Steven Wiles wrote:

>--- Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I didn't really think about that very much when
>>writing up the list. I think assumed base material
>>is iron or low quality steel. Obviously softer stuff
>>like bronze would give 1 less protection and weigh
>>less. How much is debatable, maybe 0.5 to 1 weight
>>factor less, depending on material.
>>
>>
>
>I looked up some densities for bronze and steel.
>They're pretty close (bronze ~ 7.4-8.9 g/cm3, steel ~
>7.5 ~ 8.0 g/cm3). So, I'd say same weight, less
>protection.
>
>Mort
>

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. :-)
Remind me to always consult a physics book before making assumptions
about stuff like this...

Edi

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

> >
> > Lamellar. The metal plates were wired together and did not need a
> > backing (it still needed padding). This made a defense stronger than
> > scale (there was no direction from which penetration was easy), but
> > less flexible, but still more flexible than plate
>
> I'll check the description and amend it. I used the Palladium Books

Compendium of Weapons, Armor and Castles as a source for armor (has
some very good illustrations), so it might have some errors.

>

I've checked my books and Lammellar exists in both backed and unbacked
forms

David

Hullo, David,

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:32:36 -0000, dbarrass_2000 wrote:

>First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in.

Yep, I agree with you on this point, Dave. Edi, you've done a
wonderful job on this material. :)

>It would be nice to have a length figure, useful for deciding if there
>is enough room to maneuver a weapon and deciding reach

Frankly, I don't think this is necessary, as the game is played on
a combat grid where a hex is five feet. There's plenty of room to
manouever, unless you're dealing with something very large in the hex.
More to the point, if one really really really needs this sort of
information, one can check out all manner of historical works on the
internet and so forth.

....."You want to know about mud? I know mud!" - Rygel (FS; ET)

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

Hullo, David,

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:32:36 -0000, dbarrass_2000 wrote:

>First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in.

Yep, I agree with you on this point, Dave. Edi, you've done a
wonderful job on this material. :)

>It would be nice to have a length figure, useful for deciding if there
>is enough room to maneuver a weapon and deciding reach

Frankly, I don't think this is necessary, as the game is played on
a combat grid where a hex is five feet. There's plenty of room to
manouever, unless you're dealing with something very large in the hex.
More to the point, if one really really really needs this sort of
information, one can check out all manner of historical works on the
internet and so forth.

....."You want to know about mud? I know mud!" - Rygel (FS; ET)

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

John M. Kahane wrote:

> Hullo, David,
>
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:32:36 -0000, dbarrass_2000 wrote:
>
>
>
>>First let me congratulate you on the work you've put in.
>>
>>
> Yep, I agree with you on this point, Dave. Edi, you've done a
>wonderful job on this material. :)
>

Thanks, John. :-)

It did take some putting together. Hope you like the new armor table,
because as I recall, you lamented the lack of variety earlier... :-)
I'm going to have to do some more tweaking on that, though, to put in
the alternate materials stuff.

Rodger also said it would be a good idea to put weapons and armor in
separate documents so that they can be independently discussed, and I
agree. The armor section requires more discussion among the group so
thatwe will have more of a broad consensus in the community instead of
just one person (me, at this point) determining all by himself what's
going to be in a document that is meant to be used by everyone.

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

Edi

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

Can't comment on content yet. However, can on format:

I suspect the reason you're having trouble getting your text files
to look right is because you're using tabs, not spaces, to delimit
the columns. Every editor has a different default setting for how
large it displays a tab character. And that's even before the
different default fonts used.

So long as you use a fixed-width font, though, a text document with
spaces instead of tabs will display the same in every editor. (The
only problem you can run into is the different linebreak characters
used on differnet platforms, but there's utilities to handle that).

Similarly, if you're going to provide Word and OpenOffice format
docs, you should use the program's native tables rather than tabs.

Jeff Johnson wrote:

> > So, everyone, feedback would be appreciated, and we could do with
> > some lively discussion, don't you think?
>
> Can't comment on content yet. However, can on format:
>
> I suspect the reason you're having trouble getting your text files
> to look right is because you're using tabs, not spaces, to delimit
> the columns. Every editor has a different default setting for how
> large it displays a tab character. And that's even before the
> different default fonts used.

Usually that is determined by how many characters per tab space there is. I first had a problem with Crimson Edit using 4 and Wordpad using 5, so I switched CrimsonEdit to use the same. Still doesn't work. Crimson Edit uses the same font as Notepad, so I don't see how that's a problem. Documents written in Notepad are fully legible in CE and vice versa, but Wordpad seems to throw a wrench in the works. Of course, it might be CE messing around, but I happen to like that text editor and it was easier to fix things by hand, mostly it was just lines having either one extra or one less tab in Wordpad.

I hate using single spaces in text documents, because it makes doing a document of this magnitude *very* tedious.

>
> So long as you use a fixed-width font, though, a text document with
> spaces instead of tabs will display the same in every editor. (The
> only problem you can run into is the different linebreak characters
> used on differnet platforms, but there's utilities to handle that).

I'm not much of an expert on text files, but seemed to me that the problem was largely with Wordpad's linebreaks and inability to count

>
> Similarly, if you're going to provide Word and OpenOffice format
> docs, you should use the program's native tables rather than tabs.

Actually, what I did with that was write the damn thing up in OO and then save another copy in MS Word format after the whole thing was done, and then edit the few places that are screwed up back to what they should be. OO can read native Word documents, but the proprietary Microsift file format adds some stuff which makes a lot of things appear really fucked up and these need to be fixed by hand. If you save from OO format to Word, these instances are much rarer, and typically the only problem is that if something was in bold font originally but changed back to normal, that line (or a part of it) will be bolded in the Word version.

I might do the things in table form in a later version, but I just wanted to get the thing ready and didn't really think about it at all. One reason is also that I only have experience of native tables in Word, and they are for the most part more trouble than they are worth and then some, so I've developed an aversion to them.

But thank you for the comments, I'll keep them in mind for future reference.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

I'm also a firm supporter of using spaces and fixed-width fonts and text files as a last-common denominator way of making information as readily available to all as possible.

I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to do the same when putting tabular information into the DQ Newsletter. (I often ran into problems going from the text file editor to the email program, which is why so many Newsletters are still munged up in appearance, but I agree with John that spaces rather than tabs is ultimately the way to go.)

That said, it does take an enormous amount of time to do that kind of layout in text files.

I don't think it's necessary to have perfect formatting in a text file when the topic is still just a draft under discussion. Reasonable adjustments can be made by those who don't natively support any of the formats you have used. As it is, I think that putting the work out there in four different formats is going to heroic lengths to accommodate others, and I applaud your attempts to be universally accessible.

It would be a good thing to have a clean text file that anyone could use in whatever way they like, but that may have to wait until we have a final version complete. But I think most everyone will be able to use a .PDF version (John K being the one exception in this group's active contingent that I am aware of).

I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible. Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).

--Rodger

-----Original Message-----
From: Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
Sent: Nov 14, 2003 1:00 AM
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Edi's Work and File Formats (Was: Re: Edi's Work and Armor )

Jeff Johnson wrote:

> > So, everyone, feedback would be appreciated, and we could do with
> > some lively discussion, don't you think?
>
> Can't comment on content yet. However, can on format:
>
> I suspect the reason you're having trouble getting your text files
> to look right is because you're using tabs, not spaces, to delimit
> the columns. Every editor has a different default setting for how
> large it displays a tab character. And that's even before the
> different default fonts used.

Usually that is determined by how many characters per tab space there is. I first had a problem with Crimson Edit using 4 and Wordpad using 5, so I switched CrimsonEdit to use the same. Still doesn't work. Crimson Edit uses the same font as Notepad, so I don't see how that's a problem. Documents written in Notepad are fully legible in CE and vice versa, but Wordpad seems to throw a wrench in the works. Of course, it might be CE messing around, but I happen to like that text editor and it was easier to fix things by hand, mostly it was just lines having either one extra or one less tab in Wordpad.

I hate using single spaces in text documents, because it makes doing a document of this magnitude *very* tedious.

>
> So long as you use a fixed-width font, though, a text document with
> spaces instead of tabs will display the same in every editor. (The
> only problem you can run into is the different linebreak characters
> used on differnet platforms, but there's utilities to handle that).

I'm not much of an expert on text files, but seemed to me that the problem was largely with Wordpad's linebreaks and inability to count

>
> Similarly, if you're going to provide Word and OpenOffice format
> docs, you should use the program's native tables rather than tabs.

Actually, what I did with that was write the damn thing up in OO and then save another copy in MS Word format after the whole thing was done, and then edit the few places that are screwed up back to what they should be. OO can read native Word documents, but the proprietary Microsift file format adds some stuff which makes a lot of things appear really fucked up and these need to be fixed by hand. If you save from OO format to Word, these instances are much rarer, and typically the only problem is that if something was in bold font originally but changed back to normal, that line (or a part of it) will be bolded in the Word version.

I might do the things in table form in a later version, but I just wanted to get the thing ready and didn't really think about it at all. One reason is also that I only have experience of native tables in Word, and they are for the most part more trouble than they are worth and then some, so I've developed an aversion to them.

But thank you for the comments, I'll keep them in mind for future reference.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton s�hk�posti aina k�yt�ss� http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittym� www.mtv3.fi/liittyma



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

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

Hello--

>I'm also a firm supporter of using spaces and fixed-width fonts and text files as a last-common denominator way of making information as readily available to all as possible.
>
>I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to do the same when putting tabular information into the DQ Newsletter. (I often ran into problems going from the text file editor to the email program, which is why so many Newsletters are still munged up in appearance, but I agree with John that spaces rather than tabs is ultimately the way to go.)
>
>That said, it does take an enormous amount of time to do that kind of layout in text files.
>

I don't really disagree, and I do suppose it is the best way to go about
it, but as you said, it takes time. I don't think I've got that kind of
patience normally.

>I don't think it's necessary to have perfect formatting in a text file when the topic is still just a draft under discussion. Reasonable adjustments can be made by those who don't natively support any of the formats you have used. As it is, I think that putting the work out there in four different formats is going to heroic lengths to accommodate others, and I applaud your attempts to be universally accessible.
>

Well, I thought that having the formatting down as perfectly as possible
now will save time later as there only has to be tweaking, not designing
a layout from scratch. As for providing it in four different formats, it
was the first transition from OO to text format that was the most pain
in the arse, OO to MS Word wasn't bad at all (or almost at all) because
of OO support for MS file formats. I prefer to use software libre
whenever possible, but I know many others don't, so I'll try to provide
stuff in the most common formats so that they won't have to do a
painstaking format transfer. I've had to do that for stuff on my own
enough times that I thoroughly loathe it, and it wouldn't be nice to
make others suffer the same.

>
>It would be a good thing to have a clean text file that anyone could use in whatever way they like, but that may have to wait until we have a final version complete. But I think most everyone will be able to use a .PDF version (John K being the one exception in this group's active contingent that I am aware of).
>

If someone is willing to go to the trouble, they will have my blessing
and gratitude. Right now I'm a little wrung out where the CWT is
concerned, as most people here will probably understand. As a personal
choice, I don't like PDFs, and avoid them unless it is just to print
something out.

>I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible. Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).
>

It's probably good policy, as those are platform independent. Whatever
stuff I will produce will be in OO and I'll make the Word and text
formats also available to get good coverage, that way most people should
be able to view them. OO also has the advantage of being a
cross-platform application.

There is also the point that if something that is adopted as the
community standard, having it in PDF is advantageous, because then it'll
be set in stone and modifying it will require constructing a new
version, so if people want to tweak it for their own campaigns, the
other formats can be used for that while an official version stays fixed.

Edi

*****************

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I'm also a firm supporter of using spaces and fixed-width fonts and text files as a last-common denominator way of making information as readily available to all as possible.
>
>I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to do the same when putting tabular information into the DQ Newsletter. (I often ran into problems going from the text file editor to the email program, which is why so many Newsletters are still munged up in appearance, but I agree with John that spaces rather than tabs is ultimately the way to go.)
>
>That said, it does take an enormous amount of time to do that kind of layout in text files.
>
>I don't think it's necessary to have perfect formatting in a text file when the topic is still just a draft under discussion. Reasonable adjustments can be made by those who don't natively support any of the formats you have used. As it is, I think that putting the work out there in four different formats is going to heroic lengths to accommodate others, and I applaud your attempts to be universally accessible.
>
>It would be a good thing to have a clean text file that anyone could use in whatever way they like, but that may have to wait until we have a final version complete. But I think most everyone will be able to use a .PDF version (John K being the one exception in this group's active contingent that I am aware of).
>
>I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible. Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).
>
> --Rodger
>
>
>

I may not have put this as clearly as I intended. When I spoke of having PDFs and plain text files, I meant to address that to final, finished versions of things.

For draft versions, and works-in-progress, plain text can be nice, since it is easily shared from one platform to another, but the limitations of tables and other formatting do become apparent. Word files are ubiquitous to many, but when dealing with cross-platform issues (PC/Mac) and different versions, it can be difficult.

--RT

Edi wrote (in part):

>I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible. Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).
>

It's probably good policy, as those are platform independent. Whatever
stuff I will produce will be in OO and I'll make the Word and text
formats also available to get good coverage, that way most people should
be able to view them. OO also has the advantage of being a
cross-platform application.

There is also the point that if something that is adopted as the
community standard, having it in PDF is advantageous, because then it'll
be set in stone and modifying it will require constructing a new
version, so if people want to tweak it for their own campaigns, the
other formats can be used for that while an official version stays fixed.

Edi

*****************

Hey, don't worry, I understood well enough what you meant. I'm quite
well aware of the difficulties with draft versions, especially since
I've been contemplating switching to using Linux on my home computer and
leaving the Win98 install just for gaming, so I'd be one of those for
whom cross-platfrom readability would be an issue. OO solves this for
the Windows/Linux issue, and might do that for Mac as well, as there is
also a Mac version if memory serves. Not like we couldn't overcome that
sort of things anyway, though. Just takes a bit more work, but then, if
somebody really feels strongly enough about taking part in something, a
minor glitch like that is not going to deter them. At least it wouldn't
be that much of an issue for me anyway.

One more note on the PDFs: As I personally don't much care for them, I
would really appreciate if you or someone else would make the CWT.pdf
from the OO or Word version once we get it ironed out and finalised
sometime in the future.

Edi

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

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I may not have put this as clearly as I intended. When I spoke of having PDFs and plain text files, I meant to address that to final, finished versions of things.
>
>For draft versions, and works-in-progress, plain text can be nice, since it is easily shared from one platform to another, but the limitations of tables and other formatting do become apparent. Word files are ubiquitous to many, but when dealing with cross-platform issues (PC/Mac) and different versions, it can be difficult.
>
> --RT
>
>Edi wrote (in part):
>
>
>
>>I have been a supporter of using text files and .PDFs as a way of making information as widely available to others as possible. Those are the two formats that I think the undertakings of this group should be made available. (Drafts can circulate in other formats, but realize that you may be cutting some people out by doing so).
>>
>>
>>
>It's probably good policy, as those are platform independent. Whatever
>stuff I will produce will be in OO and I'll make the Word and text
>formats also available to get good coverage, that way most people should
>be able to view them. OO also has the advantage of being a
>cross-platform application.
>
>There is also the point that if something that is adopted as the
>community standard, having it in PDF is advantageous, because then it'll
>be set in stone and modifying it will require constructing a new
>version, so if people want to tweak it for their own campaigns, the
>other formats can be used for that while an official version stays fixed.
>
>Edi
>
>
>

I will be more than happy to turn the CWT into a PDF document and make that available for everyone as soon as we have agreed upon the final version.

That brings up the question of how we go about certifying (among ourselves) whether or not to officially endorse contributions in dq-rules.

I had some earlier discussions off of the list with some people about the process for this. I've been talking about the manner in which this kind of thing is done in the Linux community, but I am not a Linux user, and I am not entirely sure how modifications are approved for Linux. But my suggestion for the process is outlined here. Like the rules themselves, this process, too, will probably be modified over time.

As I see it, there are three stages to this process:

DQ-RULES ENDORSEMENT PROCESS

1. Initiation and early development. A new rule or a rule revision is proposed to the group. It may be an untested draft, an outline idea, or something more fully worked out. Rough draft versions may be proposed for discussion, or completed drafts can be circulated for playtesting. When the author(s)/developer(s) feel that a rule is ready for evaluation, a draft version should be posted to the dq-rules group for consideration.

Any interested DQ player may submit a proposed rule revision.

2. Comment period. A proposed rule is circulated to the dq-rules community for official review and comment. At this point, the rule is considered to be proposed for use in the self-styled canonical DragonQuest rules. (I know that the term canonical is controversial, but we haven't come up with a different term; hence I refer to it as self-styled, since to some it is not considered canon.) The comment period is set for a specific period of time, during which active DQ players and GMs are encouraged to test the new rule. All feedback and comments should be carried out in the dq-rules forum in order to share the ideas and suggest improvements. The comment period should be 30 days.

An active member of the dq-rules community other than the author/developer of the rule must sponsor the rule for comment. Moderators should ensure that there are not too many rules open for consideration at any one time, in order to allow fair and thorough evaluation.

During the comment period, if there is a change recommended to the proposed rule, the comment period should be extended to allow for the revised version to be evaluated. However, this should be used only if the base rule is deemed to be working, and the revision is only a revision of the original. New rules, in particular, should be worked through in the development phase before being proposed for comment in order to work out the difficulties beforehand.

Typographic fixes, spelling corrections, and other adjustments may be made without needing to extend the comment period.

3. Endorsement. At the end of the comment period, if there are no problems or strong objections to the proposed rule, it is officially adopted and made a part of the self-styled canon. If there are problems noted, the rule may be returned for further development work or it may be kept as an Optional Rule or as a House Rule.

There should be minimal objection to the adoption of the rule from the community in order for it to be endorsed. At this time there are no standards set for percentage of votes required, but consensus is the goal.

The criteria for evaluating a rule should be whether the rule works (whether it models the behavior it purports to model in a manner consistent with the game), whether it is in the spirit of the original game, and whether it is a useful addition to the game. Rules which do not fully meet all criteria may instead be endorsed as Optional Rules.


Of course, comments on this proposal are welcome as well. Although there is some disagreement over the issue of whether or not this process is "canon," all active participants in this list can offer helpful comments, criticism and suggestions. Whether or not this becomes the official canon of DragonQuest rules or just a collaboratively compiled set of house rules is mostly irrelevant. The more participation we have, the better this process will be for all.

And as to the sponsorship issue, I am herby officially sponsoring Edi's Compiled Weapons Table (and just the weapons, not the armor, or the unarmed combat sections), as the first submission for official consideration for the DQ-Rules set.

--Rodger Thorm

>I will be more than happy to turn the CWT into a PDF document and make that available for everyone as soon as we have agreed upon the final version.
>

I appreciate that. :-)

>
>That brings up the question of how we go about certifying (among ourselves) whether or not to officially endorse contributions in dq-rules.
>
><snip>
>
>As I see it, there are three stages to this process:
>
>DQ-RULES ENDORSEMENT PROCESS
>
>1. Initiation and early development. A new rule or a rule revision is proposed to the group. It may be an untested draft, an outline idea, or something more fully worked out. Rough draft versions may be proposed for discussion, or completed drafts can be circulated for playtesting. When the author(s)/developer(s) feel that a rule is ready for evaluation, a draft version should be posted to the dq-rules group for consideration.
>
>Any interested DQ player may submit a proposed rule revision.
>

Sounds good so far. I'll note that I at least am going to assume that
there will have been some discussion with some other DQ players (though
not necessarily with members of this list) before proposal most of the
time, because usually it's not easy to get even a draft ready for the
proposal stage without getting some private feedback first. This is how
I operate anyway, because I don't like doing sloppy work and usually
getting a couple of private comments tends to sand out the roughest
edges and improve the initial work.

>2. Comment period. A proposed rule is circulated to the dq-rules community for official review and comment. At this point, the rule is considered to be proposed for use in the self-styled canonical DragonQuest rules. (I know that the term canonical is controversial, but we haven't come up with a different term; hence I refer to it as self-styled, since to some it is not considered canon.) The comment period is set for a specific period of time, during which active DQ players and GMs are encouraged to test the new rule. All feedback and comments should be carried out in the dq-rules forum in order to share the ideas and suggest improvements. The comment period should be 30 days.
>

I suppose we could call stuff submitted through this group and agreed
upon DQ-Rules Officially Approved or something like that, indicating
that it has an established, consensual standing among the group but is
below canon in order of absolute precedence. The model for this is what
I've loosely lifted from Lucasfilm's policy on Star Wars, where the
films, film novelisations and radio plays are the highest order of canon
(in that order), and below which are official publications such as the
various Essential Guides and EU (Extended Universe) books (e.g. Timothy
Zahn's Thrawn trilogy), and below which is stuff that has no official
standing (some of the early SW comics, for example).

So DQ 2E, 3E and 1E should probably be canon. In that order too, I
think, because most people here agree with 2E being baseline for our
purposes, and 3E doesn't add much and cuts out a lot, and 1E following
that because it has some stuff that was cut off when 2E was made. AW
should probably be canon as well, though as I understood it, there is
some variation between the versions available. John Rauchert would be
better equipped to answer this. The various adventures published by SPI
would also be canon, and the DQ-1 Shattered Statue module by TSR would
be second order canon perhaps. Below this would be the level of DQROA
material, such as the CWT if it gets approval from the group.

>An active member of the dq-rules community other than the author/developer of the rule must sponsor the rule for comment. Moderators should ensure that there are not too many rules open for consideration at any one time, in order to allow fair and thorough evaluation.
>
>During the comment period, if there is a change recommended to the proposed rule, the comment period should be extended to allow for the revised version to be evaluated. However, this should be used only if the base rule is deemed to be working, and the revision is only a revision of the original. New rules, in particular, should be worked through in the development phase before being proposed for comment in order to work out the difficulties beforehand.
>
>Typographic fixes, spelling corrections, and other adjustments may be made without needing to extend the comment period.
>

This sounds like an excellent plan to me.

>3. Endorsement. At the end of the comment period, if there are no problems or strong objections to the proposed rule, it is officially adopted and made a part of the self-styled canon. If there are problems noted, the rule may be returned for further development work or it may be kept as an Optional Rule or as a House Rule.
>
>There should be minimal objection to the adoption of the rule from the community in order for it to be endorsed. At this time there are no standards set for percentage of votes required, but consensus is the goal.
>

No objection to this either, sounds like a workable procedure and it's
not too convoluted either.

>The criteria for evaluating a rule should be whether the rule works (whether it models the behavior it purports to model in a manner consistent with the game), whether it is in the spirit of the original game, and whether it is a useful addition to the game. Rules which do not fully meet all criteria may instead be endorsed as Optional Rules.
>

Again, this seems a very good idea. But it does sort of require more
elaboration on the criteria for what should be optional rules from the
get-go.

>Of course, comments on this proposal are welcome as well. Although there is some disagreement over the issue of whether or not this process is "canon," all active participants in this list can offer helpful comments, criticism and suggestions. Whether or not this becomes the official canon of DragonQuest rules or just a collaboratively compiled set of house rules is mostly irrelevant. The more participation we have, the better this process will be for all.
>

I at least don't see any problems, or at least any big problems with
your proposed approach, so I'm all for it.

>
>And as to the sponsorship issue, I am herby officially sponsoring Edi's Compiled Weapons Table (and just the weapons, not the armor, or the unarmed combat sections), as the first submission for official consideration for the DQ-Rules set.
>

Thank you. However, what about the Shield section? It's basically
extended from the original 2E version to accommodate the new defensive
weapons and the weights have been slightly changed, but it *is* a
separate section and would therefore need endorsement as well. The armor
section, as we discussed privately earlier, does need a broader
discussion and consensus before it can be considered for DQROA approval.
That would go for the Martial Arts rule as well.

Edi

*****************

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I will be more than happy to turn the CWT into a PDF document and make that available for everyone as soon as we have agreed upon the final version.
>
>That brings up the question of how we go about certifying (among ourselves) whether or not to officially endorse contributions in dq-rules.
>
>I had some earlier discussions off of the list with some people about the process for this. I've been talking about the manner in which this kind of thing is done in the Linux community, but I am not a Linux user, and I am not entirely sure how modifications are approved for Linux. But my suggestion for the process is outlined here. Like the rules themselves, this process, too, will probably be modified over time.
>
>As I see it, there are three stages to this process:
>
>DQ-RULES ENDORSEMENT PROCESS
>
>1. Initiation and early development. A new rule or a rule revision is proposed to the group. It may be an untested draft, an outline idea, or something more fully worked out. Rough draft versions may be proposed for discussion, or completed drafts can be circulated for playtesting. When the author(s)/developer(s) feel that a rule is ready for evaluation, a draft version should be posted to the dq-rules group for consideration.
>
>Any interested DQ player may submit a proposed rule revision.
>
>2. Comment period. A proposed rule is circulated to the dq-rules community for official review and comment. At this point, the rule is considered to be proposed for use in the self-styled canonical DragonQuest rules. (I know that the term canonical is controversial, but we haven't come up with a different term; hence I refer to it as self-styled, since to some it is not considered canon.) The comment period is set for a specific period of time, during which active DQ players and GMs are encouraged to test the new rule. All feedback and comments should be carried out in the dq-rules forum in order to share the ideas and suggest improvements. The comment period should be 30 days.
>
>An active member of the dq-rules community other than the author/developer of the rule must sponsor the rule for comment. Moderators should ensure that there are not too many rules open for consideration at any one time, in order to allow fair and thorough evaluation.
>
>During the comment period, if there is a change recommended to the proposed rule, the comment period should be extended to allow for the revised version to be evaluated. However, this should be used only if the base rule is deemed to be working, and the revision is only a revision of the original. New rules, in particular, should be worked through in the development phase before being proposed for comment in order to work out the difficulties beforehand.
>
>Typographic fixes, spelling corrections, and other adjustments may be made without needing to extend the comment period.
>
>3. Endorsement. At the end of the comment period, if there are no problems or strong objections to the proposed rule, it is officially adopted and made a part of the self-styled canon. If there are problems noted, the rule may be returned for further development work or it may be kept as an Optional Rule or as a House Rule.
>
>There should be minimal objection to the adoption of the rule from the community in order for it to be endorsed. At this time there are no standards set for percentage of votes required, but consensus is the goal.
>
>The criteria for evaluating a rule should be whether the rule works (whether it models the behavior it purports to model in a manner consistent with the game), whether it is in the spirit of the original game, and whether it is a useful addition to the game. Rules which do not fully meet all criteria may instead be endorsed as Optional Rules.
>
>
>Of course, comments on this proposal are welcome as well. Although there is some disagreement over the issue of whether or not this process is "canon," all active participants in this list can offer helpful comments, criticism and suggestions. Whether or not this becomes the official canon of DragonQuest rules or just a collaboratively compiled set of house rules is mostly irrelevant. The more participation we have, the better this process will be for all.
>
>And as to the sponsorship issue, I am herby officially sponsoring Edi's Compiled Weapons Table (and just the weapons, not the armor, or the unarmed combat sections), as the first submission for official consideration for the DQ-Rules set.
>
> --Rodger Thorm
>
>
>
>

I've taken out just the weapons tables (including the descriptions, notes, and Experience Points tables) and put them into a text file on the dq-rules Files section, in the Drafts folder:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/cwt.txt)

This file omits the Martial Arts rules, the shields rules and the armor rules from the original draft. I think that each of these should be covered separately. I think we should put each of these out as separate files for discussion and comment before they are ready for final draft configuration. I think that these are close, but there are more new assumptions and changes in the armor and shields, and there should be more discussion about these, in my opinion, before we move ahead on those. I've see(and even helped work on one version of) Martial Arts rules as a Skill. I think this one should draw together other drafts and be further discussed before a final draft is ready.

--RT

Edi wrote (in part):

>
>And as to the sponsorship issue, I am herby officially sponsoring Edi's Compiled Weapons Table (and just the weapons, not the armor, or the unarmed combat sections), as the first submission for official consideration for the DQ-Rules set.
>

Thank you. However, what about the Shield section? It's basically
extended from the original 2E version to accommodate the new defensive
weapons and the weights have been slightly changed, but it *is* a
separate section and would therefore need endorsement as well. The armor
section, as we discussed privately earlier, does need a broader
discussion and consensus before it can be considered for DQROA approval.
That would go for the Martial Arts rule as well.

Edi

*****************

Hello--

>I've taken out just the weapons tables (including the descriptions, notes, and Experience Points tables) and put them into a text file on the dq-rules Files section, in the Drafts folder:
>(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/cwt.txt)
>
>

That's good. The text file mess actually bugged me enough that I edited
a version yesterday which has all the separation done by spaces instead
of tabs, and it was indeed the tabs that were messing everything up
previously. Happily, we will now need no more than one text file version
in that respect. I also uncovered a couple of mistakes I'd missed
previously, as well as noticed two things I needed to change.
Those were: Longsword now weighs the same as the broadsword, 3 instead
of 5, and chain weighs 4 instead of 5. I'm also thinking of adding the
Flamberge note to the Khopesh, as it has a baldde that cannot be
normally scabbarded (not fully anyway, unless the scabbard is
ridiculously wide).

>This file omits the Martial Arts rules, the shields rules and the armor rules from the original draft. I think that each of these should be covered separately. I think we should put each of these out as separate files for discussion and comment before they are ready for final draft configuration.
>

I've come to that conclusion as well. I can make the modifications to
all of the files, separate the armor and shield stuff out to their own
respective files, which will also clear up some of the formatting. As
the complete file stands right now, the weapon notes section being after
the armor and shields is out of place, but it's that way because I
originally wanted all the tables in sequence.

> I think that these are close, but there are more new assumptions and changes in the armor and shields, and there should be more discussion about these, in my opinion, before we move ahead on those. I've see(and even helped work on one version of) Martial Arts rules as a Skill. I think this one should draw together other drafts and be further discussed before a final draft is ready.
>

I completely agree with you on this. I still hope that even though we do
this piecemeal, the CWT can be approved more or less as a whole so that
we have a comprehensive list of combat equipment when all is said and
done, however long that takes.

Edi

****************

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I've taken out just the weapons tables (including the descriptions, notes, and Experience Points tables) and put them into a text file on the dq-rules Files section, in the Drafts folder:
>(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/cwt.txt)
>
>This file omits the Martial Arts rules, the shields rules and the armor rules from the original draft. I think that each of these should be covered separately. I think we should put each of these out as separate files for discussion and comment before they are ready for final draft configuration. I think that these are close, but there are more new assumptions and changes in the armor and shields, and there should be more discussion about these, in my opinion, before we move ahead on those. I've see(and even helped work on one version of) Martial Arts rules as a Skill. I think this one should draw together other drafts and be further discussed before a final draft is ready.
>
> --RT
>
>
>

All right, here's the latest: After all the feedback from Rodger and Jeff Johnson's comments on the formatting, I decided to get things straightened out for the text files and spent the weekend editing them to some semblance of presentability. The previous complete CWT document is now divided into four sub-documents, containing the weapons, armor, shields and the martial arts optional rule respectively.

The text files have been further edited to eliminate tabulator spaces from the tables, so that all table separations are by single spaces and the document displays the same in all text editors. The only places where tabs have not been eliminated is from the weapon notes and similar where indented text is necessary. It doesn't interfere with how the document looks like in a text editor.

I also made the text files printer friendly, which they decidedly were *not* previously. I noticed the mistake I had made, typing the width of the screen instead of considering the need to be able to print it out to A4 size paper (yes, I know you Americans use a different, smaller page size, but there is only *so* far that I will go to accommodate every possible need), so I rectified that lapse and tightened up the lines and tables. I'm just going to do a little bit of final tweaking so that it will be ready to print to A4 size with 2 cm margins without any further adjustments at all, and when that's done, I'll upload the lot to the group's Drafts folder.

The readme and the CWTvsDQ2E comparison files have also gone through the same treatment, so they too are printer-friendly to start with and had the tabs eliminated. This should give us a set of draft documents that only need the communally agreed upon changes and additions to be made to get instantly ready final versions.

If there are any tabs left in the documents (possible in the description and notes sections), those will have been because I somehow managed to overlook them yesterday when I edited the files for printer-friendliness, and my apologies for them. If you notice any such, please inform me that I can fix them. My email address is esko.halttunen@luukku.com for those who don't know.

As I previously said, there were a couple of changes to the documents. The longsword and chain had their weights reduced a bit. Another change was giving the nekode a base chance of 35 (same as cestus) instead of specifying unarmed combat BC as the base, which I had originally intended. No need for additional complexity. That's all for the weapons document now.
I added a note about the use of alternate materials in armor construction to the armor document that specifies how bronze affects the armor (same weight, less protection) and instructions about how special leather armors should perhaps be handled, but that last is more of putting out my reasoning for display than anything else.

In any case, I will upload the lot of these documents in separate zip-files, each section (weapons, armor, shields, martial arts) in its own and the readme and comparison files separately and unzipped. They should be online roughly around 15:00 GMT, which would be around 10:00 am EST. By the end of the day in any case.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dq-rules
group.

File : /drafts/DQ-CWT_Weapons.zip
Uploaded by : esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
Description : CWT Draft, Weapon Tables

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/DQ-CWT_Weapons.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dq-rules
group.

File : /drafts/DQ-CWT_Armor.zip
Uploaded by : esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
Description : CWT Draft, Armor Table

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/DQ-CWT_Armor.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dq-rules
group.

File : /drafts/DQ-CWT_Martial_Arts.zip
Uploaded by : esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
Description : CWT Draft, Martial Arts

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/DQ-CWT_Martial_Arts.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dq-rules
group.

File : /drafts/DQ-CWT_Authors_Notes.zip
Uploaded by : esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>
Description : CWT Author's Notes

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/drafts/DQ-CWT_Authors_Notes.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com>

Hello all. Sorry about the delay in the upload, but the text files took
a bit more editing than I thought before they were printer-friendly.
Each text file now has two versions, normal and a PFV (printer-friendly
version) one. The PFV text files are ready to print from Wordpad to A4
size paper with 20 mm margins on all sides. For any other programs,
paper sizes (such as the letter size used as standard in the US) and/or
settings I give you no guarantees, so you will need to check for
yourselves and edit as necessary (mainly by adding or removing empty lines).

The uploads are all zip-files, containing the relevant files in MS Word,
OO, text and PFV text. You know the drill by now.

Again, my apologies for this constant upload/download carousel, but the
documents in question are stil drafts and subject to change. The change
from single document to separate ones justifies this, further changes
will be (upon agreement in the group) first compiled into a to-do list
and then applied all at once.

Edi

Excellent work, I think I will adopt it for my campaign.

Just some points about the weapons
1) The machete seems to be essentially a falchion, do we need it,
could we have falchion/machete (or a note to that effect)?
2) I think the sizes for the longer swords are too short. The
Claymores in the Scottish museums are at least 4 feet long, rising to
6 feet, this should be classed as a 2 handed sword, so lets say 4-5ft
for a claymore. I would say, again from evidence of examples I've
seen, that a 2 handed sword is anything from 5-7ft. From what I have
read the style of fighting was to whorl it around your head in a
continuous sweep, swapping over your hands to keep it going. This
would (in by campaign) allow a person welding a two handed sword to
repulse as a pole arm – I wouldn't go near it that's for sure. (The
great Axe may also have been used in this way)
3) How about different stats for 1 and 2 handed use (in mush the same
way that longsword has A and B stats). We could have 2 handed use +1
damage, but -5% strike chance and requiring an extra 2 PS for example.
4) I thought a sarissa was the Macedonian pike, and therefore was
essentially the same as a pike
5) I don't think the shaft of a pike was that thick, if it where it
would be very heavy. The ones I've seen start of about 2.5 inches in
diameter at the butt and taper to about 1.5 inches at the head. This
shape conforms to the way wood grows and the extra thickness at the
butt helps counter-balance the head. The head end may be re-enforced
by metal strips.
6) I would only allow the pole weapons to be used as a quarterstaff is
the user also has quarterstaff skill
7) A bill hook developed out of a bill hook – this is a tool on a pole
that is used to lop off thin branches well above the ground. Smaller
single handed ones are still used (eg by my father-in-law) to layer hedges
8) The English longbow was actually a self bow, although it used the
natural composite nature of the sap and heart wood of the yew tree to
increase power – so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your
description
9) Doesn't a blowgun have to do at least 1 point effective damage
([20.3]) in order to introduce the poison into the victim? This is
something I've never understood in the "official" DQ rules
10) A general point. Someone, I forget who, devised a system for use
of weapons you're not skilled in, so (for example) if you can use one
B class sword you have a reasonable idea of how to use other B class
swords. This has become even more necessary now the sub-division of
the weapons has become tighter

These are really very minor points, mainly dealing with descriptions
rather then the mechanics. I haven't looked at the oriental weapons
as I don't really know that much about them, classical and medieval
(particularly Scottish) is my thing

Thanks for the work

David

Hi--

> Excellent work, I think I will adopt it for my campaign.

Thanks. :-)

> Just some points about the weapons

It's good to get feedback like this. I'll go over it point by point. :-)

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

Possibly. I took the machete as is from the PBA, it would not have even occurred to me to include it otherwise. I wanted everything in one document, so I didn't particularly worry about it. Many of the other weapons are also very similar, e.g. broadsword and schiavone

> 2) I think the sizes for the longer swords are too short. The
> Claymores in the Scottish museums are at least 4 feet long, rising to
> 6 feet, this should be classed as a 2 handed sword, so lets say 4-5ft
> for a claymore. I would say, again from evidence of examples I've
> seen, that a 2 handed sword is anything from 5-7ft. From what I have
> read the style of fighting was to whorl it around your head in a
> continuous sweep, swapping over your hands to keep it going. This
> would (in by campaign) allow a person welding a two handed sword to
> repulse as a pole arm – I wouldn't go near it that's for sure. (The
> great Axe may also have been used in this way)

Could be I need to amend the descriptions then. You're probably right. I'm not an expert, so I go largely by what I've heard/read (not very extensively either), and the descriptions were written in a rather hurry so I could get the document finished. The reason why I didn't include lengths and more detailed Repulse rules is because those go more into the province of changing some of the combat mechanics rules and adding new ones (I already went some way in this by giving polearms Repulse), and that needs more discussion in the group as a whole. You use the more extensive Repulse rules in your own compilation of house rules, so it shouldn't be difficult to just adjust a copy of the CWT to reflect that. It's not a bad house rule, so if you wish, I suppose you could submit that as a candidate for wider adoption if you feel strongly enough for it.

Right now we have adaptability and easy extendability, so it should work everyone.

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

Added layer of complexity that adds nothing useful in my opinion. It also reduces the effectiveness of a 2-handed strike if the PS requirement is increased, because then the +1 DM per 5 extra PS gets out of synch for the two different uses.

> 4) I thought a sarissa was the Macedonian pike, and therefore was essentially the same as a pike

Greek/Macedonian pike, yes, but from what I heard it was shorter, more properly spear-length, but I could be wrong. I do agree that the sarissa as it stands in the list is rather redundant and superfluous, but the review process is for finding out and excising exactly that sort of stuff.

> 5) I don't think the shaft of a pike was that thick, if it where it
> would be very heavy. The ones I've seen start of about 2.5 inches in
> diameter at the butt and taper to about 1.5 inches at the head. This
> shape conforms to the way wood grows and the extra thickness at the
> butt helps counter-balance the head. The head end may be re-enforced by metal strips.

Could be. Again, I'm no expert, but I do think the comment about thick shaft is justifed if pikes in general had thicker shafts than polearms. If not, it can be edited to be accurate.

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

Good point, which I overlooked, but as you and John Davis said, in the demonstration at the Royal Armory, also the butts and shafts of the poleaxes were used, so that kind of thing is part of polearm training. It's not like that tertiary attack would be used very often in game terms, and training for the actual quarterstaff would be different anyway, so I wouldn't demand the character know both skills. Of course, if they don't know both and have to pick up the other weapon, there's the unranked penalty.

> 7) A bill hook developed out of a bill hook – this is a tool on a pole
> that is used to lop off thin branches well above the ground. Smaller
> single handed ones are still used (eg by my father-in-law) to layer hedges

I know the tool you're talking about. Afaik it's developed from the scythe or its predecessors. It's also possible that both scythe and bill hook are actually descendants of an earlier farm implement/tool that had characteristics of both. I vaguely recall seeing some description to that effect in the San Marino Armoury. Of course, no way for me to go back and check, as I live in Finland.

> 8) The English longbow was actually a self bow, although it used the
> natural composite nature of the sap and heart wood of the yew tree to
> increase power – so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your description

Actually, that's what I thought until two days ago too, but got myself straightened out as I read a discussion on cavalry archers vs foot archers that morphed into a discussion on bows and their mechanics. One of the participants (Lisanne Norman, you might have heard of her) had to study the history of archery and bows pretty extensively for her role in a professional UK re-enactment group named Corridors of Time. She went into great detail about the differences between composite and self bows and was emphatic about the distinction between long bow and longbow. She was actually trained by a member of the Guild of Bowyers and Archers who taught her to make arrows herself, and who is consulted by the Royal Armory as an expert on archery related things. You can take a look at the discussion itself at:
http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=10,5697,0,30

> 9) Doesn't a blowgun have to do at least 1 point effective damage
> ([20.3]) in order to introduce the poison into the victim? This is
> something I've never understood in the "official" DQ rules

I didn't actually check that. I think it probably needs an added note that it only works on unarmored targets or suffers a serious penalty (like -20 to begin with) against armored targets that have some vulnerable spots (e.g. face)

> 10) A general point. Someone, I forget who, devised a system for use
> of weapons you're not skilled in, so (for example) if you can use one
> B class sword you have a reasonable idea of how to use other B class
> swords. This has become even more necessary now the sub-division of
> the weapons has become tighter

That was in PBA, I think, so it'd be Rodger Thorm's handiwork. I actually use those rules myself, as they make a lot of sense. I don't know what the standing of the PBA is with the community in general, but I've understood that it has rather wide acceptance.

> These are really very minor points, mainly dealing with descriptions rather then the mechanics.

I don't mind, as I want the descriptions to be accurate too. They purport to be, so any corrections to factual mistakes (which I'm easily capable of) are more than welcome.

> I haven't looked at the oriental weapons as I don't really know that much
> about them, classical and medieval (particularly Scottish) is my thing

I'm sure people will pipe up about them if they disagree. With them, my primary source for descriptions has sadly been the AD&D Oriental Adventures (yes, I took the easiest route) , and the special rules for most of them are something I just cooked up on the fly. I expect those to generate some lively feedback too as people express their opinions.

>
> Thanks for the work

You're welcome, and thanks for the feedback. :-)

Edi

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

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

> Excellent work, I think I will adopt it for my campaign.
>
> Just some points about the weapons
> 1) The machete seems to be essentially a falchion, do we need it,
> could we have falchion/machete (or a note to that effect)?
> 2) I think the sizes for the longer swords are too short. The
> Claymores in the Scottish museums are at least 4 feet long, rising to
> 6 feet, this should be classed as a 2 handed sword, so lets say 4-5ft
> for a claymore. I would say, again from evidence of examples I've
> seen, that a 2 handed sword is anything from 5-7ft. From what I have
> read the style of fighting was to whorl it around your head in a
> continuous sweep, swapping over your hands to keep it going. This
> would (in by campaign) allow a person welding a two handed sword to
> repulse as a pole arm – I wouldn't go near it that's for sure. (The
> great Axe may also have been used in this way)
> 3) How about different stats for 1 and 2 handed use (in mush the same
> way that longsword has A and B stats). We could have 2 handed use +1
> damage, but -5% strike chance and requiring an extra 2 PS for example.
> 4) I thought a sarissa was the Macedonian pike, and therefore was
> essentially the same as a pike
> 5) I don't think the shaft of a pike was that thick, if it where it
> would be very heavy. The ones I've seen start of about 2.5 inches in
> diameter at the butt and taper to about 1.5 inches at the head. This
> shape conforms to the way wood grows and the extra thickness at the
> butt helps counter-balance the head. The head end may be re-enforced
> by metal strips.
> 6) I would only allow the pole weapons to be used as a quarterstaff is
> the user also has quarterstaff skill
> 7) A bill hook developed out of a bill hook – this is a tool on a pole
> that is used to lop off thin branches well above the ground. Smaller
> single handed ones are still used (eg by my father-in-law) to layer hedges
> 8) The English longbow was actually a self bow, although it used the
> natural composite nature of the sap and heart wood of the yew tree to
> increase power – so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with your description
> 9) Doesn't a blowgun have to do at least 1 point effective damage
> ([20.3]) in order to introduce the poison into the victim? This is
> something I've never understood in the "official" DQ rules
> 10) A general point. Someone, I forget who, devised a system for use
> of weapons you're not skilled in, so (for example) if you can use one
> B class sword you have a reasonable idea of how to use other B class
> swords. This has become even more necessary now the sub-division of
> the weapons has become tighter
>
> These are really very minor points, mainly dealing with descriptions
> rather then the mechanics. I haven't looked at the oriental weapons
> as I don't really know that much about them, classical and medieval
> (particularly Scottish) is my thing
>
> Thanks for the work
>
> David
>

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

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

> Hi--
>
> > Excellent work, I think I will adopt it for my campaign.
>
> Thanks. :-)
>
>
> > Just some points about the weapons
>
> It's good to get feedback like this. I'll go over it point by point. :-)

I think the worst thing is not to have any feed back, even if someone
doesn't like it atleast that responce is better than thinking you have
been totally ignored

> > 1) The machete seems to be essentially a falchion, do we need it,
> > could we have falchion/machete (or a note to that effect)?
>
> Possibly. I took the machete as is from the PBA, it would not have

even occurred to me to include it otherwise. I wanted everything in
one document, so I didn't particularly worry about it. Many of the
other weapons are also very similar, e.g. broadsword and schiavone

I don't think we should split up the weapons too much, if they're
similar why not combine them, it takes up less space and you don't
have to learn every weapon skill. A Note that this weapon includes
the following varients could be added to the notes

> > 2) I think the sizes for the longer swords are too short. The
> > Claymores in the Scottish museums are at least 4 feet long, rising to
> > 6 feet, this should be classed as a 2 handed sword, so lets say 4-5ft
> > for a claymore. I would say, again from evidence of examples I've
> > seen, that a 2 handed sword is anything from 5-7ft. From what I have
> > read the style of fighting was to whorl it around your head in a
> > continuous sweep, swapping over your hands to keep it going. This
> > would (in by campaign) allow a person welding a two handed sword to
> > repulse as a pole arm – I wouldn't go near it that's for sure. (The
> > great Axe may also have been used in this way)
>
> Could be I need to amend the descriptions then. You're probably

right. I'm not an expert, so I go largely by what I've heard/read (not
very extensively either), and the descriptions were written in a
rather hurry so I could get the document finished. The reason why I
didn't include lengths and more detailed Repulse rules is because
those go more into the province of changing some of the combat
mechanics rules and adding new ones (I already went some way in this
by giving polearms Repulse), and that needs more discussion in the
group as a whole. You use the more extensive Repulse rules in your own
compilation of house rules, so it shouldn't be difficult to just
adjust a copy of the CWT to reflect that. It's not a bad house rule,
so if you wish, I suppose you could submit that as a candidate for
wider adoption if you feel strongly enough for it.

>

I might do that, but you're right this is not the place to get into a
discussion about additional repulse

> Right now we have adaptability and easy extendability, so it should

work everyone.

>
>
> > 3) How about different stats for 1 and 2 handed use (in mush the same
> > way that longsword has A and B stats). We could have 2 handed use +1
> > damage, but -5% strike chance and requiring an extra 2 PS for example.
>
> Added layer of complexity that adds nothing useful in my opinion. It

also reduces the effectiveness of a 2-handed strike if the PS
requirement is increased, because then the +1 DM per 5 extra PS gets
out of synch for the two different uses.

Why use a (1-2) handed weapon 2 handed? Why not use it one handed and
have a shield? There must be some reason why people used 2, either
they wern't strong enough or they wanted extra power behind their blow

>
> > 4) I thought a sarissa was the Macedonian pike, and therefore was

essentially the same as a pike

>
> Greek/Macedonian pike, yes, but from what I heard it was shorter,

more properly spear-length, but I could be wrong. I do agree that the
sarissa as it stands in the list is rather redundant and superfluous,
but the review process is for finding out and excising exactly that
sort of stuff.

The Greek hoplite who faught off the persians at Marathon did use a
shorter spear. But the Macedonian army that defeted Persia was armed
with pikes

>
> > 5) I don't think the shaft of a pike was that thick, if it where it
> > would be very heavy. The ones I've seen start of about 2.5 inches in
> > diameter at the butt and taper to about 1.5 inches at the head. This
> > shape conforms to the way wood grows and the extra thickness at the
> > butt helps counter-balance the head. The head end may be

re-enforced by metal strips.

>
> Could be. Again, I'm no expert, but I do think the comment about

thick shaft is justifed if pikes in general had thicker shafts than
polearms. If not, it can be edited to be accurate.

>
>
> > 6) I would only allow the pole weapons to be used as a quarterstaff is
> > the user also has quarterstaff skill
>
> Good point, which I overlooked, but as you and John Davis said, in

the demonstration at the Royal Armory, also the butts and shafts of
the poleaxes were used, so that kind of thing is part of polearm
training. It's not like that tertiary attack would be used very often
in game terms, and training for the actual quarterstaff would be
different anyway, so I wouldn't demand the character know both skills.
Of course, if they don't know both and have to pick up the other
weapon, there's the unranked penalty.

Yes you are right

> > 7) A bill hook developed out of a bill hook – this is a tool on a pole
> > that is used to lop off thin branches well above the ground. Smaller
> > single handed ones are still used (eg by my father-in-law) to

layer hedges

>
> I know the tool you're talking about. Afaik it's developed from the

scythe or its predecessors. It's also possible that both scythe and
bill hook are actually descendants of an earlier farm implement/tool
that had characteristics of both. I vaguely recall seeing some
description to that effect in the San Marino Armoury. Of course, no
way for me to go back and check, as I live in Finland.

You could be right about the bill hook developing from a scythe

> > 8) The English longbow was actually a self bow, although it used the
> > natural composite nature of the sap and heart wood of the yew tree to
> > increase power – so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with

your description

>
> Actually, that's what I thought until two days ago too, but got

myself straightened out as I read a discussion on cavalry archers vs
foot archers that morphed into a discussion on bows and their
mechanics. One of the participants (Lisanne Norman, you might have
heard of her) had to study the history of archery and bows pretty
extensively for her role in a professional UK re-enactment group named
Corridors of Time. She went into great detail about the differences
between composite and self bows and was emphatic about the distinction
between long bow and longbow. She was actually trained by a member of
the Guild of Bowyers and Archers who taught her to make arrows
herself, and who is consulted by the Royal Armory as an expert on
archery related things. You can take a look at the discussion itself at:

>

http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=10,5697,0=
,30

Sounds interesting I'll check it out

> > 9) Doesn't a blowgun have to do at least 1 point effective damage
> > ([20.3]) in order to introduce the poison into the victim? This is
> > something I've never understood in the "official" DQ rules
>
> I didn't actually check that. I think it probably needs an added

note that it only works on unarmored targets or suffers a serious
penalty (like -20 to begin with) against armored targets that have
some vulnerable spots (e.g. face)

>
>
> > 10) A general point. Someone, I forget who, devised a system for use
> > of weapons you're not skilled in, so (for example) if you can use one
> > B class sword you have a reasonable idea of how to use other B class
> > swords. This has become even more necessary now the sub-division of
> > the weapons has become tighter
>
> That was in PBA, I think, so it'd be Rodger Thorm's handiwork. I

actually use those rules myself, as they make a lot of sense. I don't
know what the standing of the PBA is with the community in general,
but I've understood that it has rather wide acceptance.

>
>
> > These are really very minor points, mainly dealing with

descriptions rather then the mechanics.

>
> I don't mind, as I want the descriptions to be accurate too. They

purport to be, so any corrections to factual mistakes (which I'm
easily capable of) are more than welcome.

>
>
> > I haven't looked at the oriental weapons as I don't really know

that much

> > about them, classical and medieval (particularly Scottish) is my thing
>
> I'm sure people will pipe up about them if they disagree. With them,

my primary source for descriptions has sadly been the AD&D Oriental
Adventures (yes, I took the easiest route) , and the special rules for
most of them are something I just cooked up on the fly. I expect those
to generate some lively feedback too as people express their opinions.

>
> >
> > Thanks for the work
>
> You're welcome, and thanks for the feedback. :-)
>
> Edi

David

You should check out this site:

http://www.cafepress.com

The site provides printing on a variety of products, including info
CD Roms and books, for free. The items are printed to order, so
there is no need to worry about minimum orders, etc.

Since I just use the site for graphics stuff, I don't really know
about the print services, but it's definitely worth a look. Did I
mention it's free? :D


Later,
R.

I have some thoughts on the rest of this, which I will try to address this weekend, but as to the weapons cross-use rules (yes, that was a rule that was in PBA), once we have an accepted CWT, then some of those rules from PBA (and the cross use rule in particular) should be revised in consideration of the new weapons table and then put to the same evaluation.

Edi, take a look at the iai-jutsu rule in PBA, and make your list of which weapons should be covered; I'll make mine and then we can compare.

Poor Brendan's Almanac has been out there for a while, but I've heard next to nothing about how it has been received, whether people actually use it, whether they think some parts are good but other parts stink, or otherwise. I would like to bring some of those rules into the accepted canon-or-whatever we-are-going-to-call-it, and would like to get some feedback on them. For now, let's deal with just the combat related ones.

--Rodger Thorm

> 10) A general point. Someone, I forget who, devised a system for use
> of weapons you're not skilled in, so (for example) if you can use one
> B class sword you have a reasonable idea of how to use other B class
> swords. This has become even more necessary now the sub-division of
> the weapons has become tighter

That was in PBA, I think, so it'd be Rodger Thorm's handiwork. I actually use those rules myself, as they make a lot of sense. I don't know what the standing of the PBA is with the community in general, but I've understood that it has rather wide acceptance.

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

>I think the worst thing is not to have any feed back, even if someone
>doesn't like it atleast that responce is better than thinking you have
>been totally ignored
>

You hit the nail right on the head there. I'd rather that people tell me
if the CWT stinks than just not say anything at all. Of course, I can't
really expect instantaneous answers, what with the document being 16
pages long, and 14 if you only consider the weapons. Takes a bit of time
to analyze it thoroughly enough.

>>>1) The machete seems to be essentially a falchion, do we need it,
>>>could we have falchion/machete (or a note to that effect)?
>>>
>>>
>>Possibly. I took the machete as is from the PBA, it would not have even occurred to me to include it otherwise. I wanted everything in one document, so I didn't particularly worry about it. Many of the
>>other weapons are also very similar, e.g. broadsword and schiavone
>>
>
>I don't think we should split up the weapons too much, if they're
>similar why not combine them, it takes up less space and you don't
>have to learn every weapon skill. A Note that this weapon includes
>the following varients could be added to the notes
>

I think it'd be better just to update the weapon skill groups optional
rule in PBA, it'd solve everything swiftly and elegantly, and you would
still have a great variety of different weapons. Some people like it the
better the more variety there is. Let's see what the others in the group
say first before we take this further.

>>>3) How about different stats for 1 and 2 handed use (in mush the same
>>>way that longsword has A and B stats). We could have 2 handed use +1
>>>damage, but -5% strike chance and requiring an extra 2 PS for example.
>>>
>>>
>>Added layer of complexity that adds nothing useful in my opinion. It also reduces the effectiveness of a 2-handed strike if the PS requirement is increased, because then the +1 DM per 5 extra PS gets
>>out of synch for the two different uses.
>>
>
>Why use a (1-2) handed weapon 2 handed? Why not use it one handed and
>have a shield? There must be some reason why people used 2, either
>they wern't strong enough or they wanted extra power behind their blow
>

The second option, more like. You can get a lot more power into a
two-handed swing, which is what the +1 DM describes. The thing that the
rules in my opinion don't reflect at all well is that a weapon usable in
one hand is quicker when used with two hands (provided the handle can
accommodate a two-handed grip) because it's easier to arrest the
momentum of a swing. If the (1-2) handed weapons received a bonus of 2
or 3 to IV when used 2-handed it would take care of that.

Also, I suppose it would be possible for someone with 1 or 2 points
below the minimum PS requirements to use a 1-2 handed weapon, but for
them it would be a purely two-handed weapon with the basic stats (i.e.
no +1 DM, no possible IV bonus if one decides to use that)

>>>4) I thought a sarissa was the Macedonian pike, and therefore was essentially the same as a pike
>>>
>>Greek/Macedonian pike, yes, but from what I heard it was shorter, more properly spear-length, but I could be wrong. I do agree that the sarissa as it stands in the list is rather redundant and superfluous,
>>but the review process is for finding out and excising exactly that sort of stuff.
>>
>
>The Greek hoplite who faught off the persians at Marathon did use a
>shorter spear. But the Macedonian army that defeted Persia was armed with pikes
>

I'll take your word for that, as I haven't read my history on that
subject. The only source I've got with specific mention of the sarissa
is the Palladium Compendium of Weapons, Armor & Castles, where it is
identified as the hoplite spear. *shrug* It could be either way.

>>>7) A bill hook developed out of a bill hook – this is a tool on a pole
>>>that is used to lop off thin branches well above the ground. Smaller
>>>single handed ones are still used (eg by my father-in-law) to layer hedges
>>>
>
>
>
>>I know the tool you're talking about. Afaik it's developed from the scythe or its predecessors. It's also possible that both scythe and bill hook are actually descendants of an earlier farm implement/tool
>>that had characteristics of both. I vaguely recall seeing some
>>description to that effect in the San Marino Armoury. Of course, no
>>way for me to go back and check, as I live in Finland.
>>
>
>
>You could be right about the bill hook developing from a scythe
>

I'm not guaranteeing anything. You could just as well be right. I'd have
to ask somebody else who knows more. Guess I could register at
myarmoury.com and see if anybody there would be willing to help. I'd
probably need to rewrite what few shreds of the description section they
would leave intact...

>>>8) The English longbow <snip>
>>>
>><snip> You can take a look at the discussion itself at: http://www.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=10,5697,0=,30
>>
>>
>>
>
>Sounds interesting I'll check it out
>

It's interesting, I can guarantee you that. :-)

Would those of you who are actively evaluating the proposed draft of the Combined Weapons Table, or who plan to comment on it before December 15 (the end of the evaluation period) please let me know (email me directly, if you would) so I know who is looking at it and is interested in participating in the feedback. That way, too, I know what the base for consensus is.

Is 30 days too short a period?

As I wrote the process up, I didn't allow for any adjustments. But David has brought up a number of points, and at least some of them may lead to changes that are more than typographic. Should that irregularity be waived, or should we have another evaluation period once we have a first round of comments on this draft?

I was probably too hasty in nominating the draft for inclusion, since there was not really any time for comment. I think I would be more inclined to sort out these last bits, and then have a revised draft for final approval.


--Rodger Thorm

Hello, Rodger--

>I have some thoughts on the rest of this, which I will try to address this weekend, but as to the weapons cross-use rules (yes, that was a rule that was in PBA), once we have an accepted CWT, then some of those rules from PBA (and the cross use rule in particular) should be revised in consideration of the new weapons table and then put to the same evaluation.
>

I was thinking along the same lines. :-)

>
>Edi, take a look at the iai-jutsu rule in PBA, and make your list of which weapons should be covered; I'll make mine and then we can compare.
>

I'll do that.

>Poor Brendan's Almanac has been out there for a while, but I've heard next to nothing about how it has been received, whether people actually use it, whether they think some parts are good but other parts stink, or otherwise. I would like to bring some of those rules into the accepted canon-or-whatever we-are-going-to-call-it, and would like to get some feedback on them. For now, let's deal with just the combat related ones.
>

Well, I'll try and remedy that lack of feedback for my part. I've
actually not used anything other than the vanilla DQ rules most of the
time, because I just didn't have the PBA and other stuff at hand
previously, and certainly not printed out. Most of the combat-related
stuff and all of the skills in PBA are or will be in use in my campaign,
the Colleges of Magic are a bit iffier. All in all I certainly liked the
document, it was very well done, but I'll have to read it through again
before I go into specifics. I suppose we should only deal with the ones
that have relevance vis-a-vis the CWT for now, and the rest of the
combat stuff if or when we decide to augment the combat mechanics with
various new rules (e.g. David's Repulse rules, or the Iai-jutsu and
other stuff from PBA). :-)

Edi

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


Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I have some thoughts on the rest of this, which I will try to address this weekend, but as to the weapons cross-use rules (yes, that was a rule that was in PBA), once we have an accepted CWT, then some of those rules from PBA (and the cross use rule in particular) should be revised in consideration of the new weapons table and then put to the same evaluation.
>
>Edi, take a look at the iai-jutsu rule in PBA, and make your list of which weapons should be covered; I'll make mine and then we can compare.
>
>Poor Brendan's Almanac has been out there for a while, but I've heard next to nothing about how it has been received, whether people actually use it, whether they think some parts are good but other parts stink, or otherwise. I would like to bring some of those rules into the accepted canon-or-whatever we-are-going-to-call-it, and would like to get some feedback on them. For now, let's deal with just the combat related ones.
>
> --Rodger Thorm
>
>
>

Hi--

>Is 30 days too short a period?
>

Given how extensive the CWT is and that people also have the dreaded
Real Life (work, family, other hobbies etc) breathing down their necks,
and with Christmas just around the corner, in this case 30 days might be
too little time. Besides, I'm not in a huge hurry here, so I won't mind.

>As I wrote the process up, I didn't allow for any adjustments. But David has brought up a number of points, and at least some of them may lead to changes that are more than typographic. Should that irregularity be waived, or should we have another evaluation period once we have a first round of comments on this draft?
>

I'd say we extend the review period at least out beyond Christmas and
the New Year, because most people will be pretty busy. I suppose a
second round of review with another period will work just fine.

>I was probably too hasty in nominating the draft for inclusion, since there was not really any time for comment. I think I would be more inclined to sort out these last bits, and then have a revised draft for final approval.
>

These things happen, that's why we need the feedback in the first place.
I will say that I did get the impression that the CWT has stirred up a
bit of excitement, as we haven't really had any major rules rewrites
and/or extensions in a long time, and it's easy to get enthusiastic (I
know I did in the past over some stuff I've seen other people draft up).
I'd actually say the CWT is already in its third draft with the
separation of the document to its constituent sections, and now that
it's clearly broken down to those, we can start ripping it apart and
debating about the pros and cons of various aspects as a community. What
we get after that would be the next draft version.

Edi

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

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>Would those of you who are actively evaluating the proposed draft of the Combined Weapons Table, or who plan to comment on it before December 15 (the end of the evaluation period) please let me know (email me directly, if you would) so I know who is looking at it and is interested in participating in the feedback. That way, too, I know what the base for consensus is.
>
>Is 30 days too short a period?
>
>As I wrote the process up, I didn't allow for any adjustments. But David has brought up a number of points, and at least some of them may lead to changes that are more than typographic. Should that irregularity be waived, or should we have another evaluation period once we have a first round of comments on this draft?
>
>I was probably too hasty in nominating the draft for inclusion, since there was not really any time for comment. I think I would be more inclined to sort out these last bits, and then have a revised draft for final approval.
>
>
> --Rodger Thorm
>
>
>
>

You mentioned in another place that Finland has lots of spirits. Any
chance of writing that up a DQ rules - not that we haven't enough to
do already. Check out my Spirits/religion rules at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonQuestCathedral/

David

I'll check your stuff when I have time, but it's a low priority for me
right now. As for Finnish spirits, it'd be a very long treatise For the
record, I've held a presentation (school project, 9th grade) about
Finnish elves, where I talked 45 minutes without pause, and that was
based on the first 200 pages of a 600+ page book, and even then with a
lot of material cut out. Never mind trying to get all the other stuff in
as well. As well, that was 12 years ago (WTF happened in between?! The
years seem to have just disappeared!), so my memory isn't one of the
most recent vintage.

Basic breakdown is that you've got fire spirits, house spirits
(sometimes same thing, sometimes not), water spirits (we *do* have
60,000+ lakes), forest spirits, earth spirits and then the rest.

House spirits are like the kobold as described in DQ, and they can be
nice and very helpful, but gods help you if you insult one or otherwise
anger him, one would be better advised to pick a fight with a Black
Magician, as the chances of winning that would be better, and the
potential damage about the same caliber as having an unplacated house
spirit around. House spirit subcategories are proper house spirit, sauna
spirit, and barn spirit, and it's possible to have the lot of them on
one property. The word we use for them, "tonttu" translates to English
as 'elf', in the sense of Santa's elves, not the Tolkienesque type.

Fire spirits are the most common, and can be found anywhere there is or
has been a fire. They reflect the character of whoever made the fire.
This morphed into the house spirit later (first person who made fire in
a dwelling became its spirit).

I know little about the forest, earth and water spirits, and would need
to read more. It's a job getting any good material in itself, as those
books are few and far between, and the existing copies are typically
from old, hard-to-find editions (such as the one I used to research my
presentation, had to specifically request the Helsinki Main Library for
it, as they only had one copy).

I'll get back to you when I've more time, but don't hold your breath.

Edi

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

dbarrass_2000 wrote:

>You mentioned in another place that Finland has lots of spirits. Any
>chance of writing that up a DQ rules - not that we haven't enough to
>do already. Check out my Spirits/religion rules at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DragonQuestCathedral/
>
>David
>
>

Hi Richard,

If I were to make Poor Brendan's Almanac available as a book from Cafe Press, would you be interested?

Would there be others who would be interested?

Personally, I'm not sure it's worth the cost. Maybe once we get a more substantive body of new and revised DQ rules, then it would make sense to do something like this. But if at least a few people are interested, I'll see about working on it.

--Rodger


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard <demon_star2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Nov 20, 2003 12:26 PM
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] For anyone interested in publishing their work...

You should check out this site:

http://www.cafepress.com

The site provides printing on a variety of products, including info
CD Roms and books, for free. The items are printed to order, so
there is no need to worry about minimum orders, etc.

Since I just use the site for graphics stuff, I don't really know
about the print services, but it's definitely worth a look. Did I
mention it's free? :D


Later,
R.



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

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

Hello--

> If I were to make Poor Brendan's Almanac available as a book from Cafe Press, would you be interested?
>
> Would there be others who would be interested?
>
> Personally, I'm not sure it's worth the cost. Maybe once we get a more substantive body of new and revised DQ rules, then it would make sense to do something like this. But if at least a few people are interested, I'll see about working on it.
>
> --Rodger
>
>
>

I'd be more inclined to waiting until we have a bigger collection of
stuff. There's AW, the DQOS document (such as it is now), the PBA and
some other stuff (namely Stephen Clark's DQ Worldbook and my stuff, the
CWT and Aspects) that we could work on and possibly combine into a
bigger, more comprehensive whole that would be worth publishing that
way. I don't mean that we would need to take all of everything, but
there is worthwhile stuff in each of these, and if we had the lot of it
in one volume, it'd really be a thorough supplement for the DQ2E.

Edi

It doesn't really matter how many people are interested in it, since
they print to order and you invest no money whatsoever into the
production. That's what makes this the ideal venue to publish
something like this.

I guess I didn't make it clear that the service is FREE the user. Say
I want to do a t-shirt. The base cost of the shirt (what they take
after the sale) is $13.99. I can put whatever retail value I like on
it, say 2 bucks. Yeah, that's not a lot, but it didn't cost me a
freakin' dime to do that. No initial cost, no minimum order, nothing
like that. They handle the shipping, the girl, the gold watch, and
everything.

I believe in the case of a book, they charge per page. Like I said, I
haven't really looked into it, so go check it out.


Later,
R.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Rodger Thorm <dqn@e...> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> If I were to make Poor Brendan's Almanac available as a book from
Cafe Press, would you be interested?
>
> Would there be others who would be interested?
>
> Personally, I'm not sure it's worth the cost. Maybe once we get
a more substantive body of new and revised DQ rules, then it would
make sense to do something like this. But if at least a few people
are interested, I'll see about working on it.
>
> --Rodger
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
> Sent: Nov 20, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [dq-rules] For anyone interested in publishing their
work...
>
> You should check out this site:
>
> http://www.cafepress.com
>
> The site provides printing on a variety of products, including info
> CD Roms and books, for free. The items are printed to order, so
> there is no need to worry about minimum orders, etc.
>
> Since I just use the site for graphics stuff, I don't really know
> about the print services, but it's definitely worth a look. Did I
> mention it's free? :D
>
>
> Later,
> R.
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@e...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Orcs Of Maras-Dantia (trying to create a campaign in the Orcs:First
Blood world by Stan Nicolls)

Learn horsemanship at 50% cost.
Learn military scientist at 75% cost.
Suffer –5% in bright daylight
75ft dark-vision
Only learn elemental magics
Only learn general spells and rituals.
DQ stats +1 PS, +1 MD, +2 FAT, +1 END, -2 MA, -2 WP, -1 AG
Must make concentration check to escape any combat where they have
been struck a blow.
Ambidextrous if D5 is > D 10 roll, can choose handedness if not as
equally likely left or right-handed
Have –5 magic resistance.
Heal as though they have at least 21 END with regard to Fat and End
recovery not diseases and poisons or anything else.

Trying to keep it at the standard Orc of x0.9, dont know if I have
over-powered it?

On another issue DQ is my game of choice but the race descriptions
and variation in abilitys needs a litle work to bring them to life I
think.

regards

JohnD

Also add, as first post didnt....

Break stun rolls made as though on full fatigue, as long as they have some
Fat left.
-10% to resist all diseases normally associated with humans.
-20% to all reaction rolls on encounters versus humans (and reverse
applies).

>From: "jrr_talking" <jrd123@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [dq-rules] Anybody put an experience multiplier on this race?
>Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:58:34 -0000
>
>Orcs Of Maras-Dantia (trying to create a campaign in the Orcs:First
>Blood world by Stan Nicolls)
>
>Learn horsemanship at 50% cost.
>Learn military scientist at 75% cost.
>Suffer �5% in bright daylight
>75ft dark-vision
>Only learn elemental magics
>Only learn general spells and rituals.
>DQ stats +1 PS, +1 MD, +2 FAT, +1 END, -2 MA, -2 WP, -1 AG
>Must make concentration check to escape any combat where they have
>been struck a blow.
>Ambidextrous if D5 is > D 10 roll, can choose handedness if not as
>equally likely left or right-handed
>Have �5 magic resistance.
>Heal as though they have at least 21 END with regard to Fat and End
>recovery not diseases and poisons or anything else.
>
>Trying to keep it at the standard Orc of x0.9, dont know if I have
>over-powered it?
>
>On another issue DQ is my game of choice but the race descriptions
>and variation in abilitys needs a litle work to bring them to life I
>think.
>
>regards
>
>JohnD
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

John,

I agree. The races need a little something extra, especially for those that have been playing for a while.

I like what you've come up with. I guess the biggest consideration is, what type of orc you want in your world, as each author and game have defined orcs differently. From your statistics, I gather that you are going for a physical, militaristic type of orc.

I like the increased resistance to stun. I never thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. (Plus, it makes orc battles for PC's a hell of a lot tougher.)

I would suggest using a multiplier for healing recovery rather than having all orcs recover at the same rate. For instance, orcs heal at 1.5 times as fast as other rates. Just a suggestion. Have you had a chance to game test it?

Steve

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

Ta for that. Like your healing idea better than mine, will still if that is
ok.

The orcs in the novels are strictly militaristic, they mostly have a
military rank. Live in a land in balance with all other fairy and humanoid
races, of which they are the best warriors but least magical inclined.

Unfortunately the silly humans and their sillier religions have started
inpinging in the land, spreading thier horrid diseases. Their un-natural
ways are draining the lands of magic. As in the norm, the humans have
differing religions and are at war with each other and all the non-humans as
well. The land seemed to fit DQ quite well I thought, especially the magic
and the fact DQ has no clerical magic.

No play-test as yet....have to wrench party away from their very experienced
elf-based characters and try something new and lower powered...will start
them on around 5000xp or so and they will be all be orcs. Ok im a terrible
GM trying implant my will upon the party...

John

>From: hollywood314@juno.com
>Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Anybody put an experience multiplier on this race?
>Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:47:43 GMT
>
>
>John,
>
>I agree. The races need a little something extra, especially for those
>that have been playing for a while.
>
>I like what you've come up with. I guess the biggest consideration is,
>what type of orc you want in your world, as each author and game have
>defined orcs differently. From your statistics, I gather that you are
>going for a physical, militaristic type of orc.
>
>I like the increased resistance to stun. I never thought of that, but it
>makes a lot of sense. (Plus, it makes orc battles for PC's a hell of a lot
>tougher.)
>
>I would suggest using a multiplier for healing recovery rather than having
>all orcs recover at the same rate. For instance, orcs heal at 1.5 times as
>fast as other rates. Just a suggestion. Have you had a chance to game
>test it?
>
>Steve
>
>________________________________________________________________
>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

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

The novel you are referencing, is it any good? Worth reading? There seems to be a lack of decent fantasy literature out there.

Go ahead and use my healing suggestion. That is why I offered it.

Steve

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

Version 2.

Added in the good things (boons), neutral things (benigns) and the bad
things (banes). Overall my opinion is 0.9 EXPM

Orcs Of Maras-Dantia

The Boon Of Orcs
Learn horsemanship at 50% cost.
Learn military scientist at 75% cost.
75ft dark-vision
Ambidextrous if D5 is > D 10 roll, can choose handedness if not as equally
likely left or right-handed
Heal at 1.5 times normal rate from injury only; not diseases or poisons or
anything else.
Break stun rolls made as though on full fatigue as long as they have some
Fat left.
Generally Tall, 6ft +(2D-D5) inches tall.

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

The Bane of Orcs
Suffer �5% in bright daylight
Only learn elemental magics
Only learn general spells and rituals
Must make concentration check to flee / escape any combat where they have
been struck an effective blow.
Have �5% magic resistance
-10% to resist all diseases normally associated with humans.
-10% to all reaction rolls on encounters versus humans (and reverse
applies).

Experience Multiplier is x0.9.


As for the novels, well there above average but not great. I really liked
the setting if not the telling of the stories.

JohnD

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

What about adding some skills that cost more than 100% to counter the horsmanship and mil sci advantage? i.e. healer at 125% the normal cost.

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

I'm a little late ringing in here, but I think that these orcs deserve a 0.9 EXM. I don't see anything that goes too far out of balance from that.

For ease of bookkeeping, if the entire party are going to be orcs, why not just set a 1.0 EXM, and then bump up experience awards a little bit?

I'm trying to convince JohnC to include campaign settings information as well as adventures when his website goes live, and it sounds as though you have at least a good start on this one.

--Rodger

>For ease of bookkeeping, if the entire party are going to be orcs, why not
>just set a 1.0 EXM, and then bump up experience awards a little bit?
>

thats a brilliant idea....spend so much time playing with numbers dont see a
solution when its easy!!!

JohnD

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

Hi,
I'm looking for a digital copy of DQ because my paper one is about to
desintegrate. Does anyone know where I may find a digital copy?
Tracy

Feel free to email direct if you know where one can be found.
Thanks

Has anyone ever thought of giving weapons an experience multiplier such as spells? I never liked the idea that the two used different systems. It makes more sense that experience multipier should be used for both.

Steve


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

Not a bad thought.

If for example you use the numbers as they stand for max rank (ie 10,000xp
in total for rank 9 dagger and 12000 for rank 8 shortbow) the XPM for dagger
is 222 and for bow is 333. Need some kind of fudge as rank 0 in a spell is
free, but not in a weapon. I guess for them all it makes them more
expensive at low rank and the last 2 or 3 ranks are cheaper. Could make it
fit better but need more complicated maths than 'xp needed is equal to rank
gained x XPM'. That said quite a few calculations in DQ used 'rank squared'
as a multiple and with spreadsheets shouldnt be too tricky.

Wonder if it should be done for skills as well. (Couldnt resist XPM for
assassin is 816, ignoring rank 0).

Interesting to know where the numbers originally came from

JohnD

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

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

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

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@h...> wrote:

> Not a bad thought.
>
> If for example you use the numbers as they stand for max rank (ie

10,000xp

> in total for rank 9 dagger and 12000 for rank 8 shortbow) the XPM

for dagger

> is 222 and for bow is 333. Need some kind of fudge as rank 0 in a

spell is

> free, but not in a weapon. I guess for them all it makes them more
> expensive at low rank and the last 2 or 3 ranks are cheaper. Could

make it

> fit better but need more complicated maths than 'xp needed is equal

to rank

> gained x XPM'. That said quite a few calculations in DQ used 'rank

squared'

> as a multiple and with spreadsheets shouldnt be too tricky.
>
> Wonder if it should be done for skills as well. (Couldnt resist XPM for
> assassin is 816, ignoring rank 0).
>
> Interesting to know where the numbers originally came from

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

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

I know exactly what you mean

David

> >From: hollywood314@j...
> >Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> >To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [dq-rules] Weapons and XP Multiplier
> >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 03:22:08 GMT
> >
> >
> >Has anyone ever thought of giving weapons an experience multiplier

such as

> >spells? I never liked the idea that the two used different

systems. It

> >makes more sense that experience multipier should be used for both.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> >Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> >Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Its good to know that I'm not the only one that loses work time over DQ.

If weapons and skills were converted to an experience multiple, should there still be maximum ranks and would the maximum ranks still be a scale of 10? My thinking is that would probably be the easiest. I once toyed with the idea of converting weapons and professional skills to a 20 rank system as spells. Its okay for weapons, but difficult for professional skills.

Steve

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

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

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

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

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

Steve