Hullo, Edi,

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:49:20 +0200, Esko Halttunen wrote:

>>>First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in.
>>
>> Yep, I agree with you on this point, Dave. Edi, you've done a
>>wonderful job on this material. :)
>>
>Thanks, John. :-)

More than welcome. It was a really sterling effort that you've
put in to this little project.

>It did take some putting together. Hope you like the new armor
>table, because as I recall, you lamented the lack of variety
>earlier... :-)

Yes, it's very, very nice and very, very good. And quite
accurate. :) I've implemented it for my own game, although the
players griped a bit about it in terms of retrofitting their
characters. All except the mercenary types, who took brigandine! <g>

>Rodger also said it would be a good idea to put weapons and armor in
>separate documents so that they can be independently discussed,
>and I agree.

Yes, so do I.

>So, everyone, feedback would be appreciated, and we could do with
>some lively discussion, don't you think?

Agreed. :)

....."The planet is uninhabited... Yeah, right, I've heard *that* one before." - Chan
Kroshek, PSDF scout

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

Before we consider going down this route there are a few things to
consider

1) What about those skill where you gain extra abillities at certain
ranks, eg Healer. There aught to be a higher cost to gain this rank
maybe?

2) What about those skill where you can by extra bits at rank 10 (eg
Troubadour, Ranger terrains and Courtesan)

David

It looks like I'm going to have to start bringing my DQ Manual into work with me.

I also have a concern about sub-skills that have calculated percentages, like "open lock", etc. We will most likely have to create new equations, or at the very least recalculate them.

Steve



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Before we consider going down this route there are a few things to
consider

1) What about those skill where you gain extra abillities at certain
ranks, eg Healer. There aught to be a higher cost to gain this rank
maybe?

2) What about those skill where you can by extra bits at rank 10 (eg
Troubadour, Ranger terrains and Courtesan)

David


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@h...> wrote:
> Not a bad thought.
>
> If for example you use the numbers as they stand for max rank (ie
10,000xp
> in total for rank 9 dagger and 12000 for rank 8 shortbow) the XPM
for dagger
> is 222 and for bow is 333.  Need some kind of fudge as rank 0 in a
spell is
> free, but not in a weapon.  I guess for them all it makes them more
> expensive at low rank and the last 2 or 3 ranks are cheaper.  Could
make it
> fit better but need more complicated maths than 'xp needed is equal
to rank
> gained x XPM'.  That said quite a few calculations in DQ used 'rank
squared'
> as a multiple and with spreadsheets shouldnt be too tricky.
>
> Wonder if it should be done for skills as well. (Couldnt resist XPM for
> assassin is 816, ignoring rank 0).
>
> Interesting to know where the numbers originally came from

When I was trying to work out subskill rules (before adopting yours) I
toyed with doing it as an Experience multiple, and decided that 2x the
EXPM was about right for rank 0

> JohnD
>
> About to lose another work day thinking on how he can meddle with DQ
> rules...

I know exactly what you mean

David

> >From: hollywood314@j...
> >Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> >To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [dq-rules] Weapons and XP Multiplier
> >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 03:22:08 GMT
> >
> >
> >Has anyone ever thought of giving weapons an experience multiplier
such as
> >spells?  I never liked the idea that the two used different
systems.  It
> >makes more sense that experience multipier should be used for both.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger



To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

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

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

Hi, John--

> More than welcome. It was a really sterling effort that you've
>put in to this little project.
>
>

Careful with the praise, or I'll start thinking too much of myself... ;-)

>>It did take some putting together. Hope you like the new armor
>>table, because as I recall, you lamented the lack of variety
>>earlier... :-)
>>
>>
> Yes, it's very, very nice and very, very good. And quite
>accurate. :) I've implemented it for my own game, although the
>players griped a bit about it in terms of retrofitting their
>characters. All except the mercenary types, who took brigandine! <g>
>
>

Well, I'd say that's a vote of confidence if anything, seeing as how you
have 20+ years of DQ experience and took it as is. I recognize a
compliment of high order when given one, so thank you. :-)

As a side note, I kind of expected brigandine armor to become pretty
popular, so not much of a surprise this. Let me know how the armor table
works in practice, there's nothing like having it playtested. I've no
idea of how well balanced it is or what sort of tuning it needs, as I
basically pulled all of the new armors out of my hat stat-wise with just
limited knowledge and common sense (less common than the name implies,
but I'd like to flatter myself by thinking I possess it...) to go on. :-)

Edi

------------------------

John M. Kahane wrote:

> Hullo, Edi,
>
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:49:20 +0200, Esko Halttunen wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, I agree with you on this point, Dave. Edi, you've done a
>>>wonderful job on this material. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Thanks, John. :-)
>>
>>
>
> More than welcome. It was a really sterling effort that you've
>put in to this little project.
>
>
>
>>It did take some putting together. Hope you like the new armor
>>table, because as I recall, you lamented the lack of variety
>>earlier... :-)
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it's very, very nice and very, very good. And quite
>accurate. :) I've implemented it for my own game, although the
>players griped a bit about it in terms of retrofitting their
>characters. All except the mercenary types, who took brigandine! <g>
>
>
>
>>Rodger also said it would be a good idea to put weapons and armor in
>>separate documents so that they can be independently discussed,
>>and I agree.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, so do I.
>
>
>
>>So, everyone, feedback would be appreciated, and we could do with
>>some lively discussion, don't you think?
>>
>>
>
> Agreed. :)
>
>....."The planet is uninhabited... Yeah, right, I've heard *that* one before." - Chan
> Kroshek, PSDF scout
>
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>
>

Hello, Steve--

>The draft looks great. I have a few comments that may need to be
>made in multiple posts as my thoughts are not organized enough yet.
>
>

Thanks! And don't worry about multiple posts, the thing is extensive
enough to be bit of a mouthful to chew all at once.

>1. I like the idea of using the quarterstaff and certain pole
>weapons for defensive purposes. That was one of my complaints with
>the existing weapons. I attempted to remedy the problem in a
>different manner. I assigned each weapon a defensive modifier. This
>number is used when a character evades. I believe an evading
>character has a 10 + (4 x Rk)% chance. The defensive modifier would
>be used instead of the 4. For instance, a quarterstaff had a 5,
>while a battle axe had a 3.
>
>

Hmm, interesting idea. I suppose it would work for some people or with
some set of house rules. These things are a matter of opinion. :-)

>I like your system better. I would suggest either increasing the xp
>cost of the weapons that can also be used defensively, or creating
>separate xp cost chart for the defensive capability.
>
>

Thanks for the compliment. :-)
This might merit some consideration. It may not be strictly necessary,
though, as the weapons as they were originally were rather unattractive,
required two hands, took a lot of room to wield, had low damage
(compared to swords and axes at least) and had severely limited ranks.
Now they are competitive, but some disadvantages (e.g. room required to
wield and 2-handedness) are still there. If we want to increase exp
cost, I think 25 to 50 more to Rk 1 cost and then scaling from there
should give a good result. I'm adamantly against separate defensive exp
ranks because they add more unnecessary complications and it is easier
to handle otherwise.

>Also, do you need to be evading, or at least passive action, to gain
>the defensive capability of these weapons? Or, is it automatic?
>i.e. if you attack that round, do you still get the defensive bonus?
>
>

Automatic, like the Main-Gauche, so you get Rk x Def Modifier to defense
even when not Evading. When Evading, it's 10 + Rk x 4 + Rk x Def Mod.
That was the whole point in making them more attractive to players, as
the polearms basically sucked in their original form.

Edi

-----------------------

pitkinave44310 wrote:

>The draft looks great. I have a few comments that may need to be
>made in multiple posts as my thoughts are not organized enough yet.
>
>1. I like the idea of using the quarterstaff and certain pole
>weapons for defensive purposes. That was one of my complaints with
>the existing weapons. I attempted to remedy the problem in a
>different manner. I assigned each weapon a defensive modifier. This
>number is used when a character evades. I believe an evading
>character has a 10 + (4 x Rk)% chance. The defensive modifier would
>be used instead of the 4. For instance, a quarterstaff had a 5,
>while a battle axe had a 3.
>
>I like your system better. I would suggest either increasing the xp
>cost of the weapons that can also be used defensively, or creating
>separate xp cost chart for the defensive capability.
>
>Also, do you need to be evading, or at least passive action, to gain
>the defensive capability of these weapons? Or, is it automatic?
>i.e. if you attack that round, do you still get the defensive bonus?
>
>Steve
>
>

My question stems from the fact that I was always under the impression that the Main-Gauche could either be used to attack or defend in a round, not both at the same time. Players must elect which use they are going to use that round. Have I been playing this wrong all this time?

Steve

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Hullo, David,

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:25:00 -0000, dbarrass_2000 wrote:

>Just some points about the weapons
>1) The machete seems to be essentially a falchion, do we need
>it, could we have falchion/machete (or a note to that effect)?

While I agree with the point that do we need both, I believe the
falchion and the machete are two different things, although for the
most part I don't tend to think of the machete as a weapon, per se.

>2) I think the sizes for the longer swords are too short.

Definitely. :)

>The Claymores in the Scottish museums are at least 4 feet
>long, rising to 6 feet, this should be classed as a 2 handed
>sword, so lets say 4-5ft for a claymore.

Not necessarily as a 2-handed weapon, but definitely longer than
4 feet.

>I would say, again from evidence of examples I've seen,
>that a 2 handed sword is anything from 5-7ft.

Pretty much agree with you here. :)

>3) How about different stats for 1 and 2 handed use (in
>mush the same way that longsword has A and B stats).
>We could have 2 handed use +1 damage, but -5% strike
>chance and requiring an extra 2 PS for example.

Sure, you could do it this way but it just adds to the length of
the document. And there are quite a few weapons that are usable one-
or two-handed.

>6) I would only allow the pole weapons to be used as a
>quarterstaff is the user also has quarterstaff skill

Definitely agree with this. :)


.....Perhaps the narration for year five should just be, "RUN FOR IT!" (JMS)

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

Just remember to keep telling them the multiplier has already been applied.
That way if an Orc friendly silly human joins the party there won't be any
arguments about the differing awards...

----- Original Message -----
From: "davis john" <jrd123@hotmail.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Anybody put an experience multiplier on this race?


> >For ease of bookkeeping, if the entire party are going to be orcs, why
not
> >just set a 1.0 EXM, and then bump up experience awards a little bit?
> >
> thats a brilliant idea....spend so much time playing with numbers dont see
a
> solution when its easy!!!
>
> JohnD
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I think the original rules are good as written. While these weapons might
be used in a defensive manner in an emergency, I do not think that would be
standard procedure during an evade.
I have always felt that defensive usage of this sort would damage the pole
weapon somewhat vs. class B and some large class C weapons. The last think
I would want is my battle axe shaft notched or cracked.

----- Original Message -----
From: "pitkinave44310" <hollywood314@juno.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:40 AM
Subject: [dq-rules] CWT Draft - Comments


> The draft looks great. I have a few comments that may need to be
> made in multiple posts as my thoughts are not organized enough yet.
>
> 1. I like the idea of using the quarterstaff and certain pole
> weapons for defensive purposes. That was one of my complaints with
> the existing weapons. I attempted to remedy the problem in a
> different manner. I assigned each weapon a defensive modifier. This
> number is used when a character evades. I believe an evading
> character has a 10 + (4 x Rk)% chance. The defensive modifier would
> be used instead of the 4. For instance, a quarterstaff had a 5,
> while a battle axe had a 3.
>
> I like your system better. I would suggest either increasing the xp
> cost of the weapons that can also be used defensively, or creating
> separate xp cost chart for the defensive capability.
>
> Also, do you need to be evading, or at least passive action, to gain
> the defensive capability of these weapons? Or, is it automatic?
> i.e. if you attack that round, do you still get the defensive bonus?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Deven Atkinson wrote:

> I think the original rules are good as written. While these weapons might
> be used in a defensive manner in an emergency, I do not think that
> would be standard procedure during an evade.

Hmm, good point, as they are rather large for that type of use when you're dodging and shifting as you would be during an evade maneuver. But modeling everything separately is going to increase complexity in the rules, which is not necessarily a good thing. I wonder what the others think.

> I have always felt that defensive usage of this sort would damage the pole
> weapon somewhat vs. class B and some large class C weapons. The
> last think I would want is my battle axe shaft notched or cracked.

True, but you don't actually direct block strikes from something like a great axe. You use the shaft to block it at the haft and deflect, or from closer to the hilt, otherwise your weapon haft will be kindling. It's a thought though, maybe an optional rule about increasing breakage chance against the big class B and C weapons. Again, more input would be nice. :-)

Thanks for the insightful comments. :-)

Edi

------------------------------------------------------------

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pitkinave44310" <hollywood314@juno.com>
> To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:40 AM
> Subject: [dq-rules] CWT Draft - Comments
>
>
> > The draft looks great. I have a few comments that may need to be
> > made in multiple posts as my thoughts are not organized enough yet.
> >
> > 1. I like the idea of using the quarterstaff and certain pole
> > weapons for defensive purposes. That was one of my complaints with
> > the existing weapons. I attempted to remedy the problem in a
> > different manner. I assigned each weapon a defensive modifier. This
> > number is used when a character evades. I believe an evading
> > character has a 10 + (4 x Rk)% chance. The defensive modifier would
> > be used instead of the 4. For instance, a quarterstaff had a 5,
> > while a battle axe had a 3.
> >
> > I like your system better. I would suggest either increasing the xp
> > cost of the weapons that can also be used defensively, or creating
> > separate xp cost chart for the defensive capability.
> >
> > Also, do you need to be evading, or at least passive action, to gain
> > the defensive capability of these weapons? Or, is it automatic?
> > i.e. if you attack that round, do you still get the defensive bonus?
> >
> > Steve
> >

..............................................................
Lähetä oikeat joulukortit omalla kuvallasi! Maikkarin netissä.
http://www.mtv3.fi/postikortit/

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:

>
> Funny you should mention elf-heavy parties. The groups I have

played with have always been elf dominant. In fact, there have very
rarely been humans in the parties. If there is ever a mage, they are
always an elf. The modifiers make it too hard to pass up. That has
always bothered me.

>

We never had this problem. I can't remember anyone ever playing an
elf mage. We had several play elf warriors. The extra move was hard
to pass up when combined with a glaive. But the experience multiple
was always a big deterrent for mages.

I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include some of my other thoughts:

1. Pike
There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding this.

Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid inpaling themself.

2. Lance
I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the breakage chance should be extremely high.

3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill. Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.

4. Lucern Hammer
Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?

5. Throwing Knives
Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is it worth adding?

I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.

Steve



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

There are a number of weapons that have been discussed in the course of the CWT development where massed, military field use is different from individual use. These include longbows and other missile weapons fired in volley, cavalry charges with lances, as well as pikes arrayed to stop cavalry charges, and others.

Perhaps we should look at a new rule (or rules) for massed use of weapons where the whole effect is greater than a sum of its parts. There should still be individual use characteristics for the weapons in question. These would not replace the rules for weapons, but would be rules for how to deal with the application of weapons in a coordinated and organized fashion.

--Rodger


-----Original Message-----
From: hollywood314@juno.com
Sent: Dec 6, 2003 11:08 PM
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] CWT Draft:More Thoughts


I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include some of my other thoughts:

1. Pike
There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding this.

Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid inpaling themself.

2. Lance
I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the breakage chance should be extremely high.

3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill. Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.

4. Lucern Hammer
Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?

5. Throwing Knives
Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is it worth adding?

I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.

Steve



________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!


To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

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

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:

>
> I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in

DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a
comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include
some of my other thoughts:

>
> 1. Pike
> There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character

using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was
to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding
this.

How about my repulse modification for long weapons

> Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid

inpaling themself.

>
> 2. Lance
> I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately

reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the

I add TMR of the propelling orgainsm (be it human or horse) to the
damage for braced A class pole weapons, so the average human adds 5
the mounted warior about 10. Also there is an increased risk of
breaking 99-5 and 99-10. The other way of doing it would be to add a
PS bonus, but the TMR is quick and easy to work out. The figure must
be travelling fast (travelled full TMR last pulse) and it must be
braced to gain the full benefit

> 3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
> I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should

only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill.
Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be
available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I
wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.

>
> 4. Lucern Hammer
> Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?

Go on then :--)

> 5. Throwing Knives
> Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the

same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is
it worth adding?

I thought the stats in the rules were also fro throwing

> I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.
>
> Steve
>

David

Hi--

>I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include some of my other thoughts:
>
>1. Pike
>There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding this.
>
>

This might as well be extended to all type A long pole weapons,
especially if used in formation. The pike would be the most effective
though, because of its length. It's pretty useless except in formations
.

>Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid inpaling themself.
>
>

I'd be more inclined to require a horsemanship check negatively modified
by how many hexes the figure charged, and if that fails then the horse
gets hit. The way pikes were used against cavalry was not to target the
riders but the horses, because the sudden stop of momentum would throw
the riders and prevent the horses from trampling the pikemen. Especially
heavily armored knights were easy to butcher once they were unhorsed and
lying on the ground.

>2. Lance
>I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the breakage chance should be extremely high.
>
>

Lance breakage should be automatic or nearly so, I'd reverse the
breakage chances from normal. Unless the lance was made of metal, of
course, but such things would be very special things indeed (e.g. made
of mithril or something like that) and very, very rare.

>3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
>I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill. Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.
>
>

Those weapons share many characteristics with quarterstaff and can be
used if one has been trained in them, whether or not one has also been
trained in a quarterstaff, so the bonus was not meant to be restricted.
I believe I addressed this once in one of the previous messages, but
repetition does no one any harm, as some may have missed it. :-) The
reason why all of those weapons are rated for quarterstaff type damage
is because striking with the butt of the weapon (something which
halberdiers for example would be trained to do) would do damage akin to
quarterstaff obviously. That the weapon can be used in this manner does
not in any way confer upon the character the ability to proficiently use
a quarterstaff because the butt attack is secondary and the whole manner
of using a pole weapon is different than a quarterstaff.

>4. Lucern Hammer
>Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?
>
>

I thought about it. Of course it can be added, but it was, as I
uderstood, a very specialised weapon designed to defeat plate armor, so
it would have some average damage rating and armor piercing capability
against plated armors (half-plate, full and improved plate, probably
also lamellar), no? Wasn't it also called bec-de-corbin?

>5. Throwing Knives
>Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is it worth adding?
>
>

If you mean by the small ones good only for throwing, as opposed to a
regular dagger or knife that is thrown, this makes sense, but bigger
throwing knives (the one-foot long types with wide, heavy blades, for
example) would use the respective dagger and knife stats, I think. It's
easy to do by simply adding a couple of lines to the dagger/knife and
throwing dart notes.

>I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.
>
>

No, you aren't. Input is always good, questions are always good, because
nobody can think about everything, and thus other viewpoints are needed. :-)

Edi

----------------------------------

hollywood314@juno.com wrote:

>I've always had a few thoughts/issues with some of the weapons in DQ. Since we are discussing Edi's work and trying to make it a comprehensive work, I figured it wouldn't be out of place to include some of my other thoughts:
>
>1. Pike
>There is no rule regarding a mounted character charging a character using a pike. It seems to me that the entire purpose of the pike was to stop cavalry charges. Thus, there should be some of rule regarding this.
>
>Maybe a mounted, charging character should make an AG check to avoid inpaling themself.
>
>2. Lance
>I've never felt that the damaged accorded the lance accurately reflected its use by a mounted charging character. In addition, the breakage chance should be extremely high.
>
>3. Quarterstaff/Type (i) Pole Weapons
>I agree with the earlier statements that type (i) pole wpns should only be used as a quarterstaff if the user has the quarterstaff skill. Thus, I think that the defensive bonus of 2% per Rank, should only be available when the character is using the weapon as a quarterstaff. I wasn't sure if that was what the intention was.
>
>4. Lucern Hammer
>Any thoughts on including a lucern hammer on the list?
>
>5. Throwing Knives
>Is there any merit in adding throwing knives? My group has used the same statistics and rules of throwing darts for throwing knives. Is it worth adding?
>
>I don't know if I'm way off base on any of this, let me know if I am.
>
>Steve
>
>

Hello, all--

>There are a number of weapons that have been discussed in the course of the CWT development where massed, military field use is different from individual use. These include longbows and other missile weapons fired in volley, cavalry charges with lances, as well as pikes arrayed to stop cavalry charges, and others.
>
>Perhaps we should look at a new rule (or rules) for massed use of weapons where the whole effect is greater than a sum of its parts. There should still be individual use characteristics for the weapons in question. These would not replace the rules for weapons, but would be rules for how to deal with the application of weapons in a coordinated and organized fashion.
>
>

Good idea, I've thought somewhat about this too. That sort of addition
would be nice, especially for mass engagements, and we all know that
those crop up from time to time in the course of campaigns. This is also
something I thought of when I wrote the descriptions of the weapons into
the CWT, particularly the pike formation is an interesting case because
it will also foil arrows (talking about long pikes now, >13 feet).

I'm in favor of actually dealing with these issues as part of an overall
look of the combat mechanics rules, because they do need some additions
and/or overhaul in some respects that are far beyond the scope of the
CWT. I suppose a separate section covering mass engagement rules and the
particulars of certain weapons in them would be in order? If so, who's
up for doing it? Because I have little experience in strategy/tactical
boardgames and only relatively shallow knowledge of medieval warfare in
this respect, I don't have the necessary skills to pull it through as
the main conributor, but I can take a supplementary role.

As far as the CWT is concerned, I don't think sweeping changes of
mechanics should be put in there. As for the pike and lance especially
and braced weapons/charging in general, I liked David's solution with
the TMR, it's simple, elegant and doesn't actually introduce any
complicated new mechanics into the picture. See also what I posted in my
previous message.

Edi

----------------------

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>There are a number of weapons that have been discussed in the course of the CWT development where massed, military field use is different from individual use. These include longbows and other missile weapons fired in volley, cavalry charges with lances, as well as pikes arrayed to stop cavalry charges, and others.
>
>Perhaps we should look at a new rule (or rules) for massed use of weapons where the whole effect is greater than a sum of its parts. There should still be individual use characteristics for the weapons in question. These would not replace the rules for weapons, but would be rules for how to deal with the application of weapons in a coordinated and organized fashion.
>
>--Rodger
>
>
>

Lances/Pikes

I like both David and Edi's suggestions regarding these weapons. After reading both of your suggestions and giving it some more thought, I realized it might not be necessary to have a hard and fast rule. It might be best to put an "*" by these weapons and state that it is up the the GM to employ his discretion. We could then incorporate rule suggestions into the optional rules. This might save a lot of headache.

Military Rules

As soon as I read Rodger's post, I had an image of having a mounted party come across a unit of 20 pikemen...fun! I definitely like the idea. I also have limited knowledge in this area. All I know is from gaming and movies, so I'm probably more dangerous than helpful...

Throwing Knives

I was referring to the small knives that are made specifically for throwing. I had some friends that owned a few. The seem to be sold in sets of three. So, they seem very comparable to throwing darts.

Steve

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Few tweaks, is it still x0.9 Multiplier??
ta
JohnD

ORCS FIRST BLOOD CAMPAIGN FOR DQ.

Orcs Of Maras-Dantia
The Boon Of Orcs
Learn horsemanship at 75% cost.
Learn military scientist at 75% cost.
75ft dark-vision
Ambidextrous if D5 is > D 10 roll, can choose handedness if not as equally
likely left or right-handed
Heal at 1.5 times normal rate from injury only; not diseases or poisons or
anything else.
Choose 1 weapon category in which they can use all weapons as though at
least rank 0 assuming they have the correct PS / MD for the weapons (bladed,
haft, missile or thrown).
Break stun rolls made as though on full fatigue as long as they have some
Fatigue left.
Generally Tall, 6ft +(2D-D5) inches tall.

The Benign of Orcs
DQ stats +1 PS, +1 MD, +2 FAT, +1 END, -2 MA, -2 WP, -1 AG
TMR is Normal.
Their seed is no more fertile than any other race, but like all races is
secondary to human reproductive capacity.

The Bane of Orcs
Suffer �5% in bright daylight
Only learn elemental magics
Only learn general spells and rituals
Must make concentration check to flee / escape any combat where they have
been struck an effective blow.
Have �5% magic resistance
-10% to resist all diseases normally associated with humans.
-10% to all reaction rolls on encounters versus humans (and reverse
applies).
Gain no benefit to spell use cost in high mana areas.

Experience Multiplier is x0.9.

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Dear All

A this is my first message to this group; hello one and all.

I have not played DQ for years properly; the most recent time was
with my eight year old daughter about three months ago. It was great
fun but very time consuming.

So, as a non-DQ playing member of the group feel free to tell me to
get lost if you feel that what I have to say is not relevant to game
play.

I have no time to play DQ but I am trained in Medieval Martial Arts,
this includes unarmed, small sword, longsword, pole arms and lance.

I do not have a horse and so will probably not ever use a lance in
either training or bouts, but the rest I have various degrees of
familiarity with.

Re: Pole arms. Most pole arm training is very similar. For example
the quarterstaff and pole-axe both have the same 'cuts', 'blocks'
and 'guards'. It is just that the pole-axe was designed for use
against an armoured opponent. The billhook was very similar but with
the additional benefit of the hook obviously, which was used to
unbalance and trip, remove items of armour etc. The most
important 'cut' for all these weapons was the thrust, especially for
the quarterstaff. A cut from a quarterstaff is relatively easy to
deflect whilst a thrust is much more difficult. A blow from an
oblique 'cut' has a good chance of giving a glancing blow whereas a
good thrust from a quarterstaff will crack ribs and puncture lungs.
A friend of mine was run into with a pole-axe whilst wearing 3mm
steel armour (during a re-enactment) which very nearly penetrated
the armour. Probably the most important factors in the use of
offensive and defensive battlefield weapons were how cheap they were
to produce (swords being hellishly expensive even today), and how
far they allowed your opponent to come. It is probable that the main
reason why a dismounted man-at-arms was so vulnerable to being cut
to pieces once knocked off his horse was that they were then
resorting to using their secondary weapon, the sword.

Re:Blocking (with pole arms). Blocking is a very alien notion to a
martial artist, at least a western one. You would never put your
weapon in the path of a cut, but the side of your weapon to deflect
the blow whilst simultaneously presenting an attack of your own.
Some weapons, the very big double handed swords, where specifically
designed to cut through pike hafts, but these were very impractical
once the melee developed.

Re: The pike. The effectiveness of the pike lies in the training and
cohesion of the unit armed with this weapon. These units were used
as heavy infantry, although were often lightly armoured. They did
indeed defend well against cavalry, but then so did all pole arm
wielding foot units. Units of pike were also devastating when used
against infantry. Unless you can break the line of pikes there is
not much you can do to break the unit. There are a number of
historical battles (I am sorry I can't remember which - will have to
go back to my books) in which poorly trained pike units where wiped
of the face of the battlefield because once the wall of pikes if
broken the weapon is practically useless. As the use of small arms
developed so the pike got longer, reaching its longest length in
order to defend itself from contemporary cavalry armed with light
side arms, the pike kept the cavalry at the weapons maximum
effective range! Whilst the pikeman was standing with lead bouncing
off him the musqueteers where taking pot shots. I'd rather be an
infantry man any day of the week.

I will only go so far as to make one suggestion as to how these
observations might be incorporated into rules but would be willing
to ask others in my martial arms group and other groups for their
opinions as to how to codify this if you all felt it might be
worthwhile. My suggestion is to restrict the pike and lance to
battlefield situations because their use outside massed combat
renders their wielders practically undefended.

Regards

Rupert

Rupert,

Don't worry, I don't anyone is going to tell you to get lost. I'm not currently playing DQ either, but I still enjoy talking about it. (I guess I'm under the delusion that someday I'll get to play again.) I found your insight to be extremely helpful.

I think I might of opened a can of worms that didn't need to be opened when I suggested rules for pikes, etc. It would appear that a pike and certain other weapons are practically usesless (or at least not as effective) when used by an individual. Therefore, one solution would be to leave them as is in the CWT, but donote them with a footnote that references military formation rules. Of course, those rules would have to be created.

It also sounds to me like the type (i) pole weapons should remain as drafted by Edi, in light of the fact that their training involves quarterstaff-style attacks.

steve

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

I'm going to change my opinion on these and play devil's advocate for a bit.

For the most part, these orcs are pretty well balanced, but they do have one extra talent specialty, which is the stun recovery. It may not amount to a large swing, but the improvement in recovery from stun is potentially a pretty significant alteration. Assuming using 2nd Ed rules, and using round numbers, a typical orc might have 15 WP and 20 FT, so its base stun number is 50. If it is one of John's Orcs, it will have that stun recovery target number until it is out of fatigue, while a standard orc will be down to a 31 target number if he has one point of FT remaining. That's actually a pretty big advantage in the course of a combat.

Maybe this deserves a 1.0x Multiplier, rather than the 0.9x that other orcs get. It's probably something that won't really be resolved until they've been play-tested for a while.

--Rodger

PS I'm not sure about the "no bonus in high mana areas" restriction. I have never thought of that as anything related to the race of the caster. A high mana area is simply high mana.

Restricting them to elemental magics and to just general knowledge at that is okay (there are other creatures in DQ with restrictions like these), but I don't agree with the no high mana bonus rule.
--RT


-----Original Message-----
From: davis john <jrd123@hotmail.com>
Sent: Dec 8, 2003 11:10 AM
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] Ready to present this to my players...

Few tweaks, is it still x0.9 Multiplier??
ta
JohnD

ORCS FIRST BLOOD CAMPAIGN FOR DQ.

Orcs Of Maras-Dantia
The Boon Of Orcs
Learn horsemanship at 75% cost.
Learn military scientist at 75% cost.
75ft dark-vision
Ambidextrous if D5 is > D 10 roll, can choose handedness if not as equally
likely left or right-handed
Heal at 1.5 times normal rate from injury only; not diseases or poisons or
anything else.
Choose 1 weapon category in which they can use all weapons as though at
least rank 0 assuming they have the correct PS / MD for the weapons (bladed,
haft, missile or thrown).
Break stun rolls made as though on full fatigue as long as they have some
Fatigue left.
Generally Tall, 6ft +(2D-D5) inches tall.

The Benign of Orcs
DQ stats +1 PS, +1 MD, +2 FAT, +1 END, -2 MA, -2 WP, -1 AG
TMR is Normal.
Their seed is no more fertile than any other race, but like all races is
secondary to human reproductive capacity.

The Bane of Orcs
Suffer �5% in bright daylight
Only learn elemental magics
Only learn general spells and rituals
Must make concentration check to flee / escape any combat where they have
been struck an effective blow.
Have �5% magic resistance
-10% to resist all diseases normally associated with humans.
-10% to all reaction rolls on encounters versus humans (and reverse
applies).
Gain no benefit to spell use cost in high mana areas.

Experience Multiplier is x0.9.

There are a number of elements to consider as outgrowth from this:
Military units as opponents is certainly one of them.
Mass tackles (multiple figures in a single hex acting together) to subdue an opponent would be another item.
Party use of coordinated attacks (party of characters volley firing their bows at opponents, for example).
Party use of small unit defensive tactics (pole weapons, shield walls, etc.)
Rules for military fortifications (logs, spears or pointy sticks set in the ground, trenches, partial cover, etc.)
Guidelines for GMing military unit NPC groups intelligently and effectively.

Poor Brendan (and the rest of us) need to get our quills sharpened...

--Rodger

-----Original Message portion:
From: hollywood314@juno.com
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] CWT Draft: Military Use Weapons

As soon as I read Rodger's post, I had an image of having a mounted party come across a unit of 20 pikemen...fun! I definitely like the idea. I also have limited knowledge in this area. All I know is from gaming and movies, so I'm probably more dangerous than helpful...

Ok im struggling trying to model this...

As the human blight advances upon the land the subtle elemental magic of the
place is drained and altered. Some of the more powerful 'sorceroresses'
(plural for a sorceress??) magic begins to shift from elemental to a more
entity form. So how do I go about draining ranks from elemental magic from
high (10+ ranks) to a lowered rank entity . I thought every week an adept
would lose 1 rank in their highest / expensive elemental spell and gain a
rank in an entity spell. Dunno really??? This is purely for some of the
major NPC in the books, not PC's. Their are some quite mighty adepts who
lose out on their purer earth / water magic and turn to black magic /
necromancey to sustain their dwindling power. I think some of the magic /
rawness is why is fits DQ quite well, in my opinion.

All thought welcome, as always.

JohnD

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hi--

> As the human blight advances upon the land the subtle elemental magic of
> the place is drained and altered. Some of the more powerful
> 'sorceroresses' (plural for a sorceress??)

Plural is 'sorceresses' for females, 'sorcerers' for males. 'Sorceror' is alternative spelling of 'sorcerer', but I think it is definitely worse.

> magic begins to shift from elemental to a
> more entity form. So how do I go about draining ranks from elemental
> magic from high (10+ ranks) to a lowered rank entity. I thought every week an
> adept would lose 1 rank in their highest / expensive elemental spell and
> gain a rank in an entity spell. Dunno really???

Sounds like you need to implement a multi-mage system where it is possible to know more than one College simultaneously with some College as primary and the other(s) secondary. If the magic drain affects elemntal schools, it should probably start out by first increasing the fatigue cost of casting an elemental spell and then by reducing the effectiveness of the spell. The Adept need not lose ranks in the spell, it can work in the way that the drain effect causes spells to be cast at -X ranks where X is how many ranks you subtract from the effects. This would have the additional benefit of preventing new practicioners of elemental magic emerging, because how do you learn a spell at rk 0 if the drain modifier is e.g. -5?

Simultaneously the Entities could become easier if the Exp multipliers were reduced by the same factor of X and learning time would be reduced. It works easiest if you make the time required to learn spells a function of the experience multiplier instead of the ordinal number (this is what I do in my campaigns, I think I used the formula of (XPM/100 x 2) weeks to learn the spell and (XPM/100 x 2) x Rank days of practice to increase rank, or something in that direction. I really should write it down somewhere... That way spells regardless of ordinal number will be learnt in a time that reflects the difficulty of the spell (as indicated by the XPM).

> This is purely for some of the major NPC in the books, not PC's. Their are some quite
> mighty adepts who lose out on their purer earth / water magic and turn to black magic /
> necromancey to sustain their dwindling power. I think some of the magic /
> rawness is why is fits DQ quite well, in my opinion.

I don't see why it couldn't be done. I'll have to think about converting the Dominions (an excellent turnbased computer fantasy strategy game available from Illwinter Games, http://www.illwinter.com) magic system for DQ, and see how *that* works... It's actually easier than one would think, just a lot of work.

> All thought welcome, as always.

Well, I hope my ideas help you out somewhat, I've experimented with mentally turning some other RPG campaigns that had effects like this into DQ and exploring various magic system alternatives, so it was not difficult to apply it to your problem. :-)

Edi

------------------------

davis john wrote:

> Ok im struggling trying to model this...
>
> As the human blight advances upon the land the subtle elemental magic of
> the place is drained and altered. Some of the more powerful
> 'sorceroresses' (plural for a sorceress??) magic begins to shift from elemental to a
> more entity form. So how do I go about draining ranks from elemental
> magic from high (10+ ranks) to a lowered rank entity . I thought every week an
> adept would lose 1 rank in their highest / expensive elemental spell and
> gain a rank in an entity spell. Dunno really??? This is purely for some
> of the major NPC in the books, not PC's. Their are some quite mighty
> adepts who lose out on their purer earth / water magic and turn to black magic /
> necromancey to sustain their dwindling power. I think some of the magic /
> rawness is why is fits DQ quite well, in my opinion.
>
> All thought welcome, as always.
>
> JohnD
>

..............................................................
Lähetä oikeat joulukortit omalla kuvallasi! Maikkarin netissä.
http://www.mtv3.fi/postikortit/

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "redroop1964" <rupert.carus@b...> wrote:

> Dear All
>
> A this is my first message to this group; hello one and all.

Hi, welcome

> I have not played DQ for years properly; the most recent time was
> with my eight year old daughter about three months ago. It was great
> fun but very time consuming.

There's a few of us in this possition, odly my daughter is also 8 and
I DQed with her for the first time earlier this year

> So, as a non-DQ playing member of the group feel free to tell me to
> get lost if you feel that what I have to say is not relevant to game
> play.

This is a very freindly group so noone is going to tell you anything rude

> I have no time to play DQ but I am trained in Medieval Martial Arts,
> this includes unarmed, small sword, longsword, pole arms and lance.

Your experience is very welcome, most of mine is from watching
re-enactments and hitting my 11 year old son with foam swords (I
should point out that he hits back and enjoys it before anyone reports me)

> I do not have a horse and so will probably not ever use a lance in
> either training or bouts, but the rest I have various degrees of
> familiarity with.
>
> Re: Pole arms. Most pole arm training is very similar. For example
> the quarterstaff and pole-axe both have the same 'cuts', 'blocks'
> and 'guards'. It is just that the pole-axe was designed for use
> against an armoured opponent. The billhook was very similar but with
> the additional benefit of the hook obviously, which was used to
> unbalance and trip, remove items of armour etc.

So thats being able to use a pole arm as a quaterstaff with no extra
EP cost then

> The most
> important 'cut' for all these weapons was the thrust, especially for
> the quarterstaff. A cut from a quarterstaff is relatively easy to
> deflect whilst a thrust is much more difficult. A blow from an
> oblique 'cut' has a good chance of giving a glancing blow whereas a
> good thrust from a quarterstaff will crack ribs and puncture lungs.

Facinating, is this a general feature of all weapons, is a thrust from
a sword harder to deflect than a cut? Is it worth implementing into
DQ, or would it make things over complicated? Can we think of ways to
do this simply?

> A friend of mine was run into with a pole-axe whilst wearing 3mm
> steel armour (during a re-enactment) which very nearly penetrated
> the armour. Probably the most important factors in the use of
> offensive and defensive battlefield weapons were how cheap they were
> to produce (swords being hellishly expensive even today), and how
> far they allowed your opponent to come. It is probable that the main
> reason why a dismounted man-at-arms was so vulnerable to being cut
> to pieces once knocked off his horse was that they were then
> resorting to using their secondary weapon, the sword.


> Re:Blocking (with pole arms). Blocking is a very alien notion to a
> martial artist, at least a western one. You would never put your
> weapon in the path of a cut, but the side of your weapon to deflect
> the blow whilst simultaneously presenting an attack of your own.
> Some weapons, the very big double handed swords, where specifically
> designed to cut through pike hafts, but these were very impractical
> once the melee developed.

Ok so its more of a deflection than block? If so this seems like a
good arguement for adding weapon ranks to the defence, (ie its
something that adds to your defence but does not interrupt your own
attack as an evade would)

> Re: The pike. The effectiveness of the pike lies in the training and
> cohesion of the unit armed with this weapon. These units were used
> as heavy infantry, although were often lightly armoured. They did
> indeed defend well against cavalry, but then so did all pole arm
> wielding foot units. Units of pike were also devastating when used
> against infantry. Unless you can break the line of pikes there is
> not much you can do to break the unit. There are a number of
> historical battles (I am sorry I can't remember which - will have to
> go back to my books) in which poorly trained pike units where wiped
> of the face of the battlefield because once the wall of pikes if
> broken the weapon is practically useless. As the use of small arms
> developed so the pike got longer, reaching its longest length in
> order to defend itself from contemporary cavalry armed with light
> side arms, the pike kept the cavalry at the weapons maximum
> effective range! Whilst the pikeman was standing with lead bouncing
> off him the musqueteers where taking pot shots. I'd rather be an
> infantry man any day of the week.
>
> I will only go so far as to make one suggestion as to how these
> observations might be incorporated into rules but would be willing
> to ask others in my martial arms group and other groups for their
> opinions as to how to codify this if you all felt it might be
> worthwhile. My suggestion is to restrict the pike and lance to
> battlefield situations because their use outside massed combat
> renders their wielders practically undefended.

Thanks for your contribution, I look forward to your future posts

David

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@l...>
wrote:

>
> > magic begins to shift from elemental to a
> > more entity form. So how do I go about draining ranks from elemental
> > magic from high (10+ ranks) to a lowered rank entity. I thought

every week an

> > adept would lose 1 rank in their highest / expensive elemental

spell and

> > gain a rank in an entity spell. Dunno really???
>
> Sounds like you need to implement a multi-mage system where it is

possible to know more than one College simultaneously with some
College as primary and the other(s) secondary. If the magic drain
affects elemntal schools, it should probably start out by first
increasing the fatigue cost of casting an elemental spell and then by
reducing the effectiveness of the spell. The Adept need not lose ranks
in the spell, it can work in the way that the drain effect causes
spells to be cast at -X ranks where X is how many ranks you subtract
from the effects. This would have the additional benefit of preventing
new practicioners of elemental magic emerging, because how do you
learn a spell at rk 0 if the drain modifier is e.g. -5?

>
> Simultaneously the Entities could become easier if the Exp

multipliers were reduced by the same factor of X and learning time
would be reduced. It works easiest if you make the time required to
learn spells a function of the experience multiplier instead of the
ordinal number (this is what I do in my campaigns, I think I used the
formula of (XPM/100 x 2) weeks to learn the spell and (XPM/100 x 2) x
Rank days of practice to increase rank, or something in that
direction. I really should write it down somewhere... That way spells
regardless of ordinal number will be learnt in a time that reflects
the difficulty of the spell (as indicated by the XPM).

All good ideas
Another way of doing it would be to split mana into the various forms
ie elemental, entity etc and say this is a low mana area for
Elemental, high for entity. As time went on these areas would expand
and you'd get very low and even no elemental mana areas. Of course
there'd be islands of higher elemental mana where there'd still be
powereful elemental mages holding on

Take your pick of what suits

David

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@l...>
wrote:

> Lance breakage should be automatic or nearly so, I'd reverse the
> breakage chances from normal. Unless the lance was made of metal,

of

> course, but such things would be very special things indeed (e.g.

made

> of mithril or something like that) and very, very rare.
>

Yes you're right the lance is too robust as writen. From what I've
read a knight would be lucky to get more than one or two charges out
of his lance (this is not jousting lances that were designed to
break, and so lesen the force of the blow). On the other hand a man
running in with a pole arm I don't think should break the weapon all
that often so I think 99-5 (ie brakes on a roll of >=94) is about
right for a man where as 99-10 (brakes >=89) is too low for a mounted
knight.
So how about:-
GI hit: the weapon is stuck in the oponent and it takes a pulse to
remove if dead, if alive hold on or drop (unless its that GI where it
says it gets stuck and breaks)
Endurance hit: weapon does not break (maybe this for a GI also to
avoid too many extra rules)
Normal hit below 99-TMR: weapon breaks but full damage is still done
Greater than 99-TMR: weapon breaks and does no damage

Of course there is that implication that fatique hits arn't real
hits, just strains and tirednes or glancing blows that reduce FT. If
this is the case then the lance should not break with a normal hit as
the blow was not delived with full force or avoided. I still think
it should break if the roll is >=99-TMR). I feel another thread
comming on (has this been discussed already)?.

David

I have always been under the assumption that the listed "lance" was for a horseman's lance. Could it not be a footman's lance?

Steve

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

These all sound like good reasons to pursue this project.

Steve







There are a number of elements to consider as outgrowth from this:
Military units as opponents is certainly one of them.
Mass tackles (multiple figures in a single hex acting together) to subdue an
opponent would be another item.
Party use of coordinated attacks (party of characters volley firing their bows
at opponents, for example).
Party use of small unit defensive tactics (pole weapons, shield walls, etc.)
Rules for military fortifications (logs, spears or pointy sticks set in the
ground, trenches, partial cover, etc.)
Guidelines for GMing military unit NPC groups intelligently and effectively.

Poor Brendan (and the rest of us) need to get our quills sharpened...

--Rodger


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:

>
> I have always been under the assumption that the listed "lance" was

for a horseman's lance. Could it not be a footman's lance?

>
> Steve

I have, like you, always assumed it ment the horseman's weapon. How
would a footman's lance differ in game terms from a pike or spear?

David

> So thats being able to use a pole arm as a quaterstaff with no

extra

> EP cost then

Not too sure about this one. Pole arms generally are quite difficult
to use, I would suggest that is would work the other way round in
that a character with pole arm rank would be adept at quarterstaff.
I feel that someone trained exclusively in quarterstaff would find
that other pole arms (i.e. with bits of metal on them) balance
differently. They would also not be familiar with the specific use
of the hook of a bill for example.

> Facinating, is this a general feature of all weapons, is a thrust

from

> a sword harder to deflect than a cut? Is it worth implementing into
> DQ, or would it make things over complicated? Can we think of

ways to

> do this simply?

Wide, arcing cuts with a sword or pole arm are much easier to pick
up, you therefore have more time to react. A thrust comes directly
at you, usually at the face, neck or arm pits, and normally has the
whole body of your opponent behind it. At this point it is also
often within the protective range of your weapon, so you have less
to deflect with. Furthermore, once the path of the thrust has been
initiated the target can be changed with little effort from the
thrusters, which is much harder than picking up a change in
direction from a broad sweep.

I have a feeling that deflecting is much more appropriate to most
weapon systems than a direct block. You don't want to put your
weapons in danger of being broken or blunted. You will find that
your grip is more easily lost from a block. Deflecting the power of
a blow means your opponent has a chance of becoming unbalanced.

I am only familiar with medieval weapon systems but have a lot of
interest in earlier periods, especially Viking age and Rome. With
both of these types of fighting the weapon system consisted of an
offensive weapon and a defensive weapon. Legionaries were trained to
fight in close formation with short sword and large shield, I do not
know how well trained they were to fight with just a sword if they
lost their shield (I suspect that the Romans being the ruthless
maniacs they were a legionary who lost his shield on the battlefield
was expected to fall on his sword!) Vikings were expert swords men,
but their style of combat also meant that the shield was used to
attack as well as defend. The shield is the classic example of where
a deflect is much more effective than a block. Simply stopping a
sword blow on your shield is possible but will soon were you out and
wreck your shield. Using the shield to aim a deflecting blow at an
incoming sword will send the blow very wide thus opening a gap for
your own attack.

> Ok so its more of a deflection than block? If so this seems like a
> good arguement for adding weapon ranks to the defence, (ie its
> something that adds to your defence but does not interrupt your own
> attack as an evade would)
>

I am not sure that it is, the DQ combat system was designed as a
simulation of real combat, each round is taken to mean a series of
feints, blows, parries and ripostes. As such having any skill with a
weapon should be reflected both offensively and defensively. The
more skilled you are the better your chances of harming your
opponent, which after all is the primary objective of antagonistic
combat.

>
> Thanks for your contribution, I look forward to your future posts
>
> David

Regards

Rupert

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "redroop1964" <rupert.carus@b...> wrote:

>
> > So thats being able to use a pole arm as a quaterstaff with no
> extra
> > EP cost then
>
> Not too sure about this one. Pole arms generally are quite difficult
> to use, I would suggest that is would work the other way round in
> that a character with pole arm rank would be adept at quarterstaff.
> I feel that someone trained exclusively in quarterstaff would find
> that other pole arms (i.e. with bits of metal on them) balance
> differently. They would also not be familiar with the specific use
> of the hook of a bill for example.

This is what I ment to say, sorry if it came out ambiguous

> > Facinating, is this a general feature of all weapons, is a thrust
> from
> > a sword harder to deflect than a cut? Is it worth implementing into
> > DQ, or would it make things over complicated? Can we think of
> ways to
> > do this simply?
>
> Wide, arcing cuts with a sword or pole arm are much easier to pick
> up, you therefore have more time to react. A thrust comes directly
> at you, usually at the face, neck or arm pits, and normally has the
> whole body of your opponent behind it. At this point it is also
> often within the protective range of your weapon, so you have less
> to deflect with. Furthermore, once the path of the thrust has been
> initiated the target can be changed with little effort from the
> thrusters, which is much harder than picking up a change in
> direction from a broad sweep.
>
> I have a feeling that deflecting is much more appropriate to most
> weapon systems than a direct block. You don't want to put your
> weapons in danger of being broken or blunted. You will find that
> your grip is more easily lost from a block. Deflecting the power of
> a blow means your opponent has a chance of becoming unbalanced.
>
> I am only familiar with medieval weapon systems but have a lot of
> interest in earlier periods, especially Viking age and Rome. With
> both of these types of fighting the weapon system consisted of an
> offensive weapon and a defensive weapon. Legionaries were trained to
> fight in close formation with short sword and large shield, I do not
> know how well trained they were to fight with just a sword if they
> lost their shield (I suspect that the Romans being the ruthless
> maniacs they were a legionary who lost his shield on the battlefield
> was expected to fall on his sword!) Vikings were expert swords men,
> but their style of combat also meant that the shield was used to
> attack as well as defend. The shield is the classic example of where
> a deflect is much more effective than a block. Simply stopping a
> sword blow on your shield is possible but will soon were you out and
> wreck your shield. Using the shield to aim a deflecting blow at an
> incoming sword will send the blow very wide thus opening a gap for

Is there an easy way to model this in DQ or is it too complicated?

> > Ok so its more of a deflection than block? If so this seems like a
> > good arguement for adding weapon ranks to the defence, (ie its
> > something that adds to your defence but does not interrupt your own
> > attack as an evade would)
> >
> I am not sure that it is, the DQ combat system was designed as a
> simulation of real combat, each round is taken to mean a series of
> feints, blows, parries and ripostes. As such having any skill with a
> weapon should be reflected both offensively and defensively.

I thought that's what I said, you've got me confused now :--). Should
it be cumulative with a shield? would you deflect some with the shield
and some with your sword (for example)

> The
> more skilled you are the better your chances of harming your
> opponent, which after all is the primary objective of antagonistic
> combat.
> >
> > Thanks for your contribution, I look forward to your future posts
> >
> > David
>
> Regards
>
> Rupert

Hi, Rupert. :-)

>I have not played DQ for years properly; the most recent time was
>with my eight year old daughter about three months ago. It was great
>fun but very time consuming.
>
>

It always is when you have to teach it to new people, even when they're
20+, never mind a child as young as eight. :-)

>So, as a non-DQ playing member of the group feel free to tell me to
>get lost if you feel that what I have to say is not relevant to game play.
>
>

Like David said, this is a friendly group and we don't do that. If
somebody for some reason did decide to be such an idiot, you have my
assurance that I would flame them to a cinder. Good contributions like
yours are always welcome. :-)

>I have no time to play DQ but I am trained in Medieval Martial Arts,
>this includes unarmed, small sword, longsword, pole arms and lance.
>
>

Well, we can always use somebody with actual hands-on experience to give
us advice, so you just got elected, I think. :-)

>A cut from a quarterstaff is relatively easy to
>deflect whilst a thrust is much more difficult. A blow from an
>oblique 'cut' has a good chance of giving a glancing blow whereas a
>good thrust from a quarterstaff will crack ribs and puncture lungs.
>
>

Well, there *is* a reason why slashing in ice hockey sends you to cool
off for a couple of minutes but stabbing gets you suspended for the rest
of the game and also for the next one, and it's precisely this. I'll add
that I've done it once in school well over a dozen years ago, and it
certainly leaves an impression on the other guy. A bigger fellow picked
a fight with me on the ice, came to me and started cross checking and
hurling abuse, and I wasn't about to take it lying down so I just thrut
him in the chest with the stick. Not hard enough to really injure, but
hard enough to hurt. I only had to do it once, and he never bothered me
again. Ever. He was so upset he just took his gear and went home
immediately. It's funny how bullies who are used to baiting others and
pushing them all the time just absolutely piss their pants when they
finally realize that all the times their victim told them not to push
too hard it wasn't just empty talk, but that they really meant it. I
don't *start* trouble, but I have no compunctions whatsoever about
really hurting people, up to and including crippling them for the rest
of their lives if *they* start trouble with me, and at least on that
occasion the fellow got the message. Of course, I got a stern talking
to, but fortunately no more than that because the teacher saw who
started it and how.

>A friend of mine was run into with a pole-axe whilst wearing 3mm
>steel armour (during a re-enactment) which very nearly penetrated
>the armour.
>

He was lucky not to have been skewered. 3 mm of steel can sound like a
lot, and often it is, but the mechanics of how a thrust with a sharp
spike acts on the armor are really sobering once you see the math and
the calculations. I have, and I'm running on an assumption here, but he
probably got hit with a point that widened really soon after the shap
end and rather wide, or otherwise they might have needed a doctor.

>Probably the most important factors in the use of
>offensive and defensive battlefield weapons were how cheap they were
>to produce (swords being hellishly expensive even today),
>

This would be the main reason, it doesn't take nearly as much steel or
smithing skill to forge spearheads or an axe blade that can be mounted
on a stick than it takes to forge a sword.

>and how
>far they allowed your opponent to come. It is probable that the main
>reason why a dismounted man-at-arms was so vulnerable to being cut
>to pieces once knocked off his horse was that they were then
>resorting to using their secondary weapon, the sword.
>
>

That too, but the economics were the main reason, I understood. Of
course, the only difference between a war axe and a pole axe is how long
a pole you stick the blade on...

>Re:Blocking (with pole arms). Blocking is a very alien notion to a
>martial artist, at least a western one. You would never put your
>weapon in the path of a cut, but the side of your weapon to deflect
>the blow whilst simultaneously presenting an attack of your own.
>Some weapons, the very big double handed swords, where specifically
>designed to cut through pike hafts, but these were very impractical
>once the melee developed.
>
>

Which is why I said that actual blocking would not be the way it is
done. Deflection parry works much better for a number of reasons, one of
which is that your weapon is not as likely to break, one is the balance
issue you mentioned (later) and yet another one that you just guide the
other guy's energy someplace else instead of using your own to absorb it
all, so you won't tire as fast.

Some people were also asking about the lance, whether it was mounted or
footman's weapon. A footman's lance would be the pike, and the note on
the lance (both in the original DQ 2E and in the CWT) says that the
weapon is usable by mounted figures only. Leaves very little to
interpretation, it's a horseman's lance.

Edi

--------------------

redroop1964 wrote:

>Dear All
>
>A this is my first message to this group; hello one and all.
>
>I have not played DQ for years properly; the most recent time was
>with my eight year old daughter about three months ago. It was great
>fun but very time consuming.
>
>So, as a non-DQ playing member of the group feel free to tell me to
>get lost if you feel that what I have to say is not relevant to game
>play.
>
>I have no time to play DQ but I am trained in Medieval Martial Arts,
>this includes unarmed, small sword, longsword, pole arms and lance.
>
>I do not have a horse and so will probably not ever use a lance in
>either training or bouts, but the rest I have various degrees of
>familiarity with.
>
>Re: Pole arms. Most pole arm training is very similar. For example
>the quarterstaff and pole-axe both have the same 'cuts', 'blocks'
>and 'guards'. It is just that the pole-axe was designed for use
>against an armoured opponent. The billhook was very similar but with
>the additional benefit of the hook obviously, which was used to
>unbalance and trip, remove items of armour etc. The most
>important 'cut' for all these weapons was the thrust, especially for
>the quarterstaff. A cut from a quarterstaff is relatively easy to
>deflect whilst a thrust is much more difficult. A blow from an
>oblique 'cut' has a good chance of giving a glancing blow whereas a
>good thrust from a quarterstaff will crack ribs and puncture lungs.
>A friend of mine was run into with a pole-axe whilst wearing 3mm
>steel armour (during a re-enactment) which very nearly penetrated
>the armour. Probably the most important factors in the use of
>offensive and defensive battlefield weapons were how cheap they were
>to produce (swords being hellishly expensive even today), and how
>far they allowed your opponent to come. It is probable that the main
>reason why a dismounted man-at-arms was so vulnerable to being cut
>to pieces once knocked off his horse was that they were then
>resorting to using their secondary weapon, the sword.
>
>Re:Blocking (with pole arms). Blocking is a very alien notion to a
>martial artist, at least a western one. You would never put your
>weapon in the path of a cut, but the side of your weapon to deflect
>the blow whilst simultaneously presenting an attack of your own.
>Some weapons, the very big double handed swords, where specifically
>designed to cut through pike hafts, but these were very impractical
>once the melee developed.
>
>Re: The pike. The effectiveness of the pike lies in the training and
>cohesion of the unit armed with this weapon. These units were used
>as heavy infantry, although were often lightly armoured. They did
>indeed defend well against cavalry, but then so did all pole arm
>wielding foot units. Units of pike were also devastating when used
>against infantry. Unless you can break the line of pikes there is
>not much you can do to break the unit. There are a number of
>historical battles (I am sorry I can't remember which - will have to
>go back to my books) in which poorly trained pike units where wiped
>of the face of the battlefield because once the wall of pikes if
>broken the weapon is practically useless. As the use of small arms
>developed so the pike got longer, reaching its longest length in
>order to defend itself from contemporary cavalry armed with light
>side arms, the pike kept the cavalry at the weapons maximum
>effective range! Whilst the pikeman was standing with lead bouncing
>off him the musqueteers where taking pot shots. I'd rather be an
>infantry man any day of the week.
>
>I will only go so far as to make one suggestion as to how these
>observations might be incorporated into rules but would be willing
>to ask others in my martial arms group and other groups for their
>opinions as to how to codify this if you all felt it might be
>worthwhile. My suggestion is to restrict the pike and lance to
>battlefield situations because their use outside massed combat
>renders their wielders practically undefended.
>
>Regards
>
>Rupert
>
>

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
wrote:

> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:
> >
> > I have always been under the assumption that the listed "lance"

was

> for a horseman's lance. Could it not be a footman's lance?
> >
> > Steve
>
> I have, like you, always assumed it ment the horseman's weapon. How
> would a footman's lance differ in game terms from a pike or spear?
>
> David

The footnote confirms that this is a horseman's lance.

Hello everyone

I was wondering where I can find the seacond edditon rules?

Thanks for the help.

Those of you who aren't on the dqnewsletter list may want to go to the list site (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqnewsletter/) and look at copies of the Newsletter. I've put out four issues this week, containing plain-text versions of all of the remaining DragonQuest articles from Dragon Magazine.

I had a reader contact me to find out why he had gotten three (and by now four) copies of the Newsletter recently. That is the reason. Sorry if this confused anyone or inundated a mailbox.

Rodger Thorm
DQN Editor

David,

Have you settled on a final version of your ORCS
campaign rules that you could share with all of us?
We had some discussion about that before the holidays,
and it might get some new discussion going to have a
look at the finished version.

--Rodger


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

Er JohnD actually....

Had a 'total player kill' while finishing off the previous campaign and
everyone is a bit jaded and DQ'ed out. A lot of characters who were 10
years or longer died. 3 in fact are undead due to manner of 'death'.
Everyone bit worn down

Playing a brief n lite D&D 3e thing (everyone being gnomes or halflings)
for maybe half a year and so I will turn my thoughts to DQ-ORCS matters in a
few months.

Regards

JohnD.

>From: Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Re: ORCS (FIRST BLOOD) campaign (magic)
>Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:14:28 -0800 (PST)
>
>David,
>
>Have you settled on a final version of your ORCS
>campaign rules that you could share with all of us?
>We had some discussion about that before the holidays,
>and it might get some new discussion going to have a
>look at the finished version.
>
> --Rodger
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Sorry JohnD,

I should've gone back to the original postings. I guess I replied to David's comments in the thread and thought he was the originator.

In any event, do keep us informed about this.

--Rodger

-----Original Message-----
From: davis john <jrd123@hotmail.com>
Sent: Jan 16, 2004 9:42 AM
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Re: ORCS (FIRST BLOOD) campaign (magic)

Er JohnD actually....

Had a 'total player kill' while finishing off the previous campaign and
everyone is a bit jaded and DQ'ed out. A lot of characters who were 10
years or longer died. 3 in fact are undead due to manner of 'death'.
Everyone bit worn down

Playing a brief n lite D&D 3e thing (everyone being gnomes or halflings)
for maybe half a year and so I will turn my thoughts to DQ-ORCS matters in a
few months.

Regards

JohnD.

>From: Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Re: ORCS (FIRST BLOOD) campaign (magic)
>Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:14:28 -0800 (PST)
>
>David,
>
>Have you settled on a final version of your ORCS
>campaign rules that you could share with all of us?
>We had some discussion about that before the holidays,
>and it might get some new discussion going to have a
>look at the finished version.
>
> --Rodger
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger


To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
dq-rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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

Things have been a bit quiet around here lately. Anyone have any ideas they want to throw out there that we can brainstorm on? It might be nice to take a raw idea and develop through this forum, rather than just critiquing other's work.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Hi, people...
I had some troubles on sightings, vision and detections running a DQ session, so I compiled the
rules on vision I found in 2nd.Ed., with some house rules to fill the gaps, and I am posting them
for your revision.

Lighting Condition Range TMR Mod. Cbt.Mod. REMARKS
Dusk(very late) 10hex
Torch/lantern 9hex
Starry night 7hex -10
Shadowy interior 7hex -10
Cloudy night 5hex -20
Cave 1hex 1/2TMR -30 to strike:4xPC(rule 15.5)
Unlit interior 1hex 1/2TMR -30 to strike:4xPC(rule 15.5)
Pitch blackness 0hex 1/2TMR -40 to strike:4xPC(rule 15.5)
Dwarf darkness open 10hex
Dwarf darkness structures 20hex
Dwarf darkness caves 30hex
Elf dark open 30hex
Elf dark else 15hex
Cat Torch/lantern 54hex
Cat Starry night 48hex
Cat Shadowy interior 42hex
Cat Cloudy night 30hex
Cat Cave 6hex -20
Cat interior 6hex -20
Cat pitch blackness 0hex 1/2TMR -40 to strike: 4xPC(rule 15.5)
Giant Infravision 50hex faint shapes, living beings
Halfling Infravision 20hex solid shapes, living beings
Orc Infravision 30hex faint shapes, living beings
Fire Infravision vision range(darkness 10hex) to identify PC+5xRk-1p/10ft-10
Elf Witchsight vision range to detect PC+5xRk
E&E Witchsight vision range to detect PC+4xRk
Illusions Witchsight vision range to detect PC+5xRk + elf dark vision
Celestial Witchsight vision range to detect PC+3xRk + elf dark vision
Black Witchsight vision range to detect PC+5xRk + elf dark vision
Night Vision vision like a cat distorsion PCx(5+Rk/4)roundup
Walking Unseen touch located
E&E Invisibility Rk0-15 visible when attacking rk 16-20 attacks invisible
Mind Invisibility Visible 1xPC not detectable by witchsight
Blending touch located static

With very poor lighting conditions, characters move at 1/2 TMR.
Infravision only sees living beings or objects with temperature differences with environment, so
it is very difficult to see in very poor lighting conditions, as there are no IR lanterns to
illuminate the scene.
Fire infravision identifies nature of object, and if it is of magical nature.
Witchsight doesn't allow to see in darkness. Mind invisibility is not detected by witchsight, but
for anyone who makes 1 x PC.
I found in the net that cat vision is 6 times better than human, and also cats can't see in pitch
darkness. To represent the geometrical distortion I envisaged the PC check as stated.

Best regards to all and long life to DragonQuest... Arturo

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Arturo,

This is a VERY GOOD list. Thanks you very much!

My only questions are about what you based your
cat vision ranges on and the ongoing debate on
whether infravision should have a longer range
than regular vision.

>Hi, people...
>I had some troubles on sightings, vision and
>detections running a DQ session, so I compiled
>the
>rules on vision I found in 2nd.Ed., with some
>house rules to fill the gaps, and I am posting
>them
>for your revision.
>
>Lighting Condition Range TMR Mod. Cbt.Mod. REMARKS
>Dusk(very late) 10hex
>Torch/lantern 9hex
>Starry night 7hex -10
>Shadowy interior 7hex -10
>Cloudy night 5hex -20
>Cave 1hex 1/2TMR -30 to strike:4xPC(rule 15.5)
>Unlit interior 1hex 1/2TMR -30 to strike:4xPC(rule 15.5)
>Pitch blackness 0hex 1/2TMR -40 to strike:4xPC(rule 15.5)
>Dwarf darkness open 10hex
>Dwarf darkness structures 20hex
>Dwarf darkness caves 30hex
>Elf dark open 30hex
>Elf dark else 15hex
>Cat Torch/lantern 54hex
>Cat Starry night 48hex
>Cat Shadowy interior 42hex
>Cat Cloudy night 30hex
>Cat Cave 6hex -20
>Cat interior 6hex -20
>Cat pitch blackness 0hex 1/2TMR -40 to strike: 4xPC(rule 15.5)
>Giant Infravision 50hex faint shapes, living beings
>Halfling Infravision 20hex solid shapes, living beings
>Orc Infravision 30hex faint shapes, living beings
>Fire Infravision vision range(darkness
>10hex) to identify PC+5xRk-1p/10ft-10
>Elf Witchsight vision range to detect PC+5xRk
>E&E Witchsight vision range to detect PC+4xRk
>Illusions Witchsight vision range
>to detect PC+5xRk + elf dark vision
>Celestial Witchsight vision range
>to detect PC+3xRk + elf dark vision
>Black Witchsight vision range
>to detect PC+5xRk + elf dark vision
>Night Vision vision like a cat
>distorsion PCx(5+Rk/4)roundup
>Walking Unseen touch located
>E&E Invisibility Rk0-15 visible when attacking rk 16-20 attacks invisible
>Mind Invisibility Visible 1xPC
>not detectable by witchsight
>Blending touch located static
>
>With very poor lighting conditions, characters move at 1/2 TMR.
>Infravision only sees living beings or objects
>with temperature differences with environment, so
>it is very difficult to see in very poor
>lighting conditions, as there are no IR lanterns
>to
>illuminate the scene.
>Fire infravision identifies nature of object, and if it is of magical nature.
>Witchsight doesn't allow to see in darkness.
>Mind invisibility is not detected by witchsight,
>but
>for anyone who makes 1 x PC.
>I found in the net that cat vision is 6 times
>better than human, and also cats can't see in
>pitch
>darkness. To represent the geometrical
>distortion I envisaged the PC check as stated.
>
>Best regards to all and long life to DragonQuest... Arturo
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
>Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I
am just tired of that reason being to make me
unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine
women, but it sounds like it would be fun to try!"

"Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is
their butts that make their pants look big?"

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

That sounds like a good topic for discussion. Everyone here has probably fought the same creatures over and over again and therefore would a little more variety. I know I would.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Check out
http://www.quicktopic.com/23/H/yDhSuWsbjS6y

It was something Nightwing set up in August (2003) called MonsterQuest
(Named after an original appeal from SPI for monsters). This
discussion never really got off the ground, if we want to have a go
here its fine by me, I was just pointing it out

David

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:
>
> That sounds like a good topic for discussion. Everyone here has
probably fought the same creatures over and over again and therefore
would a little more variety. I know I would.
>
> Stephen
>

We could continue the thread here or there. I guess it really doesn't matter.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Im just wondering if I can find my old DQ group from Korea.. we
played down in Yongsan on weekends, around 1999-2000. I know that
one of them introduced me to the group, was wondering who's still
around..

--
Joshua
AKA: musashi111

> 2. Re: On Sights and Vision
> From: Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>

Martin:
Sorry for the delay in answering. I'm on vacation and it is hard to get a connection.
To set the cat vision I just multiplied by 6 the values for human ranges. I took dusk as 10 hexes
because dwarves see in the open as the human does at dusk (10 hexes) and decreased the ranges from
there on. Also it is a way to limit the tactical display size on poor lighting conditions;
remember that an average TMR is 4-5 hexes.
On the infravision debate, I'd like to make a remark. The IR goggles that are used by the
military, don't have a range in excess to a handful of meters for natural sources of heat as a
human being or an animal. They are used mainly to detect tank engines (that are a lot hotter), and
also a lot of tanks that use IR sightings for their guns, also have IR lightsources that are used
to illuminate the surroundings. To detect mansized targets, the military uses nocturnal light
enhancers.
Best regards... Arturo

> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:15:07 -0600
> From: Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: On Sights and Vision
>
> Arturo,
>
> This is a VERY GOOD list. Thanks you very much!
>
> My only questions are about what you based your
> cat vision ranges on and the ongoing debate on
> whether infravision should have a longer range
> than regular vision.
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

I know about the vacation access problem. I may
be gone for a week or so to take care of my
father in the near future.

Where did the 'factor of 6' for cats come from?
Are cats eyes generally able to see 6 times
farther away than humans? Or is it that with
altitude (sitting in a tree, etc) they have a
less obstructed view. Perhaps just adding an
extra value of, say, 6 to 20 hexes (depending on
the size of the cat or other conditions) to their
vision range would be more appropriate.

I have not studied night vision or IR goggle for
a while, but it seems to me that the range of
this type of apparatus is dependant more on the
conditions (relative difference in size and
temperature difference between heat source and
background for IR and actual ambient light
available (for scatter) and reflectivity of the
target for night vision). Thus for IR a hot tank
stands out from farther away because it is much
hotter than its surroundings and is large.

Anyway, just curious.

> > 2. Re: On Sights and Vision
>> From: Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>
>Martin:
>Sorry for the delay in answering. I'm on
>vacation and it is hard to get a connection.
>To set the cat vision I just multiplied by 6 the
>values for human ranges. I took dusk as 10 hexes
>because dwarves see in the open as the human
>does at dusk (10 hexes) and decreased the ranges
>from
>there on. Also it is a way to limit the tactical
>display size on poor lighting conditions;
>remember that an average TMR is 4-5 hexes.
>On the infravision debate, I'd like to make a
>remark. The IR goggles that are used by the
>military, don't have a range in excess to a
>handful of meters for natural sources of heat as
>a
>human being or an animal. They are used mainly
>to detect tank engines (that are a lot hotter),
>and
>also a lot of tanks that use IR sightings for
>their guns, also have IR lightsources that are
>used
>to illuminate the surroundings. To detect
>mansized targets, the military uses nocturnal
>light
>enhancers.
>Best regards... Arturo
>
>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:15:07 -0600
>> From: Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>
>> Subject: Re: On Sights and Vision
>>
>> Arturo,
>>
>> This is a VERY GOOD list. Thanks you very much!
>>
>> My only questions are about what you based your
>> cat vision ranges on and the ongoing debate on
>> whether infravision should have a longer range
>> than regular vision.
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
>Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I
am just tired of that reason being to make me
unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine
women, but it sounds like it would be fun to try!"

"Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is
their butts that make their pants look big?"