From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 08:51:20 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA28075; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:51:20 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id IAA28065 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:51:18 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id IAA13208; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:42:01 +1300 Message-ID: <363F5DDC.44EB8355@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:47:40 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Jim Arona wrote: > Martin Dickson wrote: > > The problem is that this is effectively just Walking Unseen. > > No, it isn't like Walking Unseen. Fair enough. The brief blurb that Andrew mentioned sounded like Walking Unseen... but this is quite different, and I can see what you mean about advantages. > However, an Undetectable > character cannot attempt to use stealth to avoid the attentions of someone > who is aware of them, once spotted. They must break a line of sight, to > re-establish their Undetectability. So... they effectively have to get to somewhere that they could really use stealth... and then the magical effect re-establishes itself. Cool. This looks like a good way of handling a "cloaking" type spell... though there are a couple of things I'm not certain about: > Any attack or violently obvious activity inconsistent with stealth means > that the Undetectable character is no longer using stealth, and therefore > they become obvious to an observer, although the spell does not end. When you say "to an observer" do you mean any observer or only the one that you attacked or otherwise attacked intrusively towards? If I sneak "undetectably" across a courtyard and then foolishly stab a guard in a group of his buddies who gets to see me? a) the stabbed guard? b) the guard's buddies who are standing next to him? c) the guards on the walls who are looking into the courtyard? > It means that everyone in the party can see the Undetectable character, > reducing the bookkeeping load on the DM. If I go undetectable near the party then they will be able to see me -- but if I break line of sight and then approach them again can they automatically see me? If I am revealed (by doing something dumb) to an observer who failed their PC roll and then I break line of sight and re-establish the cloak are they automatically unable to see me? Conversely if I am spotted by someone (simply by making their PC roll) who then raises a hue and cry, and I run around a corner (out of line of sight) and then sneak out again, does that first person automatically see me? > The most important advantage is that it encourages stealthy behaviour on > the Undetectable character, rather than defeating the point of having the > skill. To me, this looks like a substantially more desirable form of the spell -- mostly from a balance/GMing point of view. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 11:08:27 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA28226; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:08:27 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id LAA28216 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:08:24 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id KAA20505; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:59:02 +1300 Message-ID: <363F7DFB.A608ABE0@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 11:04:43 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Phantasm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Brent wrote: > Phantasm is a anomalous spell for a number of reasons : > > 1) It "works at any range". Reading the original DQ II rules it appears > that the intention was that the Phantasm could be targetted in much the > same way as a Locate. This would seem too powerful (only a 400 EM), so > line of sight was specifically written in, and Telepathy and Individual > True Name (ITN) targetting added at the same time. Without ITN targetting, > there is no reason for the spell not to have a range. This is one interpretation yes... but I think that another may be that the "at any range" refers/referred to the fact that no matter how far away the target ran the phantasm would still hunt them down. The normal rule would be that no matter what the "Range" characteristic of the spell the Adept must still see the target. For example, Dragonflames may have a range of 25' +25'/Rank but you still have to _see_ the target. If they are hidden or the mage is myopic it doesn't matter what the range of the spell is. The ability to target through Telepathy was only origianlly available (explicitly) on Mental Attack -- which to me at least seems quite reasonable. After all the technical target of the spell is someone's mind... which really the Adept does a better job of "seeing" with Telepathy than by staring at the target's head. I am not at all sure that I like Phantasm being targetted by Telepathy, and I know I don't like the ITN targetting. This may seem a little anomolous, as I have said in past that I think _more_ things should work with ITNs... but I don't like the idea of "fire and forget" Phantasms than can track down one individual on the other side of the world as a standard.... or maybe my problem with it is that ITNs have been treated so variably by GMs (and players)... some feel that ITNs are extremely important and should be protected at all costs, whilst others have observed that they have so little use that they must be unimportant and have (as players) given them away, or (as GMs) given them out, or worse given out abilities that can detect them. I would like this area to be cleaned up before I was happy with trans-continental phantams for 400 EM. > 2) It "conjures a beast", who is a "magical entity" that "appears as an > [sic] horrific nightmare from the target's subconscious". The Mind College > "is concerned with the manipulation of the mental powers of sentient > entities" (current) or "deals primarily with the powers of the mind, > empowered and enhanced by magic" (proposed edit). Therefore the spell does > not fit very easily within the Mind College's realm. To quote Return to the Forbidden Planet: "Beware the Ids that march!". The concept of monsters summoned from the target's mind that represent their greatest fears seems perfectly in keeping with the principles of the college. The anomolies seem to be: a) the range of the spell -- it would seem that the Adept would have to be close to the target (in "normal" spell range) in order to summon these monsters (in that same way that proximity is requires for Telepathy or ESP). b) that the monster summoned from the target's mind appears next to the caster and not the target and then "hunts" them down. Although... that said, the concept of the implacable hunter stalking you no matter how far you run isn't a bad one for the college either... afterall you can't really outrun the monster since it is your mind that has created it. > 3) It "conjures a beast", that "appears as an [sic] horrific nightmare from > the target's subconscious", yet cannot be resisted by the target. Arguably the target should get to resist having the horrific thing pulled from their mind... (but then you don't get to resist ESP, so I'd say this is a bit grey)... however, once the thing is summoned/conjured/created then you wouldn't get to resist it since it is your own mind that is giving it form. > 5) It is less effective against people wearing armour, and people who smite > for large amounts of damage. Yet, it is a Mind College spell. This is definitely weird. Intuitively I would expect a mental monster to do its "damage" through fear and attacking the mind of the target, not by beating them to a pulp. If I had Phantasm cast on me and was then chased to the ends of the earth by an horrific giant spider I am pretty sure that it would be my heart that gave out, irresspective of the amount of body armour I was wearing, or the weaponry I was carrying. You can't kill nightmares.... it is one of the things that make them...errr... nightmarish. :) The reason that the Phantasm is "unseeable" by others is that it exists in the target's mind... so how does it do physical damage. It could I guess be psychosomatic (a la stigmata), but on the whole I think its is more likely that the target would go into shock/lie gibbering on the floor/and if I was "covered with hundreds of little spiders" I might do damage to myself trying to claw them off... We have treated "fear" in DQ as the province of Necromancers and to a lesser degree those whole deal in Darkness, but Mind is another area where this is highly appropriate -- and fears drawn directly from someones mind and reflected back at them amplified, putting them center stage in a waking nightmare, would be... well, I know I wouldn't enjoy it much. I don't know quite what it would look like... but I can tell you now how many legs it would have. :) > A spell more in keeping with the College, and the Magic System, would be > something like : > > S6. Epileptic Jelly Why bother? If they fail to resist a Control Person they will sit there like a good little enemy while you go an tie them up. I think Phantasm as a concept is well within the scope of the mind College... some of the details may need a bit of a polish. Cheers, Martin (the arachnophobe) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 13:15:43 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA28369; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:15:43 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA28359 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:15:42 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p5-max38.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.106.69]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA16971 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:06:23 +1300 Message-Id: <199811040006.NAA16971@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:00:59 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Martin Dickson > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Undetectability > Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 8:47 AM > > > Jim Arona wrote: > > > Martin Dickson wrote: > > > > The problem is that this is effectively just Walking Unseen. > > > > No, it isn't like Walking Unseen. > > Fair enough. The brief blurb that Andrew mentioned sounded like Walking > Unseen... but this is quite different, and I can see what you mean about > advantages. > > > However, an Undetectable > > character cannot attempt to use stealth to avoid the attentions of someone > > who is aware of them, once spotted. They must break a line of sight, to > > re-establish their Undetectability. > > So... they effectively have to get to somewhere that they could really use > stealth... and then the magical effect re-establishes itself. Cool. > > This looks like a good way of handling a "cloaking" type spell... though there > are a couple of things I'm not certain about: > > > Any attack or violently obvious activity inconsistent with stealth means > > that the Undetectable character is no longer using stealth, and therefore > > they become obvious to an observer, although the spell does not end. > > When you say "to an observer" do you mean any observer or only the one that you > attacked or otherwise attacked intrusively towards? > If I sneak "undetectably" across a courtyard and then foolishly stab a guard in > a group of his buddies who gets to see me? > a) the stabbed guard? The stabbed guard automatically gets to see you. > b) the guard's buddies who are standing next to him? The guards standing next to him may spot you. You must make a Stealth roll minus 3 or more times the PC of guards to remain Undetected. > c) the guards on the walls who are looking into the courtyard? The guards on the walls looking into the courtyard do not see you unless the Stealth roll result required above is higher than your Stealth minus 1 times their PC. > > > It means that everyone in the party can see the Undetectable character, > > reducing the bookkeeping load on the DM. > > If I go undetectable near the party then they will be able to see me -- but if > I break line of sight and then approach them again can they automatically see > me? No, you have broken a line of sight, and should you choose to approach stealthily, then provided you make your Stealth roll, then you will be undetected. > > If I am revealed (by doing something dumb) to an observer who failed their PC > roll and then I break line of sight and re-establish the cloak are they > automatically unable to see me? Okay, I can see where the confusion has crept in...What it does in my game is that the player's Stealth becomes magically enhanced, so that if they make their Stealth roll, then they get to sneak around in the open. There is no automatically concealment... > > Conversely if I am spotted by someone (simply by making their PC roll) who then > raises a hue and cry, and I run around a corner (out of line of sight) and then > sneak out again, does that first person automatically see me? No, if your Stealth roll is lower than your stalker's PC multiplier, then you can sneak out in front of him...I should point out, however, that he's likely to get a very good (from his point of view) PC multiplier. He does, after all, know you're there. Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 13:39:26 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA28409; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:39:26 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA28399 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:39:25 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p5-max38.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.106.69]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA19343 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:30:06 +1300 Message-Id: <199811040030.NAA19343@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Phantasm Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:29:05 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Martin Dickson > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Phantasm > Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 11:04 AM > > > Brent wrote: > > > Phantasm is a anomalous spell for a number of reasons : Martin wrote: > I think Phantasm as a concept is well within the scope of the mind College... > some of the details may need a bit of a polish. I agree with Martin, here. I don't see anything wrong with the spell, as it stands...I don't really see any need to change it. And, again, it's one of those spells that seem nasty, but aren't anything like as nasty as a lot of other spells in the game. Mind you, it has bloody creepy feel to it, and I've seen many players assume a fetal crouch when they realised one of them buggers was about... > We have treated "fear" in DQ as the province of Necromancers and to a lesser > degree those whole deal in Darkness, but Mind is another area where this is > highly appropriate -- and fears drawn directly from someones mind and reflected > back at them amplified, putting them center stage in a waking nightmare, would > be... well, I know I wouldn't enjoy it much. I don't know quite what it would > look like... but I can tell you now how many legs it would have. :) This is something I've heard from Jacqui. There is little in the Mind College that allows you to interfere with the mental processes...Which is, after all, something you'd expect to be able to do with the College...She has pointed out that they should be able to cast fear spells, sleep spells, etc...And I agree with her. A Necromancer or a Dark mage can cause fear effects by drawing on the element of their Colleges...Death and the things that lurk around it, and Darkness...Wiccans can cause it either because of the Panic nature of the woods (if you happen to be of a Nature bunny), or because of your traffickings with the blackest pits of Tartarus (if you happen to have sold your soul for a one-time only, direct power attachment from Hell)...Etc,etc, etc... I have always imagined that Necromancers that cast Mass Fear are surrounded by a phantasmal 'Danse Macabre' that seduces whoever fails to resist into some dread vision of their own death...The Celestial Fear spell generating some almost seen movement of something fearful and unpleasant that can't quite be identified, but that you KNOW is there...etc, etc, etc... I would have imagined that if a Mind mage were able to cast Mass Fear, then the effect would be unseeable, and penetrant...In other words, I tend to imagine that the other colleges have to be able to see the element being used to engender the effect, and so it doesn't work around corners...There are exceptions, mind you...I think it's perfectly fine for a Necro Mass Fear to have an effect around corners in a desecrated crypt, or a Wiccan one in a forest, etc, etc, etc. A Mind College Mass Fear would be able to pass through any obstruction and have an effect, the victim being caught in some nightmarish fantasy spawned from their own subconscious... > I would also like to see them have spells that resist fear, as well... Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 13:40:09 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA28433; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:40:09 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA28423 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:40:03 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22187 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:31:06 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:27:21 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 13:31:37 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 13:31:35 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:31:28 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > > Martin Dickson wrote: > > > This sounds like the most logical route to take. The problem is that > this > > is effectively just Walking Unseen. > > No, it isn't like Walking Unseen. > The way I've run it is that Undetectability allows a character to use > Stealth in situations where they would not normally be allowed to, e.g. an > Undetectable character may attempt to stealth across an open courtyard, > which is being observed by guards. > If the stealth roll is failed, then the Undetectable character is > discovered, although the spell doesn't end. However, an Undetectable > character cannot attempt to use stealth to avoid the attentions of someone > who is aware of them, once spotted. They must break a line of sight, to > re-establish their Undetectability. > Any attack or violently obvious activity inconsistent with stealth means > that the Undetectable character is no longer using stealth, and therefore > they become obvious to an observer, although the spell does not end. > The advantage is that it is a form of concealment that is impenetrable to > Witchsight. > It means that everyone in the party can see the Undetectable character, > reducing the bookkeeping load on the DM. > It allows the detection of the Undetectable character in descending order > of the most likely person to the least, as opposed to the situation at the > moment, where someone with PC of 5 might spot the character, and someone > with a PC of 26 and a Rank 20 Enchantment may not. > The most important advantage is that it encourages stealthy behaviour on > the Undetectable character, rather than defeating the point of having the > skill. > Jim. I quite like this, but it doesn't sound like a 450 Em special knowledge spell to me. In fact it would make quite a nice general for mind college at a lower EM. If the current spell were changed to this format I think even for mind college the EM would need adjusting. cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 13:52:01 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA28480; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:52:01 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA28470 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:52:00 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p5-max38.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.106.69]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA20736 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:42:38 +1300 Message-Id: <199811040042.NAA20736@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:41:40 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Bart Janssen >Bart wrote re my version of Undetectibility: > > I quite like this, but it doesn't sound like a 450 Em special knowledge > spell to me. In fact it would make quite a nice general for mind college > at a lower EM. If the current spell were changed to this format I think > even for mind college the EM would need adjusting. I don't know if it would. Which is to say I really don't know if it would...I think I'd leave it alone and see what it's like, first. You have to consider that it isn't detectable by Witchsight, and that it doesn't automatically fail when you hit something... Another point to consider is that Stealth can get very high indeed...I'd be worried by high AG hobbit mind mage assassin/thief/spies... However, if it were to remain a special knowledge spell, my guess would be about 350 EM...I wouldn't be happy with any less. If it were general knowledge, then I'd consider 450 fine and dandy, myself... Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 13:59:04 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA28517; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:59:04 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA28508 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:59:03 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22361 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:50:06 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:46:11 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 13:50:27 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 13:50:05 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:50:02 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Phantasm X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Subject: Re: Phantasm Date sent: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:29:05 +1300 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Send reply to: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > > > ---------- > > From: Martin Dickson > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Re: Phantasm > > Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 11:04 AM > > > > > > Brent wrote: > > > > > Phantasm is a anomalous spell for a number of reasons : > > Martin wrote: > > I think Phantasm as a concept is well within the scope of the mind > College... > > some of the details may need a bit of a polish. > > I agree with Martin, here. I don't see anything wrong with the spell, as it > stands...I don't really see any need to change it. And, again, it's one of > those spells that seem nasty, but aren't anything like as nasty as a lot of > other spells in the game. Mind you, it has bloody creepy feel to it, and > I've seen many players assume a fetal crouch when they realised one of them > buggers was about... Me three snip > A Mind College Mass Fear would be able to pass through any obstruction and > have an effect, the victim being caught in some nightmarish fantasy spawned > from their own subconscious... > > > I would also like to see them have spells that resist fear, as well... I think you imagine that mind mages would be able to enhance emotions specifically. eg panic or joy or bravado or jealosy etc I'm not sure how easy those kinds of thing would be to implement in the game though. As for the fear itself, I almost think that fear is the wrong word since it is associate with fear of something, rather what I'd expect a mind mage to be able to do is induce the responce that is the result on the fright table without the fear. I guess I'm talking semantics here and the mechanics are probably the same you cast the spell and they roll on the fright table, but my gut feeling is that calling the spell a "fear spell" isn't quite right. As for the other emotions.....why can't mind mages have a Strength of Will spell (bravado) or is this getting into the range of hypnotism like effects. Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 14:12:46 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA28551; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:12:46 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA28541 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:12:45 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id OAA00446; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:03:27 +1300 Message-ID: <363FA935.E33F2024@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:09:09 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Phantasm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Jim Arona wrote: > I would have imagined that if a Mind mage were able to cast Mass Fear, then > the effect would be unseeable, and penetrant... Urk Visions of the party running screaming or rolling around on the floor, each wrapped in their own nightmare fantasy... this one trying to claw the little spiders out of their head, that one locked in impenetrable darkness, yet another clinging to the ground so that they aren't drawn up into the gaping void of the sky... Cool. > I would also like to see them have spells that resist fear, as well... This would be an excellent and appropriate ability for the College, either one that they are able to confer on others (increasing resistance to fear, or lowering Fright Table rolls) or just for themselves. I feel that Mind Mages should have a great deal of control over their own minds, even their autonomic (sp?) functions. At the moment they are only really able to resist pain and extremes of temperature. I would quite like to see them capable of holding their breath for extended periods, lowering their body temperatures, stopping their hearts, etc. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 14:26:19 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA28595; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:26:19 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA28585 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:26:18 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22686 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:17:16 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:13:30 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 14:17:46 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 14:17:38 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:17:34 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Subject: Re: Undetectability Date sent: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:41:40 +1300 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Send reply to: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > > > ---------- > > From: Bart Janssen > >Bart wrote re my version of Undetectibility: > > > > I quite like this, but it doesn't sound like a 450 Em special knowledge > > spell to me. In fact it would make quite a nice general for mind college > > > at a lower EM. If the current spell were changed to this format I think > > even for mind college the EM would need adjusting. > > I don't know if it would. Which is to say I really don't know if it > would...I think I'd leave it alone and see what it's like, first. Your probably right about the EM. I guess I kind of feel that we've both got good spell ideas here and maybe there is room for more than one kind of undetectability. The concepts are different enough to be distinct and probably worthwhile learning both. Especially if numbers of targets and range were examined more closely. As for scary hobbit mind mages Arthur's stealth last time I looked was over 150%. cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 14:56:14 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA28649; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:56:14 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA28629 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:56:12 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p5-max38.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.106.69]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA28813 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:46:50 +1300 Message-Id: <199811040146.OAA28813@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Phantasm Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:43:56 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Martin Dickson > > I feel that Mind Mages should have a great deal of control over their own > minds, even their autonomic (sp?) functions. At the moment they are only > really able to resist pain and extremes of temperature. I would quite like to > see them capable of holding their breath for extended periods, lowering their > body temperatures, stopping their hearts, etc. There are any number of people out there willing to stop the hearts of Mind mages, Martin...I don't think they need a spell to do it... But, yes, that sort of thing would be quite good to have in the game. Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 14:56:14 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA28642; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:56:14 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA28628 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:56:12 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p5-max38.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.106.69]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA28822 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:46:52 +1300 Message-Id: <199811040146.OAA28822@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:45:19 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Bart Janssen > As for scary hobbit mind mages Arthur's stealth last time I looked was > over 150%. Which, you have to admit, is pretty bloody scary. Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 15:44:43 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA28726; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:44:43 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id PAA28716 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:44:40 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id PAA05402; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:35:18 +1300 Message-ID: <363FBEBC.B326F0BD@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:41:00 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Bart Janssen wrote: > I guess I kind of feel that we've both > got good spell ideas here and maybe there is room for more than one > kind of undetectability. The concepts are different enough to be distinct > and probably worthwhile learning both. Bart's suggestion touches on an idea I've always liked for Mind Mages of them projecting a "You can't see me" field. I think for ease of GMing it might be better to make it an area of effect -- probably centered on the Adept -- rather than nominated targets. And I'd make it Self Only. I like Jim's idea too, the idea of a souped up stealth is sensible, it hooks into an existing skill, it is quite different from any other type of Invis, it has less problems than other kinds, etc, etc. In short, I like it. As to there being room for two spells... yes, I think so... just not necessarily in the same College. As a starting point I should add that I dislike Invis type spells. I think that on the whole they are too powerful -- even Walking Unseen almost guaruntees one the first stab in a combat and that can often be enough -- and that they end up be substituted for discretion, stealth and generally brains. That said, I think that in DQ all of the Invis spells need revison. My memory of exactly who has what may be a little faulty but I think this is how it goes: E&E: Leave Invis, delete WU. Weaken Invis so that people without Witchsight within a certain distance get a chance of spotting the sneak -- a PC roll or some such. Mind: Either Bart or Jim's proposal... given the choice I'd go for Bart's but see below. Celestial: Remove WU and replace with Jim's super-stealth. I think this one works really well for the dark/shadow people. To me they should have super sneaking abilities -- it doesn't work so well for star or solar, but hey, this is a wish list and given the choice I would make Solar a seperate college and drop star anyway. Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell that simply deceives the senses of the viewer. Earth: Leave Blending, drop WU. Witch: Leave WU, or substitute Blending, or drop it alltogether. Just my 0.02 cents... ah hell, let's adjust for inflation; 5 cents worth. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 16:48:51 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA28798; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:48:51 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA28788 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:48:45 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA24301 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:39:36 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:35:37 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 16:39:54 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 16:39:45 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:39:42 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > ---------- > > From: Bart Janssen > > As for scary hobbit mind mages Arthur's stealth last time I looked was > > over 150%. > > Which, you have to admit, is pretty bloody scary. > Jim. And probably suggests the numbers for the stealth calculation are wrong since I think Arthur can wear full plate armour and still get over 100% :), but that's another problem cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 16:51:08 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA28830; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:51:08 +1300 Received: from smtp.worley.co.nz (smtp.worley.co.nz [202.36.210.250]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id QAA28819 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:51:06 +1300 Received: by smtp.worley.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1 (569.2 2-6-1998)) id 4C2566B2.001A63A3 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:48:14 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WORLEY CONSULTANTS Message-ID: <4C2566B2.0019B1EB.00@smtp.worley.co.nz> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:42:05 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: amtennant@worley.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >> Which, you have to admit, is pretty bloody scary. >> Jim. >And probably suggests the numbers for the stealth calculation are >wrong since I think Arthur can wear full plate armour and still get over >100% :), but that's another problem But you've got to remember that there's PC coming off it, and 3xPC if they are looking for you. Suddenly the truly frightening 150% turns into a pretty reasonable 75%. L8R, Adam. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 17:18:13 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA28872; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:18:13 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA28862 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:18:11 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24661 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:09:14 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:05:26 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 17:09:42 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 17:09:35 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:09:33 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Date sent: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 15:41:00 +1300 Subject: Re: Undetectability From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Send reply to: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Bart Janssen wrote: > > > I guess I kind of feel that we've both > > got good spell ideas here and maybe there is room for more than one > > kind of undetectability. The concepts are different enough to be distinct > > and probably worthwhile learning both. > > Bart's suggestion touches on an idea I've always liked for Mind Mages of them > projecting a "You can't see me" field. I think for ease of GMing it might be > better to make it an area of effect -- probably centered on the Adept -- rather > than nominated targets. And I'd make it Self Only. I'm not sure I like the area of effect thing since it leaves you with the same problem we have now of "I cast undetectability, now who can see/hear/smell me??" and ends up in party confusion. That's why I went for a nominated people affected only. The other reason for going for nominated entities being affected is that the mind mage is actually targeting a mind and influencing it, so they should get some choice, also you'd expect that only targetable entities should be nominatable, hence providing the mind mage knows (either by line of sight or telepathy) where the guard is he can prevent the guard from noticing, but if the mage doesn't know the guard is there then the guard can't be affected by the mage and hence should see/hear the party. The final reason for liking nominated entities is that it places a natural limit on the number of entities the mage can affect (eg 1 per rank), preventing the rather silly concept of sneaking past 200 guards (which I agree relied on them all failing perception checks). As for self only that's fine, but it does limit the spell quite dramatically. It becomes much more difficult to make a party invisible since you'd need potions instead of simply casting several times. This may be considered a good thing, but does make the mage less of a team player as it were. I'd rather have a situation where the mage can "hide from notice" more than just himself and can somehow "hide" others up to say a party of 6,7, or 8 at med to high ranks (I think I suggested 1+1/2 which would mean a party of seven at rank 12). But that makes the spell a bit stronger than before which may not be desirable. I'm sorry the above sounds like I'm trying to defend my idea which it isn't meant to do, what I am trying to do is figure out the glitches in various ideas including my own and the above are the problems I see with Martins idea of area of effect and self only. There may well be a better solution. > I like Jim's idea too, the idea of a souped up stealth is sensible, it hooks into > an existing skill, it is quite different from any other type of Invis, it has > less problems than other kinds, etc, etc. In short, I like it. me too, same reasons, but I think stealth chances may need exmining since I think for some characters (my own in particular) stealth chances are excessive. > As to there being room for two spells... yes, I think so... just not necessarily > in the same College. > > As a starting point I should add that I dislike Invis type spells. I think that > on the whole they are too powerful -- even Walking Unseen almost guaruntees one > the first stab in a combat and that can often be enough -- and that they end up > be substituted for discretion, stealth and generally brains. Agreed > That said, I think that in DQ all of the Invis spells need revison. My memory of > exactly who has what may be a little faulty but I think this is how it goes: > > E&E: Leave Invis, delete WU. Weaken Invis so that people without Witchsight > within a certain distance get a chance of spotting the sneak -- a PC roll or some > such. So invis works really well at a distance but when you get close to an invis person you notice something wrong, sounds good. If you are going to weaken invis then shouldn't you weaken witchsight so that it only provides a better chance of seeing invis not automatically seeing invis? > Mind: Either Bart or Jim's proposal... given the choice I'd go for Bart's but > see below. I think it's a question of what "feel" you associate with mind. I kind of think both proposal "fit" but see below > Celestial: Remove WU and replace with Jim's super-stealth. I think this one > works really well for the dark/shadow people. To me they should have super > sneaking abilities -- it doesn't work so well for star or solar, but hey, this is > a wish list and given the choice I would make Solar a seperate college and drop > star anyway. Cool, OK I think Martins right here, Jim's idea has the perfect feel for this college.....what do you think Jim are we getting your intent wrong here? > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell that simply > deceives the senses of the viewer. You mean the old WU not the new superstealth? I'm not sure I like this, it seems to me that Illusion should have a better invis than E&E. Personally I'd be happy to see WU die. > Earth: Leave Blending, drop WU. Absolutely, give blending a bonus in the woods like maybe slow movement is possible in the woods (eg 1 TMR per 5 full ranks) > Witch: Leave WU, or substitute Blending, or drop it alltogether. hmmm why are witches invisible at all? Not that I'm trying to pick on witches but should they really have an invisibility and if so what kind. I think maybe blending without a woods bonus that earth mages get might be appropriate or maybe no invisibility at all????? > Just my 0.02 cents... ah hell, let's adjust for inflation; 5 cents worth. I see your 5 cents and raise you a dime cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 17:27:39 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA28909; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:27:39 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA28900 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:27:33 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA24795 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:18:29 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:14:29 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 17:18:45 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 17:18:24 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:18:18 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > >> Which, you have to admit, is pretty bloody scary. > >> Jim. > > >And probably suggests the numbers for the stealth calculation are > >wrong since I think Arthur can wear full plate armour and still get over > >100% :), but that's another problem > > But you've got to remember that there's PC coming off it, and 3xPC if they > are looking for you. > > Suddenly the truly frightening 150% turns into a pretty reasonable 75%. Having just checked the new rules I can'r wear plate armour (whew, too stupid), I think Arthur's numbers work out to around 144 + greater, I'm not sure having someone only have 20% odd percent chance of noticing me when they look straight at me (even without Jim's spell) is all that reasonable. But I'll admit Arthur is a special and extreme case. I guess most mid range charcaters would have around 80% + greater stealth chance so maybe that's OK. Of course Martin's suggestion that Jim's superstealth doesn't go to Mind means that Arthur doesn't get it to play with ooooohhhhhh. cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 17:43:36 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA28944; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:43:36 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id RAA28935 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:43:34 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id RAA10973; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:34:12 +1300 Message-ID: <363FDA9B.DD7684A@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:39:55 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Bart Janssen wrote: > I'm not sure I like the area of effect thing since it leaves you with the > same problem we have now of "I cast undetectability, now who can > see/hear/smell me??" and ends up in party confusion. That's why I > went for a nominated people affected only. [snip] > As for self only that's fine, but it does limit the spell quite dramatically. > It becomes much more difficult to make a party invisible since you'd > need potions instead of simply casting several times. This may be > considered a good thing, but does make the mage less of a team player > as it were. Well, another mod to the idea is that the spell is Self but allows the Mind Mage to cloak multiple targets (along with themself) out to a certain range. The idea is that the Mage is projecting "You can't see me", but I see no problem with "...and you can't see my buddy either". Making it self eliminates the current confusion and letting them cover others (as their rank increases) makes them team players and gives another reason to rank the thing. [snip] > > E&E: Leave Invis, delete WU. Weaken Invis so that people without Witchsight > > within a certain distance get a chance of spotting the sneak -- a PC roll or some > > such. > > So invis works really well at a distance but when you get close to an > invis person you notice something wrong, sounds good. If you are going > to weaken invis then shouldn't you weaken witchsight so that it only > provides a better chance of seeing invis not automatically seeing invis? Only the Witchsight spell gives auto detect and I would be happy to see that one modified. Elven Witchsight, along with Wiccan and E&E gives PC +5/Rank chance of spotting it and has an EM of 200. The Celestial spell could give the same bonus and still be a steal at its current EM. It does suffer from a lowish BC but then it is the only way of casting Witchsight on someone else, and Celestials can get reasonable BC mods. [snip] > > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell that simply > > deceives the senses of the viewer. > > You mean the old WU not the new superstealth? I'm not sure I like this, > it seems to me that Illusion should have a better invis than E&E. Andrew sent me a letter about this one and after reading that I tend to agree that Illusionist should have an OK invis. I suggested almost the reverse of what I was suggesting for Mind, in that the Illusionist could create an area effect that hides entitie inside it from those outside. Outside observers looking into the area can see anyone (Witchsight not withstanding) but inside the area everyone can see each other. [snip] > > Witch: Leave WU, or substitute Blending, or drop it alltogether. > > hmmm why are witches invisible at all? Well yes. Good question. I quite like them having Witchsight (not just for the name but there are some traditions about Witches being able to sense things that others cannot, second sight, that sort of thing) but I can't see a strong justification for an invis. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 17:53:08 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA28977; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:53:08 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id RAA28967 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:53:06 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id RAA11216; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:43:46 +1300 Message-ID: <363FDCD9.417DCAD5@peace.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:49:29 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Martin Dickson wrote: > I suggested almost the reverse of what I was > suggesting for Mind, in that the Illusionist could create an area effect that hides > entitie inside it from those outside. > > Outside observers looking into the area can see anyone (Witchsight not withstanding) > but inside the area everyone can see each other. Oops. That should read "Outside observers looking into the area _cannot_ see anyone (Witchsight not withstanding)..." :) - M -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 18:08:17 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA29025; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:08:17 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id SAA29016 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:08:15 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id RAA11907; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:58:56 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <363FDF0F.BF4322F7@peace.co.nz> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:58:55 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. At the risk of ruining this mailing group's reputation with a flood of agreement: > > As a starting point I should add that I dislike Invis type spells. I think that > > on the whole they are too powerful -- even Walking Unseen almost guaruntees one > > the first stab in a combat and that can often be enough -- and that they end up > > be substituted for discretion, stealth and generally brains. > > Agreed My main objection is they are too *#%&@ common. Frequently over half the party have some form of invisibility. > > > > E&E: Leave Invis, delete WU. Weaken Invis so that people without Witchsight > > within a certain distance get a chance of spotting the sneak -- a PC roll or some > > such. Two invisibilities in one college is at least one too many. I don't have strong feelings on which should go, but probably WU. > > > So invis works really well at a distance but when you get close to an > invis person you notice something wrong, sounds good. If you are going > to weaken invis then shouldn't you weaken witchsight so that it only > provides a better chance of seeing invis not automatically seeing invis? > Yes. Invis is so much an all-or-nothing at the moment - either you opponents have witchsight and it is completely useless or they have no chance. > > Mind: Either Bart or Jim's proposal... given the choice I'd go for Bart's but > > see below. > > I think it's a question of what "feel" you associate with mind. I kind of > think both proposal "fit" but see below > ditto > > Celestial: Remove WU and replace with Jim's super-stealth. I think this one > > works really well for the dark/shadow people. To me they should have super > > Works for me > > > > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell that simply > > deceives the senses of the viewer. > > You mean the old WU not the new superstealth? I'm not sure I like this, > it seems to me that Illusion should have a better invis than E&E. > Personally I'd be happy to see WU die. No, I think Illusionists should have a good (one of the best) invisibility or equivalent. As it is, they already have about 20% lower base chance than E&E (mostly because E&E have an obscenely high chance with Invis. My bunny E&E has 50% and rank 0!) (I have a medium level witch, low Illusionist and bunny E&E) > > > > Earth: Leave Blending, drop WU. > > Absolutely, give blending a bonus in the woods like maybe slow > movement is possible in the woods (eg 1 TMR per 5 full ranks) > Looks good > > Witch: Leave WU, or substitute Blending, or drop it alltogether. > > hmmm why are witches invisible at all? Not that I'm trying to pick on > witches but should they really have an invisibility and if so what kind. I > think maybe blending without a woods bonus that earth mages get > might be appropriate or maybe no invisibility at all????? > Along with Mind Cloak, WU has always seemed out of place in Witch. I agree. If WU disappears completely, there should be some long duration don't-be-noticed spell - perhaps the Super Stealth spell. Michael W -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Nov 4 18:15:14 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA29067; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:15:14 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA29057 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:15:13 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25038 ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:06:12 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:02:18 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 18:06:34 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 4 Nov 98 18:06:29 GMT+12 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:06:26 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Date sent: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:39:55 +1300 Subject: Re: Undetectability From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Send reply to: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Bart Janssen wrote: > > > I'm not sure I like the area of effect thing since it leaves you with the > > same problem we have now of "I cast undetectability, now who can > > see/hear/smell me??" and ends up in party confusion. That's why I > > went for a nominated people affected only. No comment on this???? > > As for self only that's fine, but it does limit the spell quite dramatically. > > It becomes much more difficult to make a party invisible since you'd > > need potions instead of simply casting several times. This may be > > considered a good thing, but does make the mage less of a team player > > as it were. > > Well, another mod to the idea is that the spell is Self but allows the Mind Mage to > cloak multiple targets (along with themself) out to a certain range. The idea is that > the Mage is projecting "You can't see me", but I see no problem with "...and you can't > see my buddy either". > > Making it self eliminates the current confusion and letting them cover others (as their > rank increases) makes them team players and gives another reason to rank the thing. Yup that works. So to get this straight: Target: self only Can "hide from notice" self plus 1 per every two full ranks (or some number) And I want Can affect the minds of 1 plus 1 per rank entities such they they fail to notice the "protected" group providing everyone is targetable and within range you want every entity within range is affected such they they fail to notice the "protected" group. Yours is simpler but more powerful and less controlled. If you made everyone who was "hidden from notice" unaffected by the mage then the party confusion is limited. > > Only the Witchsight spell gives auto detect and I would be happy to see that one > modified. Elven Witchsight, along with Wiccan and E&E gives PC +5/Rank chance of > spotting it and has an EM of 200. > > The Celestial spell could give the same bonus and still be a steal at its current EM. > It does suffer from a lowish BC but then it is the only way of casting Witchsight on > someone else, and Celestials can get reasonable BC mods. OK let's do it. Make it a proposal for the next meeting > [snip] > > > > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell that simply > > > deceives the senses of the viewer. > > > > You mean the old WU not the new superstealth? I'm not sure I like this, > > it seems to me that Illusion should have a better invis than E&E. > > Andrew sent me a letter about this one and after reading that I tend to agree that > Illusionist should have an OK invis. I suggested almost the reverse of what I was > suggesting for Mind, in that the Illusionist could create an area effect that hides > entitie inside it from those outside. > > Outside observers looking into the area can see anyone (Witchsight not withstanding) > but inside the area everyone can see each other. Sounds good to me. keeps the party together. Has a unique feel to it. Fit's the college. How about a proposed spell Andrew???? snip cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --