active). Example: it only takes one person (best choice is a non-mage for the best Magic
Resistance) to Actively Resist (thereby lowering the success chance of the spell by 20%+WP) while the others
rush the halfling; even if the spell is successful, somebody will probably will Passively Resist and may
eventually reach the little evil creature. Surprise would of course help greatly, as would ranged combat.
What I don't remember is what would happen if more than one person Actively Resists.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

The rule I use, to counteract an arrow from disallowing magical casting, is
that it takes 1 full pound (16 ounces) of cold iron to interfere with
casting. I assume 1 oz of cold iron per arrow, head. If an adept is not
carrying any other cold iron on his person, it would take 16 arrow heads to
block his casting. Of course, he'd be long dead by then. The 16 oz. limit
also enables any Adept to carry 1 dagger (10 oz), or even a bow and a couple
of arrows. Typically an Adept would be better off using magic if the enemy
is not in melee range, so the bow is not usually an Adept's weapon of
choice.

The 16 oz rule, still keeps mages from using almost all weapons, but at
least they can carry a simple knife. It also allows the typical mage to
take 6 arrows (10 oz. dagger plus 6 1 oz. arrow heads) before losing the
ability to cast, if he's still alive. I believe magic has its own dangers,
with failure and backfire chances, enough so that making them unable to cast
after being hit with 1 arrow to be ridiculous. I devised the 16 oz rule,
immediately after hereing of players using "weak necked barbed arrows" that
would break off after hitting a target, thereby disabling an Adept for an
entire combat. Of course turnabout is fair play, but I thought the general
idea to be ridiculous. We could also get into the combat penalties of using
such an arrow, but decided that this was the easier way to go.

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 3:08 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Iron (was SOM's and AGONY)

>On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ben Davis wrote:
>
>> So, this brings up in my mind smthg my group were discussing a few years
>> ago. The DQ rules say that "a few ounces (of iron) is sufficient to
>> prevent the workings of all but racial Talent magic". In that case, why
>> not just slow down the halfling necro (or any other mage) by putting a
>> large iron arrowhead into them ? A normal broadhead arrowhead is ~ 1oz;
>> if the GM doesn't like the idea of double normal size "anti-mage"
>> arrows, use a javelin or a harpoon ... Thoughts anyone ?
>
>I've never been very intrigued by the iron-arrowheads-stuck-in-an-
>Adept-interfering-with-his-magic concept. While I suppose that it
>is true that half a dozen or so cold iron arrowheads would affect
>an Adept in that way, it seems to me that he'd have more immediate
>problems to worry about--like no Fatigue Points left for casting
>spells anyway, -3 AG per arrow, concentration checks, & possibly
>having to recover from stun, to name just a few...
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

[snip]>

> I disagree. An Illusionist in the game means the game master has to describe
> the world to them. Their magic comes from making use of what would
> reasonably be around them. That can take up more of the game master's time.
> Additionally, an Illusionist is always improvising their spells.More time is
> spent considering the results of an illusion than anyother kind of spell.
> For example, if the front five goblins of an angry horde are suddenly
> consumed in invisible flames from an Hellfire, then the rest of the goblins
> are likely to think 'Bugger this for a lark', and run away. On the other
> hand, if this horde of goblins finds themselves confronted with half a dozen
> vicious looking dogs, they're just as likely to think 'Dinner!'...The game
> master has to decide what is the most appropriate response...More game
> master time.
> I believe that illusions are just too easy a college to do whatever you like
> with. Imaginative players get bored with it quickly, because there is so
> little challenge in using them. A few illusions in the world are not a bad
> thing, I suppose, but by and large, I think the game is better without heaps
> of them.>

I agree that illusions require more GM time. However I do not agree that they
are too easy to use. For an illusion to damage anyone, it has to have a tactile
component and a primary sense component. Let's go with the average and say this
is a 2 part illusion with visual and tactile. Even if the illusionist is pretty
good at both spells (let's say rank 8), it isn't going to be easy to cast. The
rank is the average rank of the two spells and you use the base chance of the
component with the lowest base. In this case 10% for the tactile. There is a -5
modifier for each sense over 1, so the base is adjusted to 5. With rank 8 that
is only a 37% cast chance. The illusionist has a better chance of backfiring
than successfully casting the spell. Even if he does get the spell off, the
target should get a perception roll to notice that the illusion doesn't make any
sounds. Let's say the illusionist successfuly gets the spell off. An experienced
party of adventurers is going to be a little bit suspicious of a dragon that
makes no noise and doesn't stink to high heaven. A character with a perception
of 15 is likely to have a better chance of disbelieving than the adept does of
casting. If he does manage to get the spell off and the target doesn't
disbelieve the spell should have powerful effects since with the two components
added together we are talking about a 5% base chance spell with a 500 ep
multiple. Very comparable to the spell of dragonflames which would hurt the
target pretty badly even if he did resist. If the illusionist goes the really
hard route and uses a four part illusion so as to not give the party any obvious
clues that something is out of the ordinary, he is suddenly casting a spell with
a base chance of -5% and a multiple of 900. At this point I would have to say
that hellfire and whirlwind vortex are much more dangerous spells.

On a totally different note, I'm thrilled to actually find active discussion of Dragonquest by people that still play the game.


--David


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

Specifically, what exactly does this have to do with the Agony spell as
written? I have been a GM since 1979 for as many as 14 players around the
table . . . campaigns that have lasted years that were entirely of my own
construction . . . hell, I have designed role playing games . . . so the
issue is not one of GM creativity or of making the game interesting for the
players. I think some of you missed the point of my question entirely . . .

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications

On Thu, 13 May 1999, Dennis Nordling wrote:

> What I don't remember is what would happen if more than one person Actively Resists.

The Magic Resistance of the character with the highest MR (of
all those actively resisting) is applied. See 31.2.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
http://www.eGroups.com - Simplifying group communications