Messages in DQ-RULES group. Page 31 of 40.

Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1508 From: Bob Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1509 From: tiago.bhz@gmail.com Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Res: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1510 From: koraq Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1511 From: hzark10 Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1512 From: davis john Date: 12/30/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1513 From: Gabriel Martinez Date: 12/30/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1514 From: John Rauchert Date: 12/30/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1515 From: dbarrass_2000 Date: 12/31/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1516 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 12/31/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1517 From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz Date: 1/1/2011
Subject: I would like to read the document on Cathedrals
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1518 From: John_Rauchert Date: 1/1/2011
Subject: Re: I would like to read the document on Cathedrals
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1519 From: hzark10@aol.com Date: 1/2/2011
Subject: Re: I would like to read the document on Cathedrals
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1520 From: John_Rauchert Date: 1/2/2011
Subject: Re: College of Greater Summoning
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1521 From: hzark10 Date: 1/2/2011
Subject: Re: College of Greater Summoning
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1522 From: archaimbaudthered Date: 1/25/2011
Subject: New Alchemist recipe's
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1523 From: rthorm Date: 2/28/2011
Subject: Moving Open DragonQuest
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1524 From: kakashi64 Date: 3/21/2011
Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1525 From: Stormcrow Date: 3/21/2011
Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1526 From: Chaim Kaufmann Date: 3/22/2011
Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1527 From: Gint Date: 3/22/2011
Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1528 From: Andreas Davour Date: 3/23/2011
Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1529 From: Ted Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1530 From: rthorm Date: 5/12/2011
Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1531 From: Ted Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1532 From: Ted Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1533 From: Ted Date: 5/13/2011
Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1534 From: rthorm Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Horse Quality Tables (was: Poor Brendans Almanac questions)
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1535 From: Ted Date: 5/16/2011
Subject: Re: Horse Quality Tables (was: Poor Brendans Almanac questions)
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1536 From: rthorm Date: 5/20/2011
Subject: Re: Horse Quality Tables (was: Poor Brendans Almanac questions)
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1537 From: Ted Date: 5/30/2011
Subject: Magic control
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1538 From: Gabriel Martinez Date: 5/30/2011
Subject: Re: Magic control
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1539 From: Ian Wood Date: 5/30/2011
Subject: Re: Magic control
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1540 From: Chaim Kaufmann Date: 5/31/2011
Subject: Re: Digest Number 532
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1541 From: Ted Date: 6/1/2011
Subject: Re: Magic Control
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1542 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1543 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1544 From: Ian Wood Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1545 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1546 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1547 From: darkislephil Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1549 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1551 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1552 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1555 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1556 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1557 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Pricing and value of magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1558 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Cost to purchase magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1559 From: David Novak Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1560 From: David Novak Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: Cost to purchase magic items
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1561 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
Subject: Re: Cost to purchase magic items



Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1508 From: Bob Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
I have them - I'd forgotten that I had never run across digital copies. Guess I should scan them sometime.
As to how good they are, I would say that they are better than most JG stuff (especially those for D&D) but not as good as the SPI stuff (natch).

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "hzark10" <hzark10@...> wrote:
>
> I understand there were three items JG produced for DQ. Does anyone know if they were any good or not? I haven't found them with a casual effort and want to know if I need to expend more effort to find them.
>
> Bob
>
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1509 From: tiago.bhz@gmail.com Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Res: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
You can find some of them at nobleknight.com for about $10 each.

Enviado pelo meu aparelho BlackBerry® da Vivo


From: "Bob" <bobconstans@yahoo.ca>
Sender: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:20:49 -0000
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
ReplyTo: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff

 

I have them - I'd forgotten that I had never run across digital copies. Guess I should scan them sometime.
As to how good they are, I would say that they are better than most JG stuff (especially those for D&D) but not as good as the SPI stuff (natch).

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "hzark10" <hzark10@...> wrote:
>
> I understand there were three items JG produced for DQ. Does anyone know if they were any good or not? I haven't found them with a casual effort and want to know if I need to expend more effort to find them.
>
> Bob
>

Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1510 From: koraq Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
> > --- On Wed, 12/29/10, hzark10 <hzark10@> wrote:
> >
> > > I understand there were three items
> > > JG produced for DQ.  Does anyone know if they were any
> > > good or not?  I haven't found them with a casual effort
> > > and want to know if I need to expend more effort to find
> > > them.
> >
> > I have the two adventures, but haven't read them in detail. Let me know if I should look something up, though.

> >
> Was there anything new in there that a gm might want? The Heroes and Villains would save hours, but not sure if it is necessary. The two adventures, if just adventures, might not be all that necessary, but if tbey added skills, spells, or colleges, then it might be worth tracking them down.
> Bob

I actually took them out and thumbed through them.

The one called Magebird Quest contains some deckplans for a couple of boats and an inn or two. Apart from that it seems to be only a small section of travel speeds by boat which might be of interest as far as rules and crunch go. I think I spotted a new monster as well.

The Starsilver Trek contains more specific crunch. It has a description of the Prospector skill and stats for magically irradiated creatures. Also, probably a new monster but I don't know the DQ monster list that well. The cover illustration is depicting a fight between dwarves and lizard men. What is there not to love? :)

/andreas
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1511 From: hzark10 Date: 12/29/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Thanks, sounds like the latter (Starsilver is one I need to track down, the other only if cheap).

Bob
--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "koraq" <Koraq@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > --- On Wed, 12/29/10, hzark10 <hzark10@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I understand there were three items
> > > > JG produced for DQ.  Does anyone know if they were any
> > > > good or not?  I haven't found them with a casual effort
> > > > and want to know if I need to expend more effort to find
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > I have the two adventures, but haven't read them in detail. Let me know if I should look something up, though.
>
> > >
> > Was there anything new in there that a gm might want? The Heroes and Villains would save hours, but not sure if it is necessary. The two adventures, if just adventures, might not be all that necessary, but if tbey added skills, spells, or colleges, then it might be worth tracking them down.
> > Bob
>
> I actually took them out and thumbed through them.
>
> The one called Magebird Quest contains some deckplans for a couple of boats and an inn or two. Apart from that it seems to be only a small section of travel speeds by boat which might be of interest as far as rules and crunch go. I think I spotted a new monster as well.
>
> The Starsilver Trek contains more specific crunch. It has a description of the Prospector skill and stats for magically irradiated creatures. Also, probably a new monster but I don't know the DQ monster list that well. The cover illustration is depicting a fight between dwarves and lizard men. What is there not to love? :)
>
> /andreas
>
Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1512 From: davis john Date: 12/30/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
I have run magebird quest a few times and iirc it was enjoyable

starsilver assumes an all dwarf party

never found H+V of any use at all


To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
From: hzark10@aol.com
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:21:10 +0000
Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff

 

Thanks, sounds like the latter (Starsilver is one I need to track down, the other only if cheap).

Bob
--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "koraq" <Koraq@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > --- On Wed, 12/29/10, hzark10 <hzark10@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I understand there were three items
> > > > JG produced for DQ.  Does anyone know if they were any
> > > > good or not?  I haven't found them with a casual effort
> > > > and want to know if I need to expend more effort to find
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > I have the two adventures, but haven't read them in detail. Let me know if I should look something up, though.
>
> > >
> > Was there anything new in there that a gm might want? The Heroes and Villains would save hours, but not sure if it is necessary. The two adventures, if just adventures, might not be all that necessary, but if tbey added skills, spells, or colleges, then it might be worth tracking them down.
> > Bob
>
> I actually took them out and thumbed through them.
>
> The one called Magebird Quest contains some deckplans for a couple of boats and an inn or two. Apart from that it seems to be only a small section of travel speeds by boat which might be of interest as far as rules and crunch go. I think I spotted a new monster as well.
>
> The Starsilver Trek contains more specific crunch. It has a description of the Prospector skill and stats for magically irradiated creatures. Also, probably a new monster but I don't know the DQ monster list that well. The cover illustration is depicting a fight between dwarves and lizard men. What is there not to love? :)
>
> /andreas
>


Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1513 From: Gabriel Martinez Date: 12/30/2010
Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
Attachments :
    Hey! H&V had a presious token o information! It has the Onagro Professión, with a rank cost's chart!

    Now seriously, there is a list around the civerspace with all the DQ material published. Following this list,I boght almost all that books around the world. Even magazines with some article about it.

    If you feel that can be usefull, just let me know.

    Happy new year!

    Gabriel.

    ________________________________

    De: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com en nombre de koraq
    Enviado el: mié 29/12/2010 17:11
    Para: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    Asunto: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff





    > > --- On Wed, 12/29/10, hzark10 <hzark10@> wrote:
    > >
    > > > I understand there were three items
    > > > JG produced for DQ. Does anyone know if they were any
    > > > good or not? I haven't found them with a casual effort
    > > > and want to know if I need to expend more effort to find
    > > > them.
    > >
    > > I have the two adventures, but haven't read them in detail. Let me know if I should look something up, though.

    > >
    > Was there anything new in there that a gm might want? The Heroes and Villains would save hours, but not sure if it is necessary. The two adventures, if just adventures, might not be all that necessary, but if tbey added skills, spells, or colleges, then it might be worth tracking them down.
    > Bob

    I actually took them out and thumbed through them.

    The one called Magebird Quest contains some deckplans for a couple of boats and an inn or two. Apart from that it seems to be only a small section of travel speeds by boat which might be of interest as far as rules and crunch go. I think I spotted a new monster as well.

    The Starsilver Trek contains more specific crunch. It has a description of the Prospector skill and stats for magically irradiated creatures. Also, probably a new monster but I don't know the DQ monster list that well. The cover illustration is depicting a fight between dwarves and lizard men. What is there not to love? :)

    /andreas
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1514 From: John Rauchert Date: 12/30/2010
    Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
    The Onager is more of a ranked weapon skill. :)

    p.24 Heroes and Villians

    The Onager as used on shipboard is one of the smaller types of siege engine,
    throwing rocks of about ten to fifteen pounds in weight. The maximum range
    is about 250 yards or 150 hexes. It has a Damage Modifier of +2, being Class
    C for Ranged use only. The maximum Skill Rank obtainable with this weapon is
    5. The minimum crew to operate this weapon is four, with one additional
    crew-member being required per additional ten pounds of missile weight. It
    can fire once every one minute plus (1 minute x Missile Weight over 20
    pounds/10). The Base Chance to hit is 25%.

    Experience Point Cost for Rank Advancement with Onager

    0 1 2 3 4 5
    250 250 450 750 1550 3100

    JohnR

    -----Original Message-----
    From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
    Of Gabriel Martinez
    Sent: December 30, 2010 8:21 AM
    To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: RE: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff

    Hey! H&V had a presious token o information! It has the Onagro Professión,
    with a rank cost's chart!
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1515 From: dbarrass_2000 Date: 12/31/2010
    Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
    damage mod of +2, a 15 pound stone lobbed 250 yards!! Something wrong I feel. This type of machine could peck away a castle walls and would make mincemeat of a human. The rest seems ok though

    David

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "John Rauchert" <jfrauchert@...> wrote:
    >
    >
    > The Onager is more of a ranked weapon skill. :)
    >
    > p.24 Heroes and Villians
    >
    > The Onager as used on shipboard is one of the smaller types of siege engine,
    > throwing rocks of about ten to fifteen pounds in weight. The maximum range
    > is about 250 yards or 150 hexes. It has a Damage Modifier of +2, being Class
    > C for Ranged use only. The maximum Skill Rank obtainable with this weapon is
    > 5. The minimum crew to operate this weapon is four, with one additional
    > crew-member being required per additional ten pounds of missile weight. It
    > can fire once every one minute plus (1 minute x Missile Weight over 20
    > pounds/10). The Base Chance to hit is 25%.
    >
    > Experience Point Cost for Rank Advancement with Onager
    >
    > 0 1 2 3 4 5
    > 250 250 450 750 1550 3100
    >
    > JohnR
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
    > Of Gabriel Martinez
    > Sent: December 30, 2010 8:21 AM
    > To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    > Subject: RE: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
    >
    > Hey! H&V had a presious token o information! It has the Onagro Professión,
    > with a rank cost's chart!
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1516 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 12/31/2010
    Subject: Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
    I agree.

    Rock is listed as requiring a PS of 5 and does D-1. A sling does +1 and a
    staff sling does +3.

    A sling stone can vary from about 1.83 ounces to 1 lb, so at a minimum a 15
    lb onager stone should do D+15 and a maximum of D+131.

    ~Jeffery~



    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
    To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
    Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 12:31 PM
    Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff


    damage mod of +2, a 15 pound stone lobbed 250 yards!! Something wrong I
    feel. This type of machine could peck away a castle walls and would make
    mincemeat of a human. The rest seems ok though

    David

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "John Rauchert" <jfrauchert@...> wrote:
    >
    >
    > The Onager is more of a ranked weapon skill. :)
    >
    > p.24 Heroes and Villians
    >
    > The Onager as used on shipboard is one of the smaller types of siege
    > engine,
    > throwing rocks of about ten to fifteen pounds in weight. The maximum range
    > is about 250 yards or 150 hexes. It has a Damage Modifier of +2, being
    > Class
    > C for Ranged use only. The maximum Skill Rank obtainable with this weapon
    > is
    > 5. The minimum crew to operate this weapon is four, with one additional
    > crew-member being required per additional ten pounds of missile weight. It
    > can fire once every one minute plus (1 minute x Missile Weight over 20
    > pounds/10). The Base Chance to hit is 25%.
    >
    > Experience Point Cost for Rank Advancement with Onager
    >
    > 0 1 2 3 4 5
    > 250 250 450 750 1550 3100
    >
    > JohnR
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
    > Of Gabriel Martinez
    > Sent: December 30, 2010 8:21 AM
    > To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    > Subject: RE: [dq-rules] Re: Old Judges Guild stuff
    >
    > Hey! H&V had a presious token o information! It has the Onagro Professión,
    > with a rank cost's chart!
    >




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

    To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
    dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1517 From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz Date: 1/1/2011
    Subject: I would like to read the document on Cathedrals
    hi there,
    I have skimmed through the group's site and see reference to a document on religion in DQ that was posted (i think) by dbarrass_2000.

    I would like to read through it if it is available.

    cheers Ian
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1518 From: John_Rauchert Date: 1/1/2011
    Subject: Re: I would like to read the document on Cathedrals
    Here is a link to the work done up to 2006

    http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/archive/dqcathedral/dqcarchive1.htm

    JohnR

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "dawnhaven@..." <dawnhaven@...> wrote:
    >
    > hi there,
    > I have skimmed through the group's site and see reference to a document on religion in DQ that was posted (i think) by dbarrass_2000.
    >
    > I would like to read through it if it is available.
    >
    > cheers Ian
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1519 From: hzark10@aol.com Date: 1/2/2011
    Subject: Re: I would like to read the document on Cathedrals
    Thanks for posting this.  It gives a definite backdrop to the major work done on this. 

    I do have a couple of questions regarding this area.  The College of Greater Summoning deals exclusively with the summoning and controlling those beings from other dimensions. In a past campaign, I had expanded this to add the summoning of Hell-hounds, Djinns, efreets, elementals, and Angels and villains.  One could argue that I wanted a "white" version of GS, but also was thinking of one who didn't see white or black, but have access to anything out there.

    Thoughts?

    Bob


    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1520 From: John_Rauchert Date: 1/2/2011
    Subject: Re: College of Greater Summoning
    I am assuming you are familiar with the College of Lesser Summonings in Arcane Wisdom?

    http://www.zimlab.com/dq/pdf/Arcane_Wisdom.pdf

    I imagine you could reconcile the two colleges and make a "Light" path and a "Dark" path creating single "College of Summoning". The trick would be to get the game balance right.

    JohnR

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hzark10@... wrote:
    >
    > Thanks for posting this. It gives a definite backdrop to the major work done on this.
    >
    > I do have a couple of questions regarding this area. The College of Greater Summoning deals exclusively with the summoning and controlling those beings from other dimensions. In a past campaign, I had expanded this to add the summoning of Hell-hounds, Djinns, efreets, elementals, and Angels and villains. One could argue that I wanted a "white" version of GS, but also was thinking of one who didn't see white or black, but have access to anything out there.
    >
    > Thoughts?
    >
    > Bob
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1521 From: hzark10 Date: 1/2/2011
    Subject: Re: College of Greater Summoning
    Indeed I am. This came about because of the "good" vs. "evil" discussion others have had in most rpgs. The difference for our group was GS were concerned with summoning those 'outside' of this dimension, and LS were concerned with summoning those 'inside' the dimension. We wanted a GS who refused to deal with demons and their ilk but wanted a counterpart. It then expanded to the creation of opposite rituals (keeping the idea of just rituals). So, Succubi and Incubi were out and instead of demons you had angels. Of course, they disliked the idea of being summoned by a mere mortal without divine aknowledgement, so again you had the entire idea of binding was still necessary. The Rituals were created via the spell creation rules in AW, but the campaign fell apart before details of each and every angel (and the level of them) with their areas of dominion, etc. were fully fleshed out. We had also created a table that caused a GS to possibly fail in their summonings because the one being summoned was currently in use by another GS.

    That led to the idea of being able to summon elementals, djinn, efreet, and hell-hounds as these were also from 'outside', so a GS was much more versatile.

    We had not gotten to the point where game-balance was tested as the campaign died soon after we did most of the fleshing out the rituals, but not in play.

    Bob

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "John_Rauchert" <jfrauchert@...> wrote:
    >
    > I am assuming you are familiar with the College of Lesser Summonings in Arcane Wisdom?
    >
    > http://www.zimlab.com/dq/pdf/Arcane_Wisdom.pdf
    >
    > I imagine you could reconcile the two colleges and make a "Light" path and a "Dark" path creating single "College of Summoning". The trick would be to get the game balance right.
    >
    > JohnR
    >
    > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hzark10@ wrote:
    > >
    > > Thanks for posting this. It gives a definite backdrop to the major work done on this.
    > >
    > > I do have a couple of questions regarding this area. The College of Greater Summoning deals exclusively with the summoning and controlling those beings from other dimensions. In a past campaign, I had expanded this to add the summoning of Hell-hounds, Djinns, efreets, elementals, and Angels and villains. One could argue that I wanted a "white" version of GS, but also was thinking of one who didn't see white or black, but have access to anything out there.
    > >
    > > Thoughts?
    > >
    > > Bob
    > >
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1522 From: archaimbaudthered Date: 1/25/2011
    Subject: New Alchemist recipe's
    I am curious what new recipe's GM's have come up with? Currently I use the Herbalism list for potions but would really like to see what anyone has come up with. Thanks!
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1523 From: rthorm Date: 2/28/2011
    Subject: Moving Open DragonQuest
    Ha! You didn't even remember there was an Open DragonQuest website. To be honest, I'd forgotten about it too, until I got a message from Netfirms to say that they were ending the free hosting (and inviting me to continue with paid service).

    Instead, I'm moving the few files that were there; I'll find someplace new to put them; maybe even the Files section here.

    If the Silver Gryphon and/or Red Brick groups ever get going on a retro-clone/new edition of DragonQuest, this material is available for them, too.

    There is already an existing (though equally dormant) copy of the blog that accompanied OpenDQ: https://dragonquestrules.wordpress.com/

    I'll let you know when and where I post the copies from Open DQ once I have a new place for it.


    Rodger Thorm
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1524 From: kakashi64 Date: 3/21/2011
    Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
    So... anything happening on this front?

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, viktor.haag@... wrote:
    >
    > Pathfinder takes specific advantage of the OGL and also specifically avoids use of the D20 licensing agreement. Other games have also done this. However the OGL framework at root depends upon the publication of rules as "open content" founded upon an "SRD" or "system reference document". The IP owners of DragonQuest never released any of the games text as an SRD or under the provisions of an OGL license.
    >
    > You can't just use the OGL to subvert the IP rights of any property you like, willy-nilly.
    >
    > Retro-clones are rather firmly (or not so firmly, depending on your point of view) based on the notion that (in theory) you can only copyright the presentation of a game's rules and not the mechanics themselves. The OGL makes explicit provisions under a licensing agreement to use the presentation of a common set of rules' text (ie the presentation) in some strictly defined ways. It is not a letter of marque.
    >
    > V.
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Christopher Cole <gruundehn@...>
    > Sender: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 08:27:51
    > To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
    > Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    > Subject: Re: [dq-rules] New Edition of DQ
    >
    > OK, when D&D went to 4th edition a lot of people, myself among them, hated it. Pathfinder has put out a rewrite of 3.5. I have a copy. It isn't called D&D but it is obviously the smae game. There are some improvements over 3.5, so call the Pathfinder edition 3.6 if you will. The point is DQ could be reprinted, if what Pathfinder has done is legal, but the rules woould have to be rewritten and the name would have to be different.
    > Christopher Cole, The World's Tallest Dwarf
    >
    > --- On Fri, 12/24/10, jflowers1965 <vestrivan@...> wrote:
    >
    >
    > From: jflowers1965 <vestrivan@...>
    > Subject: [dq-rules] New Edition of DQ
    > To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
    > Date: Friday, December 24, 2010, 11:57 PM
    >
    >
    >  
    >
    >
    >
    > Merry Christmas everyone!
    >
    > Sometime back in 2003, Rodger Thorm approached me for a copy of my Word DQ rules, which were submitted to the files section of this list for all to use/abuse as they see fit.
    >
    > At the time, I had just started my publishing company (RedBrick) and didn't have time to continue with edits/revisions to that set.
    >
    > Well, 2011 is upon us. I have had some recent conversations with Eric Goldberg and indicated to him that I was keen to publish a "retro clone" (for want of a better term) of DQ, to get it back into print and available (and, more importantly, more openly supported). Eric doesn't hold any rights to DQ, but expressed an interest in how this might progress.
    >
    > I am keen to assemble a Development Team in the New Year (we do all of our game development online) and was wondering who on this list would be interested?
    >
    > Before you flood the list with cries of derision or acclaim, please be aware that we are looking for "serious" team members ONLY. Those who are prepared to give of their time in the name of getting DQ out into the market again. There won't be financial reward. There won't be groupies or vouchers for hot chocolate. Just hard (but fun!) work.
    >
    > At RedBrick, we look for "team players" -- you need to be prepared to leave you ego at the door as sometimes decisions are made that you might not agree with to get products finished, but we do listen to and value all opinions. You need to fit into this mold.
    >
    > If you are interested, here is the test: Please email me with a short write-up with your experience with DQ, your interest in this project (why and how much effort you think you can realistically commit), and what your expectations are. The cutoff date for expressions of interest is 8 Jan 2011, so get in quick! My email is (change the obvious bits): vestrivan at gmail dot com
    >
    > I look forward to your responses (and some lively discussion on the list).
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > James Sutton (nee James Flowers)
    > Managing Director
    > RedBrick LLC
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1525 From: Stormcrow Date: 3/21/2011
    Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
    Hoping this works out, use to play still have some of my copies of the game. hoping to see it again and will for sure like to get it and play again.
    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "jflowers1965" <vestrivan@...> wrote:
    >
    > Merry Christmas everyone!
    >
    > Sometime back in 2003, Rodger Thorm approached me for a copy of my Word DQ rules, which were submitted to the files section of this list for all to use/abuse as they see fit.
    >
    > At the time, I had just started my publishing company (RedBrick) and didn't have time to continue with edits/revisions to that set.
    >
    > Well, 2011 is upon us. I have had some recent conversations with Eric Goldberg and indicated to him that I was keen to publish a "retro clone" (for want of a better term) of DQ, to get it back into print and available (and, more importantly, more openly supported). Eric doesn't hold any rights to DQ, but expressed an interest in how this might progress.
    >
    > I am keen to assemble a Development Team in the New Year (we do all of our game development online) and was wondering who on this list would be interested?
    >
    > Before you flood the list with cries of derision or acclaim, please be aware that we are looking for "serious" team members ONLY. Those who are prepared to give of their time in the name of getting DQ out into the market again. There won't be financial reward. There won't be groupies or vouchers for hot chocolate. Just hard (but fun!) work.
    >
    > At RedBrick, we look for "team players" -- you need to be prepared to leave you ego at the door as sometimes decisions are made that you might not agree with to get products finished, but we do listen to and value all opinions. You need to fit into this mold.
    >
    > If you are interested, here is the test: Please email me with a short write-up with your experience with DQ, your interest in this project (why and how much effort you think you can realistically commit), and what your expectations are. The cutoff date for expressions of interest is 8 Jan 2011, so get in quick! My email is (change the obvious bits): vestrivan at gmail dot com
    >
    > I look forward to your responses (and some lively discussion on the list).
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > James Sutton (nee James Flowers)
    > Managing Director
    > RedBrick LLC
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1526 From: Chaim Kaufmann Date: 3/22/2011
    Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
    It would be great to see this happen. I would like to contribute but am
    not in a position to make a commitment now.


    All involved should keep in mind that names of particular game
    mechanics, spells, classes, monsters, etc. are in principle
    copyrightable, although not if the name is an ordinary English word or
    phrase used in its ordinary meaning. Widespread use in a game or
    literary genre, e.g. "Ranger," is also enough to make a usage public
    domain, although one or two appearances prior to publication by the
    copyright claimant might not always be.

    There is also the question, if the copyright owner has no publication
    plans, of whether they would be motivated to go after anyone/anything
    not named "DragonQuest" and not mentioning DQ by name even if it
    contained passages that arguably would not pass strict scrutiny.

    --

    Chaim Kaufmann
    Associate Professor
    International Relations
    Lehigh University
    ck07@lehigh.edu
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1527 From: Gint Date: 3/22/2011
    Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
    As I understand from some of the things that went on with RuneQuest vs. Basic Role-Playing, is that game mechanics are not protected by copyright.  So if a new game shared the game mechanics of DQ but did not have any language published including unique terms or names, the new game might not violate the copyright.  I am not a lawyer and I do not have specific documentation supporting this statement. 



    On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Chaim Kaufmann <ck07@lehigh.edu> wrote:
     

    It would be great to see this happen. I would like to contribute but am
    not in a position to make a commitment now.

    All involved should keep in mind that names of particular game
    mechanics, spells, classes, monsters, etc. are in principle
    copyrightable, although not if the name is an ordinary English word or
    phrase used in its ordinary meaning. Widespread use in a game or
    literary genre, e.g. "Ranger," is also enough to make a usage public
    domain, although one or two appearances prior to publication by the
    copyright claimant might not always be.

    There is also the question, if the copyright owner has no publication
    plans, of whether they would be motivated to go after anyone/anything
    not named "DragonQuest" and not mentioning DQ by name even if it
    contained passages that arguably would not pass strict scrutiny.

    --

    Chaim Kaufmann
    Associate Professor
    International Relations
    Lehigh University
    ck07@lehigh.edu


    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1528 From: Andreas Davour Date: 3/23/2011
    Subject: Re: New Edition of DQ
    Anyone serious about publishing DQ must of cause have serious legal advice, but I find it telling that WotC have let the trademark fall to the wayside. They don't care about DQ. That is clear.

    /andreas
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1529 From: Ted Date: 5/12/2011
    Subject: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
    Is Roger Thorm, or any of the other folks who compiled Poor Brendans Almanac, still around?

    I had some questions about some if the material in there.

    Ted
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1530 From: rthorm Date: 5/12/2011
    Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
    I am still around, though not doing much with DQ these days.

    I'd be happy to answer any questions about "Poor Brendan's Almanac," either here, for everyone to chime in on, or privately, if you prefer.

    Rodger Thorm



    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:
    >
    > Is Roger Thorm, or any of the other folks who compiled Poor Brendans Almanac, still around?
    >
    > I had some questions about some if the material in there.
    >
    > Ted
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1531 From: Ted Date: 5/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
    Great! Thank you and David for replying so quickly.

    The questions I had were in regards to the horse trading and horse quality tables. My copy of poor brendans is from 2004 and doesnt have any explainations for the table.

    If I'm reading the tables correctly, the values underneath each quality rating indicate +/- sp to the price of purchasing a given mount right? And an "x" indicates that particular parameter is not possible, for instance a draft horse with excellent speed. Is that correct?

    Do the "-" mean no price change then?

    What stat modifiers are associated with the various quality ratings ? For instance, how is a good speed quarterhorse different than an average or excellent speed one?

    Are the team hauling capacities exclusive of the weight of the vehicle itself? In other words, are the capacity values just relavent to the cargo hauled in the vehicle, over and above the weight of the listed vehicle. Are those capacities meant to be maximum values, or median encumbrance loads for optimal travel speed.

    Thats all I can think of for now.

    Its all good stuff, just want to make sure i'm interpreting it properly. Thanks much!

    Ted


    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@...> wrote:
    >
    > I am still around, though not doing much with DQ these days.
    >
    > I'd be happy to answer any questions about "Poor Brendan's Almanac," either here, for everyone to chime in on, or privately, if you prefer.
    >
    > Rodger Thorm
    >
    >
    >
    > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
    > >
    > > Is Roger Thorm, or any of the other folks who compiled Poor Brendans Almanac, still around?
    > >
    > > I had some questions about some if the material in

    .
    > >
    > > Ted
    > >
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1532 From: Ted Date: 5/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
    almost forgot, is there a newer version of that doc available?

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:
    >
    > Great! Thank you and David for replying so quickly.
    >
    > The questions I had were in regards to the horse trading and horse quality tables. My copy of poor brendans is from 2004 and doesnt have any explainations for the table.
    >
    > If I'm reading the tables correctly, the values underneath each quality rating indicate +/- sp to the price of purchasing a given mount right? And an "x" indicates that particular parameter is not possible, for instance a draft horse with excellent speed. Is that correct?
    >
    > Do the "-" mean no price change then?
    >
    > What stat modifiers are associated with the various quality ratings ? For instance, how is a good speed quarterhorse different than an average or excellent speed one?
    >
    > Are the team hauling capacities exclusive of the weight of the vehicle itself? In other words, are the capacity values just relavent to the cargo hauled in the vehicle, over and above the weight of the listed vehicle. Are those capacities meant to be maximum values, or median encumbrance loads for optimal travel speed.
    >
    > Thats all I can think of for now.
    >
    > Its all good stuff, just want to make sure i'm interpreting it properly. Thanks much!
    >
    > Ted
    >
    >
    > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@> wrote:
    > >
    > > I am still around, though not doing much with DQ these days.
    > >
    > > I'd be happy to answer any questions about "Poor Brendan's Almanac," either here, for everyone to chime in on, or privately, if you prefer.
    > >
    > > Rodger Thorm
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Is Roger Thorm, or any of the other folks wo compiled Poor Brendans Almanac, still around?
    > > >
    > > > I had some questions about some if the material in
    >
    > .
    > > >
    > > > Ted
    > > >
    > >
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1533 From: Ted Date: 5/13/2011
    Subject: Re: Poor Brendans Almanac questions
    almost forgot, is there a newer version of that doc available?

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:
    >
    > Great! Thank you and David for replying so quickly.
    >
    > The questions I had were in regards to the horse trading and horse quality tables. My copy of poor brendans is from 2004 and doesnt have any explainations for the table.
    >
    > If I'm reading the tables correctly, the values underneath each quality rating indicate +/- sp to the price of purchasing a given mount right? And an "x" indicates that particular parameter is not possible, for instance a draft horse with excellent speed. Is that correct?
    >
    > Do the "-" mean no price change then?
    >
    > What stat modifiers are associated with the various quality ratings ? For instance, how is a good speed quarterhorse different than an average or excellent speed one?
    >
    > Are the team hauling capacities exclusive of the weight of the vehicle itself? In other words, are the capacity values just relavent to the cargo hauled in the vehicle, over and above the weight of the listed vehicle. Are those capacities meant to be maximum values, or median encumbrance loads for optimal travel speed.
    >
    > Thats all I can think of for now.
    >
    > Its all good stuff, just want to make sure i'm interpreting it properly. Thanks much!
    >
    > Ted
    >
    >
    > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@> wrote:
    > >
    > > I am still around, though not doing much with DQ these days.
    > >
    > > I'd be happy to answer any questions about "Poor Brendan's Almanac," either here, for everyone to chime in on, or privately, if you prefer.
    > >
    > > Rodger Thorm
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Is Roger Thorm, or any of the other folks wo compiled Poor Brendans Almanac, still around?
    > > >
    > > > I had some questions about some if the material in
    >
    > .
    > > >
    > > > Ted
    > > >
    > >
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1534 From: rthorm Date: 5/16/2011
    Subject: Horse Quality Tables (was: Poor Brendans Almanac questions)
    Hi Ted (and everyone else),

    The version of PBA that's in the group is, I believe, the most current version. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqnewsletter/files/Poor%20Brendan%27s%20Almanac/)

    You are right with your assumptions about the Horse Quality Tables: The modifiers are to the base cost; a dash means no modifier and an 'X' means it's not possible, as you surmised.

    I would like to have worked out details about the meaning of various qualities for different horses, but frankly, I know very little about horses. I had hoped to get someone more knowledgeable than me to help work out the details, but that never happened, so it's basically left to the GM to interpret.

    If you are running a campaign where horses are treated like buses or cabs, then the quality of various horses doesn't matter that much. But horse trading is a storied tradition, and many cultures have valued valuable horses, so it made sense for them to be non-generic. If you want that flavor in a campaign, I think this could help as a starting point.

    Intelligence and training are pretty abstract from the base stats, and would probably need to be reflected by the way the GM interprets those aspects. My thought, at this point, about the other factors, would be that "terrible" is a point below the minimum for average range and that "excellent" is a point above the maximum. "Poor" would be the minimum of the average range and "good" would be the maximum of the average range, and "average" would be in the middle.

    I'm more than happy to hear other interpretations and ideas about how anyone else has implemented these rules. In my own campaigns, there were times when PCs got particular horses, but we just noted the qualities and never worked out the stats.

    --RT
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1535 From: Ted Date: 5/16/2011
    Subject: Re: Horse Quality Tables (was: Poor Brendans Almanac questions)
    Thanks Roger,

    That helps. Were my assumptions about the hauling capacities correct as well.

    Ted

    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@...> wrote:
    >
    > Hi Ted (and everyone else),
    >
    > The version of PBA that's in the group is, I believe, the most current version. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqnewsletter/files/Poor%20Brendan%27s%20Almanac/)
    >
    > You are right with your assumptions about the Horse Quality Tables: The modifiers are to the base cost; a dash means no modifier and an 'X' means it's not possible, as you surmised.
    >
    > I would like to have worked out details about the meaning of various qualities for different horses, but frankly, I know very little about horses. I had hoped to get someone more knowledgeable than me to help work out the details, but that never happened, so it's basically left to the GM to interpret.
    >
    > If you are running a campaign where horses are treated like buses or cabs, then the quality of various horses doesn't matter that much. But horse trading is a storied tradition, and many cultures have valued valuable horses, so it made sense for them to be non-generic. If you want that flavor in a campaign, I think this could help as a starting point.
    >
    > Intelligence and training are pretty abstract from the base stats, and would probably need to be reflected by the way the GM interprets those aspects. My thought, at this point, about the other factors, would be that "terrible" is a point below the minimum for average range and that "excellent" is a point above the maximum. "Poor" would be the minimum of the average range and "good" would be the maximum of the average range, and "average" would be in the middle.
    >
    > I'm more than happy to hear other interpretations and ideas about how anyone else has implemented these rules. In my own campaigns, there were times when PCs got particular horses, but we just noted the qualities and never worked out the stats.
    >
    > --RT
    >
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1536 From: rthorm Date: 5/20/2011
    Subject: Re: Horse Quality Tables (was: Poor Brendans Almanac questions)
    Since the Team Hauling Capacities chart is listed by vehicle type, it's meant to be the cargo capacity, not the total weight that could be hauled. It's probably overly precise, because vehicle weights would be variable. But then, animal strengths would also be variable, too. (And let's not even get into the condition of the surface being traveled (mud path versus cobblestone street) or the quality of construction and condition of the vehicle). Use these as a general guide and a starting point.

    Also, for those of you who may have been looking for another link to it, I've posted a copy of the PDF of Poor Brendan's Almanac on my own blog:

    https://rthorm.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/poor-brendans-almanac-dragonquest-supplement/

    --RT


    --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:

    > That helps. Were my assumptions about the hauling capacities correct as well.
    >
    > Ted
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1537 From: Ted Date: 5/30/2011
    Subject: Magic control
    I'd like some input from the group regarding how well adepts can control their spells, both before casting and after.

    The simplest interpretation off the mechanics would seem to imply the following:

    The adepts rank, MA, etc define the range, duration, damage, base chance, etc of the spell once cast. He/she casts the spell and it manifests itself as defined above. Unless the spell description states that the adept's concentration is required to maintain it, the spell continues on to its conclusion without further influence from the caster. i.e. it is not tied to the adept in any way once cast. If the adept ceases to exist, the spell would still continue to its predefined conclusion.

    My main question is this: Given that adepts often struggle just to get the spell cast successfully, how much fine control should they have in changing the parameters of the spell before or after casting?

    Further:

    Before casting:
    Assuming no other qualifying statements in the spell description (such as "...an area up to 15 ft..." or "...up to 5 targets...", etc) can an adept interpret the spell parameters (range, duration, damage,etc) as maximums available to him rather than set values the spell always takes?

    Examples:

    a.At the time of casting, Can the adept choose to only have 2 balls of fire in the Storm of Fire spell (42 s-12)?

    b. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to cast his Bolt of fire (42 s-2) such that it does less damage than the description says its capable of at his rank?

    c. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to limit the duration of his Fireproofing (42 g-7) to something less than the description indicates?


    After casting:
    Assuming the spell description doesnt already state that the spell's continued duration is a function of concentration, how much control over the spell does the adept have once it is cast?

    a. Is the spell an independent force at that point and the adept has no more influence over it than any other bystander?

    b. Can the casting adept simply dispell it away before its normal course has been run or do they have to cast a counter spell over it, even if the spell description doesn't say a counterspell is effective at stopping it?

    Id be very interested to see how other folks handle these matters?

    Thanks, Ted
    Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1538 From: Gabriel Martinez Date: 5/30/2011
    Subject: Re: Magic control
    Attachments :
      Hi Ted,

      Agree with you with the introduction. About you specific question, my point of view is the follow:

      Before casting:

      a. As you said, the description of spells are the parameters you can use to cast it.

      b. In damage is not apply. That's something you can't manage.

      c. For the same reason like b, if you need to roll a die to modify effect, you can't.

      After casting:

      a. Didn't get the question.

      b. You allways need counterspell or dispell magic, except it said "concentration". Magic is a serious matter and you need to know it. For some reason you spend 6 month at College of Magic. Do you learn something there? :)

      Regards.

      Gabriel.



      ________________________________

      De: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com en nombre de Ted
      Enviado el: lun 30/05/2011 13:47
      Para: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
      Asunto: [dq-rules] Magic control




      I'd like some input from the group regarding how well adepts can control their spells, both before casting and after.

      The simplest interpretation off the mechanics would seem to imply the following:

      The adepts rank, MA, etc define the range, duration, damage, base chance, etc of the spell once cast. He/she casts the spell and it manifests itself as defined above. Unless the spell description states that the adept's concentration is required to maintain it, the spell continues on to its conclusion without further influence from the caster. i.e. it is not tied to the adept in any way once cast. If the adept ceases to exist, the spell would still continue to its predefined conclusion.

      My main question is this: Given that adepts often struggle just to get the spell cast successfully, how much fine control should they have in changing the parameters of the spell before or after casting?

      Further:

      Before casting:
      Assuming no other qualifying statements in the spell description (such as "...an area up to 15 ft..." or "...up to 5 targets...", etc) can an adept interpret the spell parameters (range, duration, damage,etc) as maximums available to him rather than set values the spell always takes?

      Examples:

      a.At the time of casting, Can the adept choose to only have 2 balls of fire in the Storm of Fire spell (42 s-12)?

      b. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to cast his Bolt of fire (42 s-2) such that it does less damage than the description says its capable of at his rank?

      c. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to limit the duration of his Fireproofing (42 g-7) to something less than the description indicates?

      After casting:
      Assuming the spell description doesnt already state that the spell's continued duration is a function of concentration, how much control over the spell does the adept have once it is cast?

      a. Is the spell an independent force at that point and the adept has no more influence over it than any other bystander?

      b. Can the casting adept simply dispell it away before its normal course has been run or do they have to cast a counter spell over it, even if the spell description doesn't say a counterspell is effective at stopping it?

      Id be very interested to see how other folks handle these matters?

      Thanks, Ted
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1539 From: Ian Wood Date: 5/30/2011
      Subject: Re: Magic control

      Interesting question Ted,

       

      The following is how magic is played in the Auckland DQ-guild,

       

      The adept may choose to cast at a lesser rank than his Rank in the spell, and may choose to lower the rank of any of the parameters.

       

      I try to get my players to specify the spell they are preparing, rather than it being a generic option and they choose the spell at time of casting. I am happy for them to choose parameters at time of casting (EG targets).

       

      Spell effects don’t change unless they are written into the description.

       

      An Adept may choose to drop concentration on a spell, in which case it immediately ceases.

      The Adept must cast a counter spell or similar on the spell to stop it, a Namer may stop a spell with appropriate counters.

       

      Magic in general is very powerful, at even moderate ranks, so to give the Adept full control makes it even more dangerous.

      Having written than, you could allow a house-rule such that at rank 16+ they can change parameters or a spell (other than its target) by taking a Magical Pass action

       

      I will try to answer your points below:

       

      Ian

       


      From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted
      Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2011 4:47 a.m.
      To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [dq-rules] Magic control

       

       

      I'd like some input from the group regarding how well adepts can control their spells, both before casting and after.

      The simplest interpretation off the mechanics would seem to imply the following:

      The adepts rank, MA, etc define the range, duration, damage, base chance, etc of the spell once cast. He/she casts the spell and it manifests itself as defined above. Unless the spell description states that the adept's concentration is required to maintain it, the spell continues on to its conclusion without further influence from the caster. i.e. it is not tied to the adept in any way once cast. If the adept ceases to exist, the spell would still continue to its predefined conclusion.

      My main question is this: Given that adepts often struggle just to get the spell cast successfully, how much fine control should they have in changing the parameters of the spell before or after casting?

      Further:

      Before casting:
      Assuming no other qualifying statements in the spell description (such as "...an area up to 15 ft..." or "...up to 5 targets...", etc) can an adept interpret the spell parameters (range, duration, damage,etc) as maximums available to him rather than set values the spell always takes?

      Examples:

      a.At the time of casting, Can the adept choose to only have 2 balls of fire in the Storm of Fire spell (42 s-12)?

      Yes, I don’t know this spell, but if it is 1 ball of fire (+ 1 / Rank) then no problems.

      No if it is 5 balls of fire (+5 / Rank).

      b. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to cast his Bolt of fire (42 s-2) such that it does less damage than the description says its capable of at his rank?

      Yes, he can cast it so that damage is at a lower rank. And the Adept can choose to cast the entire spell at a lower rank. The effective rank of the spell is the highest rank applied in the spell.

      c. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to limit the duration of his Fireproofing (42 g-7) to something less than the description indicates?

      Only in quanta of ranks. There is not an ability to choose a lesser duration than the base duration.

      After casting:
      Assuming the spell description doesnt already state that the spell's continued duration is a function of concentration, how much control over the spell does the adept have once it is cast?

      a. Is the spell an independent force at that point and the adept has no more influence over it than any other bystander?

      Correct

      b. Can the casting adept simply dispell it away before its normal course has been run or do they have to cast a counter spell over it, even if the spell description doesn't say a counterspell is effective at stopping it?

      Requires a counter spell

       

      Id be very interested to see how other folks handle these matters?

      Thanks, Ted


      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3670 - Release Date: 05/30/11

      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1540 From: Chaim Kaufmann Date: 5/31/2011
      Subject: Re: Digest Number 532
      Ted,

      Most of these are referee judgment questions, not rules questions.  If you think that it would be best for your game--for your story telling-- to allow casters to use reduced effects or to limit low-rank adepts' control, just do it.  The dispel question is a rules question, but DQ is just a product you bought, even if you or I think it a generally good one.  If you don't like a piece, change it.

      The only thing on which you should seek others' advice is balance--e.g., have others tried limited control and what happened?  I allow anyone to dispel their own spells except where I have written a spell description that says otherwise.  Dispel magic is for other situations.  Can't help on the limited control question as I use a non-DQ fumble system.

      Chaim Kaufmann

      On 5/31/2011 8:38 AM, dq-rules@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      Dragon Quest Open Source

      Messages In This Digest (3 Messages)

      1a.
      Magic control From: Ted
      1b.
      Re: Magic control From: Gabriel Martinez
      1c.
      Re: Magic control From: Ian Wood

      Messages

      1a.

      Magic control

      Posted by: "Ted" tmckelvey77089@yahoo.com   tmckelvey77089

      Mon May 30, 2011 9:47 am (PDT)



      I'd like some input from the group regarding how well adepts can control their spells, both before casting and after.

      The simplest interpretation off the mechanics would seem to imply the following:

      The adepts rank, MA, etc define the range, duration, damage, base chance, etc of the spell once cast. He/she casts the spell and it manifests itself as defined above. Unless the spell description states that the adept's concentration is required to maintain it, the spell continues on to its conclusion without further influence from the caster. i.e. it is not tied to the adept in any way once cast. If the adept ceases to exist, the spell would still continue to its predefined conclusion.

      My main question is this: Given that adepts often struggle just to get the spell cast successfully, how much fine control should they have in changing the parameters of the spell before or after casting?

      Further:

      Before casting:
      Assuming no other qualifying statements in the spell description (such as "...an area up to 15 ft..." or "...up to 5 targets...", etc) can an adept interpret the spell parameters (range, duration, damage,etc) as maximums available to him rather than set values the spell always takes?

      Examples:

      a.At the time of casting, Can the adept choose to only have 2 balls of fire in the Storm of Fire spell (42 s-12)?

      b. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to cast his Bolt of fire (42 s-2) such that it does less damage than the description says its capable of at his rank?

      c. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to limit the duration of his Fireproofing (42 g-7) to something less than the description indicates?

      After casting:
      Assuming the spell description doesnt already state that the spell's continued duration is a function of concentration, how much control over the spell does the adept have once it is cast?

      a. Is the spell an independent force at that point and the adept has no more influence over it than any other bystander?

      b. Can the casting adept simply dispell it away before its normal course has been run or do they have to cast a counter spell over it, even if the spell description doesn't say a counterspell is effective at stopping it?

      Id be very interested to see how other folks handle these matters?

      Thanks, Ted

      1b.

      Re: Magic control

      Posted by: "Gabriel Martinez" gmartinez@ambiente.gob.ar   Satch_the_Great

      Mon May 30, 2011 11:57 am (PDT)



      Hi Ted,

      Agree with you with the introduction. About you specific question, my point of view is the follow:

      Before casting:

      a. As you said, the description of spells are the parameters you can use to cast it.

      b. In damage is not apply. That's something you can't manage.

      c. For the same reason like b, if you need to roll a die to modify effect, you can't.

      After casting:

      a. Didn't get the question.

      b. You allways need counterspell or dispell magic, except it said "concentration" . Magic is a serious matter and you need to know it. For some reason you spend 6 month at College of Magic. Do you learn something there? :)

      Regards.

      Gabriel.



      ____________ _________ _________ __

      De: dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com en nombre de Ted
      Enviado el: lun 30/05/2011 13:47
      Para: dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com
      Asunto: [dq-rules] Magic control

      I'd like some input from the group regarding how well adepts can control their spells, both before casting and after.

      The simplest interpretation off the mechanics would seem to imply the following:

      The adepts rank, MA, etc define the range, duration, damage, base chance, etc of the spell once cast. He/she casts the spell and it manifests itself as defined above. Unless the spell description states that the adept's concentration is required to maintain it, the spell continues on to its conclusion without further influence from the caster. i.e. it is not tied to the adept in any way once cast. If the adept ceases to exist, the spell would still continue to its predefined conclusion.

      My main question is this: Given that adepts often struggle just to get the spell cast successfully, how much fine control should they have in changing the parameters of the spell before or after casting?

      Further:

      Before casting:
      Assuming no other qualifying statements in the spell description (such as "...an area up to 15 ft..." or "...up to 5 targets...", etc) can an adept interpret the spell parameters (range, duration, damage,etc) as maximums available to him rather than set values the spell always takes?

      Examples:

      a.At the time of casting, Can the adept choose to only have 2 balls of fire in the Storm of Fire spell (42 s-12)?

      b. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to cast his Bolt of fire (42 s-2) such that it does less damage than the description says its capable of at his rank?

      c. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to limit the duration of his Fireproofing (42 g-7) to something less than the description indicates?

      After casting:
      Assuming the spell description doesnt already state that the spell's continued duration is a function of concentration, how much control over the spell does the adept have once it is cast?

      a. Is the spell an independent force at that point and the adept has no more influence over it than any other bystander?

      b. Can the casting adept simply dispell it away before its normal course has been run or do they have to cast a counter spell over it, even if the spell description doesn't say a counterspell is effective at stopping it?

      Id be very interested to see how other folks handle these matters?

      Thanks, Ted

      1c.

      Re: Magic control

      Posted by: "Ian Wood" dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz   dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz

      Mon May 30, 2011 2:35 pm (PDT)



      Interesting question Ted,

      The following is how magic is played in the Auckland DQ-guild,

      The adept may choose to cast at a lesser rank than his Rank in the spell,
      and may choose to lower the rank of any of the parameters.

      I try to get my players to specify the spell they are preparing, rather than
      it being a generic option and they choose the spell at time of casting. I am
      happy for them to choose parameters at time of casting (EG targets).

      Spell effects don't change unless they are written into the description.

      An Adept may choose to drop concentration on a spell, in which case it
      immediately ceases.

      The Adept must cast a counter spell or similar on the spell to stop it, a
      Namer may stop a spell with appropriate counters.

      Magic in general is very powerful, at even moderate ranks, so to give the
      Adept full control makes it even more dangerous.

      Having written than, you could allow a house-rule such that at rank 16+ they
      can change parameters or a spell (other than its target) by taking a Magical
      Pass action

      I will try to answer your points below:

      Ian

      _____

      From: dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf
      Of Ted
      Sent: Tuesday, 31 May 2011 4:47 a.m.
      To: dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com
      Subject: [dq-rules] Magic control

      I'd like some input from the group regarding how well adepts can control
      their spells, both before casting and after.

      The simplest interpretation off the mechanics would seem to imply the
      following:

      The adepts rank, MA, etc define the range, duration, damage, base chance,
      etc of the spell once cast. He/she casts the spell and it manifests itself
      as defined above. Unless the spell description states that the adept's
      concentration is required to maintain it, the spell continues on to its
      conclusion without further influence from the caster. i.e. it is not tied to
      the adept in any way once cast. If the adept ceases to exist, the spell
      would still continue to its predefined conclusion.

      My main question is this: Given that adepts often struggle just to get the
      spell cast successfully, how much fine control should they have in changing
      the parameters of the spell before or after casting?

      Further:

      Before casting:
      Assuming no other qualifying statements in the spell description (such as
      "...an area up to 15 ft..." or "...up to 5 targets...", etc) can an adept
      interpret the spell parameters (range, duration, damage,etc) as maximums
      available to him rather than set values the spell always takes?

      Examples:

      a.At the time of casting, Can the adept choose to only have 2 balls of fire
      in the Storm of Fire spell (42 s-12)?

      Yes, I don't know this spell, but if it is 1 ball of fire (+ 1 / Rank) then
      no problems.

      No if it is 5 balls of fire (+5 / Rank).

      b. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to cast his Bolt of fire (42
      s-2) such that it does less damage than the description says its capable of
      at his rank?

      Yes, he can cast it so that damage is at a lower rank. And the Adept can
      choose to cast the entire spell at a lower rank. The effective rank of the
      spell is the highest rank applied in the spell.

      c. At the time of casting, Can an adept choose to limit the duration of his
      Fireproofing (42 g-7) to something less than the description indicates?

      Only in quanta of ranks. There is not an ability to choose a lesser duration
      than the base duration.

      After casting:
      Assuming the spell description doesnt already state that the spell's
      continued duration is a function of concentration, how much control over the
      spell does the adept have once it is cast?

      a. Is the spell an independent force at that point and the adept has no more
      influence over it than any other bystander?

      Correct

      b. Can the casting adept simply dispell it away before its normal course has
      been run or do they have to cast a counter spell over it, even if the spell
      description doesn't say a counterspell is effective at stopping it?

      Requires a counter spell

      Id be very interested to see how other folks handle these matters?

      Thanks, Ted

      _____

      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3670 - Release Date: 05/30/11

      Recent Activity
      Visit Your Group
      Give Back

      Yahoo! for Good

      Get inspired

      by a good cause.

      Y! Toolbar

      Get it Free!

      easy 1-click access

      to your groups.

      Yahoo! Groups

      Start a group

      in 3 easy steps.

      Connect with others.

      Need to Reply?

      Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

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

      -- 
      Chaim Kaufmann
      Associate Professor           	
      International Relations       
      Lehigh University             
      ck07@lehigh.edu		
      
       
      
      
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1541 From: Ted Date: 6/1/2011
      Subject: Re: Magic Control
      Thanks for all the input guys. Good Stuff. Sounds like we are largely on the same page. I've tried it a few ways over the years but was curious as to how other GMs have handled these judgement calls and how well they have worked.

      I'm always open to new perspectives.

      Ted
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1542 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: "always on" magic items
      Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic items that have continously operating spell effects?

      As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc. There is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast check and a limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item that gave the user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).

      The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of black magics.

      Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.

      Thanks, Ted
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1543 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      There is an addendum that provides for three other colleges, one of which is
      Shaping Magics for creating artifacts.

      ~Jeffery~




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@yahoo.com>
      To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:36 AM
      Subject: [dq-rules] "always on" magic items


      > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic
      > items that have continously operating spell effects?
      >
      > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects
      > are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc.
      > There is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and
      > immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast
      > check and a limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item
      > that gave the user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a
      > sword that was always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      >
      > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of
      > black magics.
      >
      > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks, Ted
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1544 From: Ian Wood Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Interesting question Ted,
       
      IMO permanent, or as one GM over here called them 'fixated', magics are a GM-only construct and therefore have the rules of convention.
      Not much help i know, but there you go.
       
      One of the constraints of the game is the need to 'power up' prior to a combat, costing fatigue to the mages, and that buffs have duration.
      They should be rare and valuable.
       
      Ian


      From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted
      Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2011 3:36 a.m.
      To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [dq-rules] "always on" magic items

       

      Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic items that have continously operating spell effects?

      As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc. There is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast check and a limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item that gave the user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).

      The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of black magics.

      Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.

      Thanks, Ted


      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3672 - Release Date: 05/31/11
      Internal Virus Database is out of date.


      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3686 - Release Date: 06/07/11

      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1545 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Yup, but a written, Arcane Wisdom doesn't allow you to make such items as I described.

      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@...> wrote:
      >
      > There is an addendum that provides for three other colleges, one of which is
      > Shaping Magics for creating artifacts.
      >
      > ~Jeffery~
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...>
      > To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:36 AM
      > Subject: [dq-rules] "always on" magic items
      >
      >
      > > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic
      > > items that have continously operating spell effects?
      > >
      > > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects
      > > are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc.
      > > There is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and
      > > immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast
      > > check and a limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item
      > > that gave the user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a
      > > sword that was always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      > >
      > > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of
      > > black magics.
      > >
      > > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      > >
      > > Thanks, Ted
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@...
      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > > dq-rules-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1546 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Yup, that's pretty much how I've always done it, going way back to before 2nd edition came out. Always hoped for at least some mention of it when arcane wisdom and shaping came available.

      In some ways , shaping magics can go too far already. The permanent investments, for instance. In one paragraph, it specifically mentions not being able to shape attack spells because of how powerful it would be, but then specifically allows it under the special knowledge ritual that makes invested items permanent with no charge limits...which is easier and faster than shaping something.

      Was just curious if anyone else had done anything more with it.

      Ted

      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Wood" <dawnhaven@...> wrote:
      >
      > Interesting question Ted,
      >
      > IMO permanent, or as one GM over here called them 'fixated', magics are a


      > GM-only construct and therefore have the rules of convention.
      > Not much help i know, but there you go.
      >
      > One of the constraints of the game is the need to 'power up' prior to a
      > combat, costing fatigue to the mages, and that buffs have duration.
      > They should be rare and valuable.
      >
      > Ian
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      > Of Ted
      > Sent: Wednesday, 8 June 2011 3:36 a.m.
      > To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [dq-rules] "always on" magic items
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic
      > items that have continously operating spell effects?
      >
      > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects
      > are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc. There
      > is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and immediately
      > takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast check and a
      > limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item that gave the
      > user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was
      > always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      >
      > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of black
      > magics.
      >
      > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks, Ted
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > No virus found in this message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3672 - Release Date: 05/31/11
      > Internal Virus Database is out of date.
      >
      > _____
      >
      > No virus found in this message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3686 - Release Date: 06/07/11
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1547 From: darkislephil Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      As Jeffrey mentioned, Shaping Magics covers this and was planned to be in a supplement called Arcane Wisdom. When TSR published 3rd Ed DQ they included Shaping, Rune & Lesser Summonings though not in exactly the same form that SPI had planned on publishing Arcane Wisdom.

      You can find a copy of the unreleased Arcane Wisdom floating around in PDF form.

      There are definite balance issues with Shaping Magic so be cautious about its use.

      Phil

      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:
      >
      > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic items that have continously operating spell effects?
      >
      > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc. There is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast check and a limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item that gave the user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      >
      > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of black magics.
      >
      > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      >
      > Thanks, Ted
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1549 From: Ted Date: 6/7/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Yup, sorry. Should have made it more clear that I was talking about the existing AW and shaping college rules.

      I've found that you have to stick pretty firmly to the restrictions in shaping as is or they get of hand pretty fast. I'm assuming it was due for some SPI revision before being published. TSR certainly didn't do any. As I mentioned to Ed in in my other post above, the permanent investment ritual is particularly ripe for abuse.

      My thoughts were along the lines of seeing if anyone head tried to formalize additional rules for spell items that were always on as soon as you wielded them, such as an amulet with a constant counterspell on it protecting the adept, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold.

      That's one thing that the existing shaping and investment rules dont allow, since you always have cast checks and durations to consider, even on shaped items. I'm thinking there would have to be heavy restrictions and perhaps awkward game balancing rules associated so not sure if its worth it. i've always just made those kind of rare things to be ancient relics made by unknown means. Been toying with the idea for years, since before 2nd edition came out but haven't yet figured out anything I was happy with. Its coming up now again because I've got somebody playing a shaper and as they get used to the mechanics of it I'm rediscovering some of the limitations and issues. Sometimes you just can't get there from here for some of these things.

      From a game flavor point of view I see the attraction of having some (rare) spell items that you don't have to worry about starting every so often to keep em running. The mechanics of shaping and investing don't allow for that without GM modification and expansion . Trying to think through what that would entail.

      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@...> wrote:
      >
      > As Jeffrey mentioned, Shaping Magics covers this and was planned to be in a supplement called Arcane Wisdom. When TSR published 3rd Ed DQ they included Shaping, Rune & Lesser Summonings though not in exactly the same form that SPI had planned on publishing Arcane Wisdom.
      >
      > You can find a copy of the unreleased Arcane Wisdom floating around in PDF form.
      >
      > There are definite balance issues with Shaping Magic so be cautious about its use.
      >
      > Phil
      >
      > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of magic items that have continously operating spell effects?
      > >
      > > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in objects are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of investment, etc. There is no provision for an item with a spell that is "always on" and immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder without the need for a cast check and a limited duration. For instance, how would you create an item that gave the user 36G-4 Speak to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      > >
      > > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of black magics.
      > >
      > > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      > >
      > > Thanks, Ted
      > >
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1551 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      You obviously have a different interpretation of the Shaping rules than I
      do.

      ~Jeffery~


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@yahoo.com>
      To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:03 PM
      Subject: [dq-rules] Re: "always on" magic items


      > Yup, sorry. Should have made it more clear that I was talking about the
      > existing AW and shaping college rules.
      >
      > I've found that you have to stick pretty firmly to the restrictions in
      > shaping as is or they get of hand pretty fast. I'm assuming it was due
      > for some SPI revision before being published. TSR certainly didn't do
      > any. As I mentioned to Ed in in my other post above, the permanent
      > investment ritual is particularly ripe for abuse.
      >
      > My thoughts were along the lines of seeing if anyone head tried to
      > formalize additional rules for spell items that were always on as soon as
      > you wielded them, such as an amulet with a constant counterspell on it
      > protecting the adept, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold.
      >
      > That's one thing that the existing shaping and investment rules dont
      > allow, since you always have cast checks and durations to consider, even
      > on shaped items. I'm thinking there would have to be heavy restrictions
      > and perhaps awkward game balancing rules associated so not sure if its
      > worth it. i've always just made those kind of rare things to be ancient
      > relics made by unknown means. Been toying with the idea for years, since
      > before 2nd edition came out but haven't yet figured out anything I was
      > happy with. Its coming up now again because I've got somebody playing a
      > shaper and as they get used to the mechanics of it I'm rediscovering some
      > of the limitations and issues. Sometimes you just can't get there from
      > here for some of these things.
      >
      > From a game flavor point of view I see the attraction of having some
      > (rare) spell items that you don't have to worry about starting every so
      > often to keep em running. The mechanics of shaping and investing don't
      > allow for that without GM modification and expansion . Trying to think
      > through what that would entail.
      >
      > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> As Jeffrey mentioned, Shaping Magics covers this and was planned to be in
      >> a supplement called Arcane Wisdom. When TSR published 3rd Ed DQ they
      >> included Shaping, Rune & Lesser Summonings though not in exactly the same
      >> form that SPI had planned on publishing Arcane Wisdom.
      >>
      >> You can find a copy of the unreleased Arcane Wisdom floating around in
      >> PDF form.
      >>
      >> There are definite balance issues with Shaping Magic so be cautious about
      >> its use.
      >>
      >> Phil
      >>
      >> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of
      >> > magic items that have continously operating spell effects?
      >> >
      >> > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in
      >> > objects are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of
      >> > investment, etc. There is no provision for an item with a spell that
      >> > is "always on" and immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder
      >> > without the need for a cast check and a limited duration. For
      >> > instance, how would you create an item that gave the user 36G-4 Speak
      >> > to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was always a
      >> > weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      >> >
      >> > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of
      >> > black magics.
      >> >
      >> > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      >> >
      >> > Thanks, Ted
      >> >
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1552 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Could be. Which part of those rules allows for shaping a spell that is constantly running? Maybe I'm missing something. Thats why these forums are so useful! Glad to hear other GMs point of view.

      I was looking at it from the point of view of the rules clause under shaping's Preparation Rituals that states that a "... item enchanted with a spell allows the wielder to use it as if was permanently invested..". According to Shaping Q-4 Ritual of Investment and R-6 Binding Investment rituals, that means it can be used an unlimited number of times, but anyone using it still has to check to see if the spell goes off successfully each time it is used.

      Am I misinterpreting those rules or missing something somewhere?

      Was thinking that modifying one or both of those rules was the way to go if I wanted to make it possible by Shapers.


      On a side note, as I read those rules, they make it impossible to shape spells that affect other people directly but then allow permanent investment of those same 'kill' spells. The investment method is actually easier and quicker than shaping them assuming someone has the Binding Investments SK ritual. I suppose that is a form off game balance... Just deny shapers the ability to learn that ritual.


      Thanks,
      Ted


      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@...> wrote:
      >
      > You obviously have a different interpretation of the Shaping rules than I
      > do.
      >
      > ~Jeffery~
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...>
      > To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:03 PM
      > Subject: [dq-rules] Re: "always on" magic items
      >
      >
      > > Yup, sorry. Should have made it more clear that I was talking about the
      > > existing AW and shaping college rules.
      > >
      > > I've found that you have to stick pretty firmly to the restrictions in
      > > shaping as is or they get of hand pretty fast. I'm assuming it was due
      > > for some SPI revision before being published. TSR certainly didn't do
      > > any. As I mentioned to Ed in in my other post above, the permanent
      > > investment ritual is particularly ripe for abuse.
      > >
      > > My thoughts were along the lines of seeing if anyone head tried to
      > > formalize additional rules for spell items that were always on as soon as
      > > you wielded them, such as an amulet with a constant counterspell on it
      > > protecting the adept, or a sword that was always a weapon of cold.
      > >
      > > That's one thing that the existing shaping and investment rules dont
      > > allow, since you always have cast checks and durations to consider, even
      > > on shaped items. I'm thinking there would have to be heavy restrictions
      > > and perhaps awkward game balancing rules associated so not sure if its
      > > worth it. i've always just made those kind of rare things to be ancient
      > > relics made by unknown means. Been toying with the idea for years, since
      > > before 2nd edition came out but haven't yet figured out anything I was
      > > happy with. Its coming up now again because I've got somebody playing a
      > > shaper and as they get used to the mechanics of it I'm rediscovering some
      > > of the limitations and issues. Sometimes you just can't get there from
      > > here for some of these things.
      > >
      > > From a game flavor point of view I see the attraction of having some
      > > (rare) spell items that you don't have to worry about starting every so
      > > often to keep em running. The mechanics of shaping and investing don't
      > > allow for that without GM modification and expansion . Trying to think
      > > through what that would entail.
      > >
      > > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> As Jeffrey mentioned, Shaping Magics covers this and was planned to be in
      > >> a supplement called Arcane Wisdom. When TSR published 3rd Ed DQ they
      > >> included Shaping, Rune & Lesser Summonings though not in exactly the same
      > >> form that SPI had planned on publishing Arcane Wisdom.
      > >>
      > >> You can find a copy of the unreleased Arcane Wisdom floating around in
      > >> PDF form.
      > >>
      > >> There are definite balance issues with Shaping Magic so be cautious about
      > >> its use.
      > >>
      > >> Phil
      > >>
      > >> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
      > >> >
      > >> > Has anyone played around with making rules to allow the creation of
      > >> > magic items that have continously operating spell effects?
      > >> >
      > >> > As written, the shaping and investment rules state that spells in
      > >> > objects are released as if cast by the adept ast the time of
      > >> > investment, etc. There is no provision for an item with a spell that
      > >> > is "always on" and immediately takes effect on the wearer/wielder
      > >> > without the need for a cast check and a limited duration. For
      > >> > instance, how would you create an item that gave the user 36G-4 Speak
      > >> > to Enchanted Creatures all the time, or a sword that was always a
      > >> > weapon of cold (40 S-9).
      > >> >
      > >> > The closest thing I could find are the amulets made by the college of
      > >> > black magics.
      > >> >
      > >> > Any thoughts one way or the other would be much appreciated.
      > >> >
      > >> > Thanks, Ted
      > >> >

      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@...
      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > > dq-rules-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1555 From: Jeffery McGonagill Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      My group's interpretation is that permanently invested as stated below does
      not mean Investment as per the ritual or R-6, otherwise the shaping index is
      redundant for magic. Skills, characteristics don't have to be activated, so
      magic shouldn't either (unless it is an attack spell.)

      For my group, simply drawing the weapon activates a Artifact's weapon magic.
      An amulet (Artifact) with a counterspell in it is always on while worn, etc.

      Popular in my world is Mind Cloak (also protects a person from Location
      spells.) Usually the first Artifact purchased in my world when a PC can
      afford it.

      ~Jeffery~

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@yahoo.com>
      To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:03 AM
      Subject: [dq-rules] Re: "always on" magic items


      > Could be. Which part of those rules allows for shaping a spell that is
      > constantly running? Maybe I'm missing something. Thats why these forums
      > are so useful! Glad to hear other GMs point of view.
      >
      > I was looking at it from the point of view of the rules clause under
      > shaping's Preparation Rituals that states that a "... item enchanted with
      > a spell allows the wielder to use it as if was permanently invested..".
      > According to Shaping Q-4 Ritual of Investment and R-6 Binding Investment
      > rituals, that means it can be used an unlimited number of times, but
      > anyone using it still has to check to see if the spell goes off
      > successfully each time it is used.
      >
      > Am I misinterpreting those rules or missing something somewhere?
      >
      > Was thinking that modifying one or both of those rules was the way to go
      > if I wanted to make it possible by Shapers.
      >
      >
      > On a side note, as I read those rules, they make it impossible to shape
      > spells that affect other people directly but then allow permanent
      > investment of those same 'kill' spells. The investment method is actually
      > easier and quicker than shaping them assuming someone has the Binding
      > Investments SK ritual. I suppose that is a form off game balance...
      > LoJust deny shapers the ability to learn that ritual.
      >
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Ted
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1556 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Ah, gotcha.

      I may have to make a similar change to the rules.

      The core rules and AW specifically reference the investment rituals by rule number as well terminology in regards to shaping preparation rituals and that's been the basis of my interpretation. And yes, as written in regards to spells, the shaping is just another way to have invested spells included in an item along with other abilities, as opposed to a regular investment which can only do the one thing.

      I was curious as to how extensive a change other groups have made. Certainly requires some rewrites no matter how you cut it.

      As I expected, seems like groups either accept that it cant be done by regular shaping as printed, or they just delete and rewrite the inhibiting rules. Getting alot more feedback supporting the former and laying those kinds of items out as not-shapeable but have to be found if even that.

      Good stuff. Haven't thought about this stuff in a while.


      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@...> wrote:
      >
      > My group's interpretation is that permanently invested as stated below does
      > not mean Investment as per the ritual or R-6, otherwise the shaping index is
      > redundant for magic. Skills, characteristics don't have to be activated, so
      > magic shouldn't either (unless it is an attack spell.)
      >
      > For my group, simply drawing the weapon activates a Artifact's weapon magic.
      > An amulet (Artifact) with a counterspell in it is always on while worn, etc.
      >
      > Popular in my world is Mind Cloak (also protects a person from Location
      > spells.) Usually the first Artifact purchased in my world when a PC can
      > afford it.
      >
      > ~Jeffery~
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...>
      > To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:03 AM
      > Subject: [dq-rules] Re: "always on" magic items
      >
      >
      > > Could be. Which part of those rules allows for shaping a spell that is
      > > constantly running? Maybe I'm missing something. Thats why these forums
      > > are so useful! Glad to hear other GMs point of view.
      > >
      > > I was looking at it from the point of view of the rules clause under
      > > shaping's Preparation Rituals that states that a "... item enchanted with
      > > a spell allows the wielder to use it as if was permanently invested..".
      > > According to Shaping Q-4 Ritual of Investment and R-6 Binding Investment
      > > rituals, that means it can be used an unlimited number of times, but
      > > anyone using it still has to check to see if the spell goes off
      > > successfully each time it is used.
      > >
      > > Am I misinterpreting those rules or missing something somewhere?
      > >
      > > Was thinking that modifying one or both of those rules was the way to go
      > > if I wanted to make it possible by Shapers.
      > >
      > >
      > > On a side note, as I read those rules, they make it impossible to shape
      > > spells that affect other people directly but then allow permanent
      > > investment of those same 'kill' spells. The investment method is actually
      > > easier and quicker than shaping them assuming someone has the Binding
      > > Investments SK ritual. I suppose that is a form off game balance...
      > > LoJust deny shapers the ability to learn that ritual.
      > >
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > > Ted
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1557 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Pricing and value of magic items
      What guidelines do your groups use for pricing magic items?

      Shaping magics gives some guidelines for the cost to make something in the first place, and I usually add a hefty markup due to their rarity. Somewhere between 50-100% at least...

      I've played with a wide range of ways to calculate an invested item's value, the most recent version being similar to the shaping magics guidelines.

      How does that compare to what other groups and GMs are doing?

      Ted
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1558 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Cost to purchase magic items
      What guidelines do your groups use for pricing magic items?

      Shaping magics gives some guidelines for the cost to make something in the first place, and I usually add a hefty markup due to their rarity. Somewhere between 50-100% at least...

      I've played with a wide range of ways to calculate an invested item's value, the most recent version being similar to the shaping magics guidelines.

      How does that compare to what other groups and GMs are doing?

      Ted
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1559 From: David Novak Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: "always on" magic items
      Excellent topic Ted.

      I've played in campaigns run by both Phil and Jeffery as well as GM'ed a spin-off from Phil's "world" and GM'ed in Jeffery's "world", and lastly, I've played a Shaper.

      I think what the GM needs to decide, is, how prevalent is magic and probably more importantly, the ramifications of the prevalence (both to game balance and "social" or in-game).

      Example1: Phil's world had a lot of "standard" investments (or relatively easy access to get them) and very few "always on" (or Shaped or even Permanent Investments) items (also, the "quick-kill" spells were not available to either the players or GM, e.g. White Fire). I can't ever remember meeting a Shaper in Phil's world. From a game balance point of view, this works well in that if a player gets their hands on an unbalancingly-powerful investment, it eventually, runs out of charges (thus it is not a "permanent" problem). On the Social Side, Magic was accepted and while not necessarily common in the general populace, the player's being mages, were not viewed with suspicion or fear (unless they got their reputation by earning it in play)

      Example2: Jeffery's world, Shapers are known to exist and players can get to know them (and even play them), so it is possible to commission and "find" Shaped Items (Shaping is run pretty close to straight out of Arcane Wisdom). This World's history has had magic running amok through too much power and magic and basically countries bombing themselves and their neighbors into the stone age. This has created a "fear" in the general populace of magic in general. Powerful Shaped Items exist and could be found and obtained by the players, but the players had to be careful how much "flash" they did in "public" due to the possible back lash. Shaped items were occasionally discovered on Adventure (this is limited by the GM) and could be purchased/commissioned. The commissioning of Shaped Items can be limited by the GM. The "level" of the Shapers available to Players (and the populace) needs to be considered and can be controlled by the GM. Please note, to make Shaped Items, there are a LOT of rituals a that a Shaper will need to Rank. This will take a LONG time and a great deal of experience (see Shaper Player comments below), so if you take this into account as GM, there should not be too many Shapers around that can create unbalancing items (and even fewer who are willing to create them). Also, it takes a long time to MAKE unbalancing items (and the Shaper can die in the process), so open "slots" in a Shaper's schedule could (should?) be few and far between even for the "low level" Shaped Items. Also, the more powerful the Shaped item, the longer it takes to make, and thus the higher the chance of an `Accident' (which provides another way to balance the potentially unbalancing). We did have an "amusing" player reaction to this, in that one player started seeking out Shaping Accidents. On the balance side, Jeffery has a known rule, what the Players Use is Fair Game for the GM to use (e.g. if the players don't go throwing quick-kill spells, the GM won't either, so contrary to Phil's world just removing these spells, Jeffery's world has created détente between the GM and Players). Lastly, Shaping is EXPENSIVE (there used to be a spreadsheet in the DQ forum from Jeffery's game were you can see the difference in prices from a `regular' invested item to a `permanently' invested item to a `Shaped' item).

      Example3: My spin-off from Phil's world (new dimension, new planet, new social norms, etc.). Shaping was "rare" but available. It was also hideously expensive and Shaper's tended to have a waiting list in the decades (even to make "just" permanent investments). Balance was provided by "The Mage Guild" which was the Government of one country and tried to tightly control teaching and use of magic as well as Items everywhere. If things had ever gotten too out of balance, a "handful" of high ranking Elemental Mages with their Elementals at their back could have been used to `politely' ask for the item in question.

      As a player, I played a Shaper for 5 real years (and something like 10 game years). In the beginning, a Shaper Player Character seems to become a front line fighter (no ranged attack spells, but the best enchant armor/weapons spells in the game coupled with better than `regular' investment ritual (lower EXP and higher success chance)). The MA requirement for the college is pretty high, so I was always bumping into the MA-Spell/Ritual requirement and thus kept spending a lot of EXP and training ranking things up to R6 that were not particularly unbalancing (it's the Special Knowledge Rituals that get "interesting", not the General one's). Thus the first couple real years (4-5 game years), this college seems to pose no problems. Then I started learning the Special Knowledge Rituals. The first SK-Ritual I learned was Permanent Investment. This put an end to the rest of the rest of the party needing to spend time investing spells (until they went up in rank). The GM also started charging my Character more for invested items for sale by NPC's (since the NPC's knew I was a Shaper and wouldn't be coming back  ). Another possible way to address this would be to say that the `regular' investment spell had to be done "differently" for (or simultaneously with) the Permanent Investment ritual (this would have prevented our party from immediately turning all found investments permanent, but this Player is NOT suggesting it to his GM  who is reading this thread). While this College could get unbalancing, the Character needed to own land for a Shop, spend money on a shop, and `defend' his shop. Couple this with 3 months of game time to create the MINIMUM Shaped Item and the corresponding Accident Rolls, and I think the Player Character unbalancing effects can be limited. My character might dream of making an Uber-Weapon, but the most advanced Shaping he ever did was 3 of the Demonic Shields (payment for construction of his "small" shop, Jeffery, stop laughing ) and a couple of Shaped Enchant Armor items. (though Rag and String golems are interesting). BTW, after about 10 game years of playing, the character basically retired due to many factors, but one them was he really wanted to make cool items and Adventuring kept getting in the way.

      In short, as long as the GM doesn't make High Level Shaper's Common and willing to make things PLUS the players advance at a `moderate' rate (and keep track of the time it takes to advance in rituals to really make things), I'm haven't found Shaping (and thus the creation of "always on" items) to be unbalancing.

      David


      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:
      >
      > Ah, gotcha.
      >
      > I may have to make a similar change to the rules.
      >
      > The core rules and AW specifically reference the investment rituals by rule number as well terminology in regards to shaping preparation rituals and that's been the basis of my interpretation. And yes, as written in regards to spells, the shaping is just another way to have invested spells included in an item along with other abilities, as opposed to a regular investment which can only do the one thing.
      >
      > I was curious as to how extensive a change other groups have made. Certainly requires some rewrites no matter how you cut it.
      >
      > As I expected, seems like groups either accept that it cant be done by regular shaping as printed, or they just delete and rewrite the inhibiting rules. Getting alot more feedback supporting the former and laying those kinds of items out as not-shapeable but have to be found if even that.
      >
      > Good stuff. Haven't thought about this stuff in a while.
      >
      >
      > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@> wrote:
      > >
      > > My group's interpretation is that permanently invested as stated below does
      > > not mean Investment as per the ritual or R-6, otherwise the shaping index is
      > > redundant for magic. Skills, characteristics don't have to be activated, so
      > > magic shouldn't either (unless it is an attack spell.)
      > >
      > > For my group, simply drawing the weapon activates a Artifact's weapon magic.
      > > An amulet (Artifact) with a counterspell in it is always on while worn, etc.
      > >
      > > Popular in my world is Mind Cloak (also protects a person from Location
      > > spells.) Usually the first Artifact purchased in my world when a PC can
      > > afford it.
      > >
      > > ~Jeffery~
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@>
      > > To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 7:03 AM
      > > Subject: [dq-rules] Re: "always on" magic items
      > >
      > >
      > > > Could be. Which part of those rules allows for shaping a spell that is
      > > > constantly running? Maybe I'm missing something. Thats why these forums
      > > > are so useful! Glad to hear other GMs point of view.
      > > >
      > > > I was looking at it from the point of view of the rules clause under
      > > > shaping's Preparation Rituals that states that a "... item enchanted with
      > > > a spell allows the wielder to use it as if was permanently invested..".
      > > > According to Shaping Q-4 Ritual of Investment and R-6 Binding Investment
      > > > rituals, that means it can be used an unlimited number of times, but
      > > > anyone using it still has to check to see if the spell goes off
      > > > successfully each time it is used.
      > > >
      > > > Am I misinterpreting those rules or missing something somewhere?
      > > >
      > > > Was thinking that modifying one or both of those rules was the way to go
      > > > if I wanted to make it possible by Shapers.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On a side note, as I read those rules, they make it impossible to shape
      > > > spells that affect other people directly but then allow permanent
      > > > investment of those same 'kill' spells. The investment method is actually
      > > > easier and quicker than shaping them assuming someone has the Binding
      > > > Investments SK ritual. I suppose that is a form off game balance...
      > > > LoJust deny shapers the ability to learn that ritual.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Thanks,
      > > > Ted
      > >
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1560 From: David Novak Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: Cost to purchase magic items
      Hi Ted,

      I've posted in the Files section a file called "Artifact Costs.xls". This is the Cost of Magic for Jeffery's world. (I thought this had been posted previously, but I didn't see it)

      Permanent Investments are 3x (or more) as expensive as a temporary Investment.

      Simple Shaped items are slightly more expensive than Permanent Investments, but "interesting" Shaped items become hideously expensive, easily into exceeding a Million Silver Pennies.

      David



      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@...> wrote:
      >
      > What guidelines do your groups use for pricing magic items?
      >
      > Shaping magics gives some guidelines for the cost to make something in the first place, and I usually add a hefty markup due to their rarity. Somewhere between 50-100% at least...
      >
      > I've played with a wide range of ways to calculate an invested item's value, the most recent version being similar to the shaping magics guidelines.
      >
      > How does that compare to what other groups and GMs are doing?
      >
      > Ted
      >
      Group: DQ-RULES Message: 1561 From: Ted Date: 6/8/2011
      Subject: Re: Cost to purchase magic items
      Cool. I'll take a look!




      --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "David Novak" <david_novak@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Ted,
      >
      > I've posted in the Files section a file called "Artifact Costs.xls". This is the Cost of Magic for Jeffery's world. (I thought this had been posted previously, but I didn't see it)
      >
      > Permanent Investments are 3x (or more) as expensive as a temporary Investment.
      >
      > Simple Shaped items are slightly more expensive than Permanent Investments, but "interesting" Shaped items become hideously expensive, easily into exceeding a Million Silver Pennies.
      >
      > David
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Ted" <tmckelvey77089@> wrote:
      > >
      > > What guidelines do your groups use for pricing magic items?
      > >
      > > Shaping magics gives some guidelines for the cost to make something in the first place, and I usually add a hefty markup due to their rarity. Somewhere between 50-100% at least...
      > >
      > > I've played with a wide range of ways to calculate an invested item's value, the most recent version being similar to the shaping magics guidelines.
      > >
      > > How does that compare to what other groups and GMs are doing?
      > >
      > > Ted
      > >
      >