--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "John Rauchert" <jfrauchert@...> wrote:
>
> This of course excludes campaigns where all the player characters are "Gray"
> or Dark Aligned in some way.
>
>
>
> I have played in some over the years in various RPG systems.
>
>
>
> My first DQ campaign character was a Necromancer (and I think we had both a
> member of the college of Black Magics and Greater Summonings as well).
>
>
>
> My Necromancer was a sadly, misunderstood individual, drawn to death in
> early life due to being Death Aspected, and not quite sure why everyone was
> repulsed by him when he was only trying to help out when he raised those
> dead party members.
>
>
>
> JohnR
>
>
>
> From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dq-rules@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of darkislephil
> Sent: June-22-12 7:07 PM
> To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Rules puzzlements - Black Magic S-12
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm curious as to how GM's justify allowing PCs to take Black Magic (or
> Greater Summoning). Unless you throw out the college restrictions that
> balance them the PCs would be unmistakably evil. There is no grey area for
> those two colleges.
>
> As one-shots or limited campaigns I could see it but to my way of thinking
> any pretense of role-playing would go out the window if a light-aligned PC
> spent more than an adventure or two in cooperation with these agents of
> darkness.
>
> For me these have two colleges have always been for NPCs only.
>

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Jason Winter <JasonWinter@...> wrote:
>
> I've GM'd two campaigns where there has been a Black Mage in the party.
> The first group had several characters that were definitely evil (one
> being the Black Mage) with the rest of the party falling into the gray
> area. Over the first few adventures, the two of them caused enough
> strife in the party that when some ill befell the two of them, the rest
> of the party just walked away and left them to their fate. At the time,
> the Black Mage had been severely injured and the other player sold him
> into slavery to pay for his healing. He then proceeded to abandon him as
> well. It seemed a fitting fate at the time.
>
> The second campaign with a Black Mage I would say the group was
> extremely loyal to each other, but if you crossed them, watch out. Over
> the course of their adventuring lives, they had to made large scale
> relocations (different continents in one case) more than once when
> entire regions came out for their blood. As time progressed, they began
> to mellow and definitely fell more into the neutral area with occasional
> bouts of good. I remember one particularity nasty chase through a small
> cities streets with the Black Mage reigning down hellfire on random
> business in an attempt to lose the angry mob after them. This second
> campaign though was also my most successful. It was while I was in the
> Navy and my group played 5 nights as week (10pm to 6am) and it lasted
> almost 3 years. (Ah to be young and single and working a job where you
> were captive to your bosses whims). The Black Mage, a Thief and myself
> were stationed together for the entire 3 years, and we had anywhere from
> an additional 2-4 others playing with us at any given time. I can also
> safely say that DQ REALLY breaks down when characters amass that much
> exp. We had more house rules by the end than you can imagine. All in
> all though it was really a blast.
>
> I do think it's a hard college to play though to be honest. The Selling
> your soul for your powers thing alone will make for shorter lifespans
> for the player. One screw up and you have little to no chance to be
> raised and will find yourself rolling up a new character.
>
> The only college I've ever relegated to NPC only has been Shapers. In a
> low level, low power campaign, it can be managed, but as players
> progress in power and amass any sort of wealth, it will completely
> destroy your campaign. I had one player that played one and after 2
> years of playing him I had to sit him down one day and say I'm sorry,
> but your going to have to retire your character and roll up a new one.
> Because he was destroying the campaign. He was disappointed, but
> understood why and actually agreed with me (and had actually mentioned
> it to me more than once before) and rolled himself up a Water Mage as a
> replacement.
>

>
> A character can always renounce the first pact, so that
> doesn't make them unmistakeably evil.

> A Greater Summoner isn't unmistakeably evil just because he
> can summon and bind Demons of various levels. It is what he
> does with the college that determines whether or not he is evil.

> I think a GM that restricts themselves with that view are
> limiting their own and their players imagination.

> Yes, I see you can quote The Book, but unless you play
> strictly by The Book with no modifications at all, i.e.,
> pure vanilla, then I don't see the point.

> As for Assassination, it is an inherently evil act,

> why would a 'good' party want to associate with such
> a person on a regular basis?

> What happens if the Assassin character turns down a 'job'?

> How about Lesser Summoners? They can summon various
> Darkness aligned creatures and entities; for that matter
> so can Necromancers. So why don't you consider them
> unmistakeably evil?

----- Original Message -----
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 6:11 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Rules puzzlements - Black Magic S-12


> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@...> wrote:
>>
>> A character can always renounce the first pact, so that
>> doesn't make them unmistakeably evil.
>
> Except for the whole aligning themselves with evil and making pacts with
> evil to gain power.

Except your argueing that good and evil, light and dark are supernatural
entities, I disagree.

> What are the actions of a G.S. adept? Summoning demons. Why? To gain
> benefits such as spells, increases in skills, knowledge, possibly to help
> others (yeah, sure). Why would the demons do this
> without requiring something in return? What is their motivation for
> helping this adept that rudely summoned them and bound them against their
> will? Are you suggesting that demons are not evil and that
> they are merely misunderstood extra-dimensional beings?

What do the demons get in return? Unless the GS screws up, they get bupkis.
You assuming that demons have a motivation to being summoned, I don't. I
assume they find it annoying (at best). I allow the demons to actively
resist a summoning. Though Sallos has good relations with a couple of G.S.,
is the grandfather of a PC character, and companionable to one or two others
in my campaign.

"Are you suggesting that demons are not evil and that they are merely
misunderstood extra-dimensional beings?" Didn't suggest anything of the
sort, that's your assumption. You can run your campaign anyway you want,
we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think you are way off base to
assume that all G.S. and B.M. are evil.

> I disagree. I think it requires the GM and players to use more imagination
> to work within such a framework.

We'll have to agree to disagree. There is no imagination what so ever to
assume all G.S. and B.M. are evil.

> The point is that the rules as written do make it clear their alignment is
> with evil. If your argument is that if you take out those rules then the
> colleges aren't inherently evil, well, then yeah I guess so.

If you don't play strictly by the book then you have no cause to criticize
me for not playing by the book.

>> As for Assassination, it is an inherently evil act,
>
> What are you suggesting? Taking a college that is aligned with evil and
> requires the adept to makes oaths to same doesn't make one evil but taking
> a skill set does? The rules are clear on the Assassin skill > so I'm
> unclear as to why you even asked the question and I went over it in the
> last post. Does taking the broadsword skill make you evil? A character can
> stab someone in the back for money without
> taking Assassin skill.

G.S. doesn't require the adept to take oaths, but you assume they are
automatically evil. How is that different from an Assassin? So if taking a
broadsword doesn't make you evil, or stabbing someone in the back doesn't
make you evil, they why would being a G.S. make you evil?

I keep pointing out your inconsistancies, but you refuse to see them.

>> What happens if the Assassin character turns down a 'job'?
>
> He wouldn't get paid? Is that a trick question or are you assuming that
> there is some structure in place that would require them to take any job
> offered? Nothing in the rules suggests that a character with
> Assassin skill belongs to some guild or organization.

There is in my world. There's the Assassins Guild, Thieves Guild, Mage
Guild, etc.

In Hawkers, one of the great cities in my world, the Thieves Guild operates
much like the one in Ankh-Morpork.

>> How about Lesser Summoners? They can summon various
>> Darkness aligned creatures and entities; for that matter
>> so can Necromancers. So why don't you consider them
>> unmistakeably evil?
>
> That's your argument not mine.

Actually, it is your arguement. If a player deals with those that are
darkness aligned they are automatically evil.

> I'm saying BM and GS are evil not because they might do evil but because
> by being members of that college they have already aligned themselves with
> evil. With BM it is
> explicitly stated in the rules. In Greater Summoning it is more implicit.
> Where did the adept learn his spells? At a GS magic college. Who would
> have taught the adept? Other more experience adepts who > have summoned
> and made deals with demons. Wouldn't the masters carefully screen their
> apprentices to make sure no goody-two-shoes made it in. They do have True
> Speaking after all.

Wow, talk about a big assumption. The masters would take in whoever wants
to learn, why would they care if they were a goody-two-shoes or not? I
suppose they might if they were determined to spread evil and darkness in
the world, but why would they want to? An evil master should be afraid
whether his apprentice is good or evil, but a good master would only have to
be afraid of an evil apprentice.

Members of G.S. haven't automatically aligned themselves with evil; it is by
their actions that determine whether they are good or evil. A B.M. who has
only signed the first pact is not automatically evil, they can still back
out. Even if they sign the second or third pacts, they aren't automatically
evil because it is by their acts that you know them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

~Jeffery~

----- Original Message -----
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:37 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Rules puzzlements - Black Magic S-12


> Awesome stories! One of my favorite campaigns was in a guys DnD campaign
> in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. All of our characters were
> hobbit thieves. Anyone remember the early Fineous Fingers comics? Our
> characters were having a great time until we accidentally stole a princess
> one night. Had a wonderful chase across the rooftops with her tied up in a
> carpet of course. Several buildings were set fire to cover our escape on
> that adventure. Alas we had made too many enemies in the city and our
> characters slipped away from the city never to be seen again.
>
> Certainly the Shaping College can be seriously overpowering and only one
> player has ever played one in my campaigns. She voluntarily retired the
> character before it became much of an issue. I won't allow another most
> likely.
>
> I also don't allow PC Namers because being faithful to the Earth-Sea
> Trilogy origin of it would result in them becoming overpowering too
> easily. In my campaigns they mostly serve the rich and powerful and
> protect them from other adepts.

> I'm curious as to how GM's justify allowing PCs to take Black Magic (or Greater Summoning). Unless you throw out the college restrictions that balance them the PCs would be
> unmistakably evil.  There is no grey area for those two colleges.
>
> As one-shots or limited campaigns I could see it but to my way of thinking any pretense of role-playing would go out the window if a light-aligned PC spent more than an adventure
> or two in cooperation with these agents of darkness.
>
> For me these have two colleges have always been for NPCs only.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Davour <Koraq@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>  
>
> > I'm curious as to how GM's justify allowing PCs to take Black Magic (or Greater Summoning). Unless you throw out the college restrictions that balance them the PCs would be
> > unmistakably evil.  There is no grey area for those two colleges.
> >
> > As one-shots or limited campaigns I could see it but to my way of thinking any pretense of role-playing would go out the window if a light-aligned PC spent more than an adventure
> > or two in cooperation with these agents of darkness.
> >
> > For me these have two colleges have always been for NPCs only.
>
> I have many times lamented the fact that D&D and other early rpgs included things like alignment, or involved implied ideas about a moral metaphysics. In a secondary fantasy world, all bets are off. Secondly, it seems to be able to turn educated and intelligent individuals into drooling idiots who say stupid things and don't listen to what other people say when it's debated.
>
> Now, nobody here have done that, yet. Just let's ignore things like that. I remember who ridiculous Rolemaster seemed to me when I saw that there was hundreds of spell lits, and then special lists with some "Evil Essence" and "Evil Mentalism" spells. Anyone who fried widows and children with a fireball is evil in my book, regardless of the college of magic is, or if that spell came from an "evil spell list".
>
> DQ is a great game where the rules provides versimilitude, in order to fully realize the potential to portray combats with fell beasts and men, and magic of wonderous and weird kinds. I laud that quality, and the fun that can be had with that.
>
> If you in your world have a fully realized metaphysics and a pantheon of gods that define what is "good" and "evil", feel free to put whatever restictions you'd like on spells and colleges, though! ;)
>
> Many thanks for the excellent feedback on my questions, by the way!!
>
> /andreas
>

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like a Darkness aligned group to me. The only groups I've known that
> have committed widespread destruction are when they took on a country that
> practiced slavery.
>
> As long as players retire the characters when they get overpowering, what's
> the problem?
>
> My friend of 25 years of gaming favorite character is her first. She
> stopped expending Experience Points years ago so she could continue to play
> her character. A lot of my PCs have become NPCs.
>
> Did have one player that had a munchkin attitude, but he took his
> overpowering characters to other dimensions, unintenionally retiring them.
>
> We gave titles to our adventures, such as:
> "The Plan that Worked"
> "Keystone Bandits"
> "Don't Yell, 'Snake', at a Religious Festival"
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@...>
> To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:37 PM
> Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Rules puzzlements - Black Magic S-12
>
>
> > Awesome stories! One of my favorite campaigns was in a guys DnD campaign
> > in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. All of our characters were
> > hobbit thieves. Anyone remember the early Fineous Fingers comics? Our
> > characters were having a great time until we accidentally stole a princess
> > one night. Had a wonderful chase across the rooftops with her tied up in a
> > carpet of course. Several buildings were set fire to cover our escape on
> > that adventure. Alas we had made too many enemies in the city and our
> > characters slipped away from the city never to be seen again.
> >
> > Certainly the Shaping College can be seriously overpowering and only one
> > player has ever played one in my campaigns. She voluntarily retired the
> > character before it became much of an issue. I won't allow another most
> > likely.
> >
> > I also don't allow PC Namers because being faithful to the Earth-Sea
> > Trilogy origin of it would result in them becoming overpowering too
> > easily. In my campaigns they mostly serve the rich and powerful and
> > protect them from other adepts.
>

>
> Last night as my players stepped out of town they saw the guard pushing a
> starving boy out of the gate.
>
> They then saw dozens of starving peasants clustered just out of stone's
> throw.
>
> For some unknown reason they then decided to repack the food they had, in
> sight of the crowd.

> There was a low growl from the crowd who started to surge forward.

> So the party pulled out their swords and slew the peasants as they came,
> wave after wave of desperate people.

> Some three hundred later, they were confronted by the sight of a forlorn,
> emaciated woman with a nursing baby who had just sat there barely
> registering the slaughter all around her.

> The party decided to activate their wings and fly away as any charity would
> only encourage the beggars to stay.

> Is that evil, or just?

>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree.

----- Original Message -----
From: <leckart4@comcast.net>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 12:48 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Pair of Questions (Touch Attack and Backfire)


> Well, we have held a couple of combat training sessions so far and one
> "real" adventure session so far. I wanted to get them a little bit of
> experience before they hit the Enchanted Wood. I seem to have corrupted
> three new players that are eager to play the game. I am rather rusty on
> the rules and I don't seem to be able to find anything regarding these two
> topics.
>
> The first question I have is how you handle touch attacks such as those
> from the undead or a spell.
>
> The second question I have is their an official rule on a natural roll of
> 99 and 00 being an automatic backfire? I don't seem to be able to find it
> in any official version of the rules. Perhaps I am just recollecting a
> house rule we had from my college days...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Ian Wood

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:07 PM

Subject: RE: [dq-rules] Spell Damage Rank Modifiers

We in New Zealand always play the second option.

It is something we discussed decades ago to create this uniformity across games and GMs

 

Cheers Ian

 

---

From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com [mailto: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of leckart4@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 5:04 p.m.
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] Spell Damage Rank Modifiers

 

 

If a Fire Mage has 8 ranks in Firebolt, is damage D+4 (yielding range of 5-14) OR (D-4, minimum 1)+8 (yielding range of 9-14).

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5545 - Release Date: 01/20/13

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6029 - Release Date: 01/12/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark D

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:33 AM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Digest Number 576

Lonny,

 

In response to your question, the damage is calculated as D+(Rank minus 4), minimum of 1.  The minimum is only stated because when the rank is less than 3 there is a possibility that the D10 roll could result in an overall total of 0 or less than 0.

 

Have you started to run the campaign you mentioned previously?

 

Mark

L'94

From: "dq-rules@yahoogroups.com" <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 11:15 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Digest Number 576

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Spell Damage Rank Modifiers   
    From:  lonny_eckert


Message
________________________________________________________________________
1. Spell Damage Rank Modifiers
    Posted by:  leckart4@comcast.net lonny_eckert
    Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:04 pm ((PST))

If a Fire Mage has 8 ranks in Firebolt, is damage D+4 (yielding range of 5-14) OR (D-4, minimum 1)+8 (yielding range of 9-14).






Messages in this topic (1)



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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> Your email settings:
    Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    dq-rules-normal@yahoogroups.com
    dq-rules-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

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

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

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

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6029 - Release Date: 01/12/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

>  If a Fire Mage has 8 ranks in Firebolt, is damage D+4 (yielding range of 5-14) OR (D-4, minimum 1)+8 (yielding range of 9-14).

> If a Fire Mage has 8 ranks in Firebolt, is damage D+4 (yielding range of
> 5-14) OR (D-4, minimum 1)+8 (yielding range of 9-14).

> We in New Zealand always play the second option.

> the damage is calculated as D+(Rank minus 4), minimum of 1."

> It is clearly written on page 50 for a Bolt of Fire, [D-5]+(1 per Rk).
> The way I learned math everything within the parentheticals are done
> first.

> Since all spells write the damage as [D-X] (+Y per Rank) and the latter
> part is so clearly written to be apart from the former expression I think
> it would be strange not to calculate it as 1d10 - 4 (minimum 1) and then
> add 8 pts for Ranks.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hill" wrote:
>
> leckart4@... asked:
> > If a Fire Mage has 8 ranks in Firebolt, is damage D+4 (yielding range of
> > 5-14) OR (D-4, minimum 1)+8 (yielding range of 9-14).
>
> Ian:
> > We in New Zealand always play the second option.
>
> Yay NZ! I've just been watching an episode of "The Almighty Johnsons".
>
> Mark:
> > the damage is calculated as D+(Rank minus 4), minimum of 1."
>
> I personally favour Mark's view. Just like weapons. Doll the dice, add the
> mods, if it's less than 1 make it 1.
>
> Jeffery:
> > It is clearly written on page 50 for a Bolt of Fire, [D-5]+(1 per Rk).
> > The way I learned math everything within the parentheticals are done
> > first.
>
> Even if we count the square brackets "[ ]" as mathematical parentheses "( )"
> it makes no difference. It's not the order of the addition that matters...
> it's when you apply the "minimum of 1" rule.
>
> The "minimum 1" rule crops up (for both mundane and magical damage) in the
> rule (section 18) that "Any Damage Checks modified to a result less than 1
> are treated as 1".
>
> I would consider "[D-5] (+1 per Rank) damage" to be a Damage Check. If you
> consider "[D-5]" to be the Damage Check then what is the "+1xRank"?
>
> Andreas:
> > Since all spells write the damage as [D-X] (+Y per Rank) and the latter
> > part is so clearly written to be apart from the former expression I think
> > it would be strange not to calculate it as 1d10 - 4 (minimum 1) and then
> > add 8 pts for Ranks.
>
> But so are [D+X] (+Y per Rank) spells and there is surely no specific
> "minimum 1" reason to group those. I think it is just a formatting thing for
> neatness. Ie, "D-5+1 per Rank" looks messy.
>
> Cheers,
> Corwin.
>

>Andreas:
>> Since all spells write the damage as [D-X] (+Y per Rank) and the latter
>> part is so clearly written to be apart from the former expression I think
>> it would be strange not to calculate it as 1d10 - 4 (minimum 1) and then
>> add 8 pts for Ranks.
>
>But so are [D+X] (+Y per Rank) spells and there is surely no specific
>"minimum 1" reason to group those. I think it is just a formatting thing for
>neatness. Ie, "D-5+1 per Rank" looks messy.

>
>I spoke with the author of Barrowmaze 1 today.  If I were to convert the dungeon to DragonQuest (create a DQ version), he might make the version available on RPGNOW. I'm doing it regardless for the sake of

> my players. I'm curious would others be interested?

> I don't want to start up a killer debate because you can always ignore this aspect of the conversion. A long time ago back when we were playing in college we had implemented house rules for a fighting skill. 

> I'm interested in seeing what others may have done along these lines.

----- Original Message -----

From: leckart4@comcast.net

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:42 PM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Barrowmaze 1 DQ Conversion

Andreas,

 

Im running my crew now through The Enchanted Wood.  Coupling the Wood to a complex of barrows/burial grounds seemed logical -- the citizens of  the town of Karsus needed to dispose of the deceased in some way and they had many years of deceased before Wulgreth even gets to the town of Kasrus.  Everything else was corrupted  around Karse mountain so why not the town burial grounds also. I have some notes worked up already with two small barrows and a medium barrow (the Sussurus tombfrom RPGNOW http://www.rpgnow.com/product/101131/Battlemap---The-Sussurus-Tomb) before they hit the Barrowmaze. Populating these barrows is my own work except there are a couple of new monsters that are introduced by the Barrowmaze.

 

>> I'm interested in seeing what others may have done along these lines.

>Fighting, as a skill? Did it circumvent the regular combat system or what was it for?

Yes, as a skill and it gets very expensive. Our combat system had modifications, but its fundmentals are the same as 2nd edition DQ.  DQ has weapons of type C, B, and A but no discrimination is made as to the armor being used.  So another GM and I adapted the Palladium armor system to DQ some 30 years ago now. We had years of experience using it. Adepts in my campaign can wear armors such as cuir bouilli scale and elven mail (if they can find it).  Armor is more effective in this system.

 

Dont worry though if I include such a skill, i'll write things up in standard DQ module shorthand so that you can easily ignore it :).

 

 

Regards,

Lonny

---

From: "Andreas Davour" <Koraq@yahoo.com>
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:56:23 AM
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Barrowmaze 1 DQ Conversion

 

>
>I spoke with the author of Barrowmaze 1 today.  If I were to convert the dungeon to DragonQuest (create a DQ version), he might make the version available on RPGNOW. I'm doing it regardless for the sake of

> my players. I'm curious would others be interested?

Interesting idea. I have bought the module since it had gotten good reviews, but it never grasped me when I tried to read it.

> I don't want to start up a killer debate because you can always ignore this aspect of the conversion. A long time ago back when we were playing in college we had implemented house rules for a fighting skill. 

> I'm interested in seeing what others may have done along these lines.

Fighting, as a skill? Did it circumvent the regular combat system or what was it for?

/andreas

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6099 - Release Date: 02/12/13

----- Original Message -----

From: leckart4@comcast.net

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:42 PM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Burning the Dead (was Barrowmaze 1 DQ Conversion)

Now where is the fun in that Jeffrey :)  There is already at least one barrow that Jaquays had put into the module.  Where there is one there can/should be more.

 

Some cultures keep that sort of thing tamped down by cheerfully burning the witch or some other style of gruesome medieval execution.  The DQ rules for necromancers dont lend themselves to making a large posse of undead like that other system does. 

 

Some religions may not consider the burning of the dead to be an acceptable practice of routinely dealing with the deceased.

 

This may not be meaningful to those of you with Alusia based campaigns but mine is Greyhawk-based and my thought was that Karsus town was culturally Flannae and the Flannae buried their dead.  Others peoples such as the Fruztii, Cruskii, and Schnai would probably burn important warriors and the nobility being viking-like culturally.  FWIW, there is a necropolis (Flannae) in this setting and there is a Lich Dalvier that was a lord of the Horned Society that had a large undead army.

 

This has the potential of being an intesesting sub thread -- changed the subject to Burning the Dead.

---

From: "Jeffery McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:57:34 PM
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Barrowmaze 1 DQ Conversion

 



Am I the only GM that runs cultures that predominately cremate remains so Necromancers don't have easy access to bodies?

 

~Jeffery~

 

----- Original Message -----

From: leckart4@comcast.net

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:42 PM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Barrowmaze 1 DQ Conversion

Andreas,

 

Im running my crew now through The Enchanted Wood.  Coupling the Wood to a complex of barrows/burial grounds seemed logical -- the citizens of  the town of Karsus needed to dispose of the deceased in some way and they had many years of deceased before Wulgreth even gets to the town of Kasrus.  Everything else was corrupted  around Karse mountain so why not the town burial grounds also. I have some notes worked up already with two small barrows and a medium barrow (the Sussurus tombfrom RPGNOW http://www.rpgnow.com/product/101131/Battlemap---The-Sussurus-Tomb) before they hit the Barrowmaze. Populating these barrows is my own work except there are a couple of new monsters that are introduced by the Barrowmaze.

 

>> I'm interested in seeing what others may have done along these lines.

>Fighting, as a skill? Did it circumvent the regular combat system or what was it for?

Yes, as a skill and it gets very expensive. Our combat system had modifications, but its fundmentals are the same as 2nd edition DQ.  DQ has weapons of type C, B, and A but no discrimination is made as to the armor being used.  So another GM and I adapted the Palladium armor system to DQ some 30 years ago now. We had years of experience using it. Adepts in my campaign can wear armors such as cuir bouilli scale and elven mail (if they can find it).  Armor is more effective in this system.

 

Dont worry though if I include such a skill, i'll write things up in standard DQ module shorthand so that you can easily ignore it :).

 

 

Regards,

Lonny

---

From: "Andreas Davour" <Koraq@yahoo.com>
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:56:23 AM
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Barrowmaze 1 DQ Conversion

 

>
>I spoke with the author of Barrowmaze 1 today.  If I were to convert the dungeon to DragonQuest (create a DQ version), he might make the version available on RPGNOW. I'm doing it regardless for the sake of

> my players. I'm curious would others be interested?

Interesting idea. I have bought the module since it had gotten good reviews, but it never grasped me when I tried to read it.

> I don't want to start up a killer debate because you can always ignore this aspect of the conversion. A long time ago back when we were playing in college we had implemented house rules for a fighting skill. 

> I'm interested in seeing what others may have done along these lines.

Fighting, as a skill? Did it circumvent the regular combat system or what was it for?

/andreas

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6099 - Release Date: 02/12/13

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6099 - Release Date: 02/12/13

----- Original Message -----

From: Lonny Eckert

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:36 PM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Ships

Jeffrey,

 

I don’t think it was ever released.

 

If you are open to adopting supplements from other gaming systems, there was a Chivalry and Sorcery Supplement called Bireme and Galley.  It would have been a first or second edition supplement.  I’d think it would probably be quite rare on the aftermarket.

 

 

Lonny

 

From: Jeffery McGonagill

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:50 PM

To: David Novak ; dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [dq-rules] Ships

 

 

Hi David,

 

Have you come across a ship supplement for DragonQuest?  I see a reference to it in the DQ Prices pdf, but haven't been able to find it.

 

~Jeffery~

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6102 - Release Date: 02/13/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

----- Original Message -----

From: Stephen Mcginn

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:42 PM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Ships

There were basic rules pertaining to ship battles and seamanship under the sailing skill section in the 2nd addition rule book.

Stephen

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "Lonny Eckert" <leckart4@comcast.net>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [dq-rules] Ships
Date: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 21:37

 

Jeffrey,

 

I don’t think it was ever released.

 

If you are open to adopting supplements from other gaming systems, there was a Chivalry and Sorcery Supplement called Bireme and Galley.  It would have been a first or second edition supplement.  I’d think it would probably be quite rare on the aftermarket.

 

 

Lonny

 

From: Jeffery McGonagill

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:50 PM

To: David Novak ; dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [dq-rules] Ships

 

 

Hi David,

 

Have you come across a ship supplement for DragonQuest?  I see a reference to it in the DQ Prices pdf, but haven't been able to find it.

 

~Jeffery~

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6102 - Release Date: 02/13/13
Internal Virus Database is out of date.