Talk:Proposed Rule Changes
Armourer
The formula in my Vault version of the skill is: "(Rank/2 +1) x number of days below." This corresponds with the proposed clarification.
Martin Dickson 15:16, 26 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
An equation that is mathmatically identical was proposed and rejected at the Sept meeting.
"(1 + (Rank / 2)) x number of days below"
"Armourer - failed (2/0/17)"
http://dq.sf.org.nz/archive/2005/2005-09/2005-09-13.html
Im following the ruling and manufacturing all rank 0 armour in one day. - Terry (Sorry Jono -- Martin)
Well, maybe I'm just an old reactionary but that's the sort of pig-headed willful ignorance that makes me pretty angry.
The original intent was that Rk 0 armour took the Base number of days. The orignal formula is not ambiguous.
At some point if gett ing it into the rules it got mathematically ambiguous (but should still be blatantly obvious to anyone with even half a brain).
Correcting the formula should not even need a GM's vote -- it should be treated like any other typographical error.
As it was the vote failed in September because the GMs were urged to abstain if they had not read or understood the proposal. Most had not; the abstentions defeated the vote. The September vote also did not rule that "all rank 0 armour in one day" was correct -- as it patently is not -- the September vote merely failed to correct the ambiguous formula.
Fine, if you want to rule that all rank 0 armour can be made in one day then the rules currently in play technically support that ruling. But you'd be being a pratt about it.
Martin Dickson 12:12, 27 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
I would also call you extemly rude and arrogant. If you cannot have a mature rational discussion I suggest you desist from further comment.
There are many oddities in fantasy systems. I might disagree with many game machanic I have encountered over the years. I suspect most readers are not telepathic and unlikely to be aware of the original intention. It is perfectly reasonable for them to apply the formula 1 + ((Rank / 2) x number of days below). If this is not the intention then the formula should be altered.
I would suggest you save your vitriol for 17 of the 19 attendees to the meeting who did not read the agenda. Perhaps you could make some constructive suggestions to prevent this happening in the future.
- Terry
Hi Terry -- bit of a misunderstanding... I managed to read the page history wrong and thought it was Jono who'd made your first comment, and since he'd been at the meeting and was aware of the formula problem I thought he was making a point (about people not reading the agenda) by saying he'd just the formula incorrectly on purpose, and I got a bit annoyed, or which I apologise to both Jono and you.
Trying then for mature and rational discussion -- the proposal to change the formula from a mathematically ambiguous one that could lead to the assumption that all Rk 0 Armour can be made in one day failed to pass in September solely because most of the GMs present had not read the proposal and were encouraged (generally, not only for this vote) to abstain from items they had not read or understood.
The defeat of the vote should not however be seen as endorsement for one or other interpretation of the formula.
The correct formula is one that makes Rk 0 Armour take base days to make, and increases by 1/2 base days per Rank... which probably means that if I'd been sensible in the first place I'd have halved all the Bases and made the formula 2 + Rank * Base days... removing the need for division and brackets.
It would have been nice if people had read the proposals... I think in this case it suffered from being put forward as something of a package with the Weaponsmith changes -- which meant several formulae that people hadn't taken the time to work through.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion -- and the misplaced annoyance. As an aside, it would be helpful if people would sign their comments -- four tildes will sign and timestamp your entry
Martin Dickson 20:33, 2 Nov 2005 (NZDT)
Weaponsmith1
Is it worth revising the costs at the same time? Mutiplying by 120 and 180 for Gold and Truesilver creates weapons that no-one in their right mind will purchase. What's the desired goal of this ability?
Martin Dickson 15:22, 26 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
Permanency
Binder/illusionist permanency ritual changes was proposed and rejected in the Sept meeting.
http://dq.sf.org.nz/archive/2005/2005-09/2005-09-13.html
This proposal no longer appears in the Sept list. There is no longer a historical record of the proposal. Is that a desirable thing?
It was moved to the section for voting in Dec. The minutes hold record of the voting result, the old version is in the change history if anyone really wants to see it.
I prefer to keep these wiki pages current/relevant to what is in the works at the moment. The approved changes were moved into the Play Test section or the Pending page. I would have deleted the entire Sept Proposal section except that I thought other proposals that had not been read/understood by enough people to pass/fail voting would probably be moved into Dec voting too, and leaving them there would make it easier for their proponents/proposers to do so.
Stephen 11:35, 27 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
---
"Illusion Permanency" may be applied to "Illusion spells or rituals", within explicitly defined constraints. What magics does permanency effect? I would propose that it apply to all magic defined under the college, as I feel all of their magic is illusionary. Another player suggested that only spells with 'Illusion' in their title fall under the classification. Both definitions have merit. Which is correct? Is further definition necessary?
The "Illusion in title" flows from the para in the College intro titled "On Illusions", which I think makes more sense if not all spells are "Illusions" (eg Invis, Heroism). I think this para needs to be reworded to make this clear.
ErrolC 00:14, 3 Nov 2005 (NZDT)
Sept Weaponsmith proposals
There were two changes listed for Weaponsmith in proposed in the Sept meeting.
. The meeting minutes indicated only one vote
"Weaponsmith - failed (2/0/17)"
http://dq.sf.org.nz/archive/2005/2005-09/2005-09-13.html
Were both of the clarifications voted on? Were they combined for the vote?
Both of the two Weaponsmith did not get a core of voters as the GMs at the meeting had not read or understood the problems and the proposed fix.
--Jono 07:26, 27 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
Material Components and Permanence proposal
I have modified the proposed Illusionist Permanence ritual to include the phrase "This ritual may not be used with any magics with concentration-based or indefinite, condition based duration." from the Binder ritual. I feel that this is both a good clarification and an improvement.
Struan 10:48, 27 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
I'm confused. Has the Permanance proposal rejected at September been re-submitted for December? Or is this just a editing error (by Stephen?) when re-organising this page?
- Errol
It did not pass in September as not enough people had read the change, so it has been re-proposed for December. This was a deliberate edit/change. However I should have and will re-post it on the DQ list.
Stephen 11:28, 27 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
According to the minutes it was 'lost' - voted down, which is what I remember too. The Thief changes were rejected, but consensus was that more work could be done to improve, and then re-submitted (hence 'failed'). The Weaponsmith and Armoursmith changes were the ones that most didn't understand, and wanted talked about (again 'failed').
User:ErrolC 11:51, 27 Oct 2005 (NZDT)
So is someone going to explain on the list why they think "This ritual may be performed without material components to change the duration of the target Spell or Ritual to 1 day (+1 per rank)." should be added to these rituals? I thought this proposal was thrown out in Sept, and don't see why we are voting on this aspect again.
ErrolC 00:03, 3 Nov 2005 (NZDT)
Why not simply list the spells that can be affected by this ritual, explicitly? Whatever underpinning logic is being applied to the canonical spell list, it won't cover spells that characters discover or are awarded. The current ruling is, in reality, a constraint which may be abused when applied to new spells. And, since the nature of such undiscovered spells cannot be predicted, then the balance of the game cannot be guaranteed.
Velcanthus 2 Nov 2005
Overstrengthing
This is a dumb idea. It complicates matters at run time and penalizes a high stat. - MTB
It is not even remotly complicated and doesn't penalise any stats unless you choose to overstrength. If you overstrength it makes sence that you have a greater chance of screwing up. The old rules we had were broken but removing them simply made another problem. This solution is easy to use at run time and works in with the existing fumble table.
Mandos 13:29, 21 Dec 2005 (NZDT)
Sap
A problem revealed during use of this rule in our game. The proposed change on Sap doesn't say if that is the rules used by a common person using a sap or an assassin. Also with a change on Sap rules the Sap section in assassin will need rewriting. As to both how Assassins use saps & how the 'damage' is actually applied, does a Spec Grev actually do the damage & potential spec Grev as the current writeup implies it does, or does use of a sap inflict no actual damage on it's victim.
--Bernard 21:24, 20 Jul 2009 (NZST)
Yes, you can accidentally kill your victim. As assassins gain a bonus to damage they will be more effective with one. The idea is to give a resistance check to the victim and prevent cheesy one-shotting.--William 07:40, 21 Jul 2009 (NZST)
For ease of reference, I've included the current rules relevant to Knockout and Sap below. Summarising (IMO):
- Almost any weapon (including Sap) may be used to attempt a Knockout Special Attack against a same size or smaller target in Melee. EN/SG => K.O. with no damage. Std hit does nothing.
- Sap against Leather Armour or less (always do standard damage less armour):
- Any hit stuns
- 4+ effective damage knocks them out
- For Assassins with Saps (there is some conflict between Assassin & 56.1 D, I interpret this as):
- +(2 * Rk)% to SC with Sap
- From behind or surprise against un-helmeted targets any hit is KO.
Key points in answer to Bernard's query are that only the Knockout Special Attack does no damage. Saps always inflict damage, always stun (vs leather or less), and sometimes KO.
As I understand it, William's proposal applies in addition to the standard rules. If a KO result is achieved from a Sap then the target gets to resist the sapping (EN check).
Since any hit with a sap against Leather or less is effectively an attempted KO, I think "saps only ever do FT damage when going for a KO" should be changed to saps only ever do FT damage.
William, please correct me if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted your intention.
- Stephen 12:27, 21 Jul 2009 (NZST)
Ia Ia Cthullu Ftghan! --William 13:36, 21 Jul 2009 (NZST) I no longer know, or I do. It (my proposal) is quite clearly the utterings of a madman.
- Sap Option 2
Following a chat with William, my understanding is that the aim is to remove the silliness that allows a strong thug with a Sap to wander through combat Stunning or KOing anyone wearing Leather or less (i.e. 80% of guild members). It's a half-brick in a sock, it shouldn't be more effective in melee than a mattock!
I suggest something along the lines of Option 2.
Assassins get to be more effective at KO in general.
The Assassin-Sap auto-KO stuff ended up being a nightmare of conditions and clauses to make it workable without being a fantastic melee option. I decided to simplify it to only applying to non-melee situations.
The special rules for Sap on the weapons table just get dropped. I thought about making Saps be FT damage only but I think it would cause more confusion than game benefit.
-- Stephen 11:45, 24 Jul 2009 (NZST)
2006 Rules: Knockout & Sap
- 3.9 Attacking (Combat)
Knockout A figure with any prepared Melee rated weapon excluding entangling weapons, Lances and Pikes, may attempt to knock out their opponent. The attack is successful if the Strike Check would normally result in an Endurance blow (see §3.11). No damage is done, but the target is unconscious for [D + 5] minutes. This attack may not be attempted on a target significantly larger than the attacker. A figure may not move while attempting a Knockout.
- 33. Assassin
An assassin increases their chance of knocking out a target.
An assassin may attempt to automatically knockout a target when using a sap. They must make a successful strike while attacking from behind or surprise against an unhelmeted opponent. In addition their chance of knocking out a target (see §3.9) with a sap is increased by 2% for each Rank they have achieved in assassin.
- 56.1 Weapons
D The sap may only be used to knock out targets wearing only leather, cloth or no armour. Used by an assassin, any hit knocks out the target; for anyone else, any hit stuns and 4 or more points of effective damage knocks out the target. This will not work on targets larger than human size.
Playtest
There have been a number of combat rules that have apparently been in playtest since 2005. Has anyone playtested them? Any results or feedback? --Mandos 11:13, 14 May 2008 (NZST)
PoleArms
- 3 what if "If a polearm wielder is charged they get to Keep the Attacker Out of Melee, similar to Keep out of Close." - Ian
- This is the special thing that Pikes already do (though with a max rank of 5 you do need a block of Pikes to do it effectively). Giving it to the other Polearms diminishes the value of Pikes. - Stephen 20:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
