Those who guessed I'm talking about Undetectability win!

Sure there are no more dice rolls, but there is also no more risk.  Provided
you don't enter melee and don't get targeted via Telepathy then you are
virtually invulnerable.
You can sit at range and cast or fire off ranged attacks and your opposition
has NO CHANCE of seeing you or counter-attacking.  If you've got a few ranks
in it then after you've spent all your FT, you can even make a refreshing
brew and have an hours rest to recover FT and keep blasting.
Enough rambling, I'm sure you can all see how completely unplayable this
version of the spell is.

I suggest the following instead of the second to last paragraph of the spell
effects:

Maintaining the effect of this spell requires that the target remain calm
and unobtrusive.  The spell will dissipate if the target:
1) is in physical contact with another entity for more than 5 seconds (other
than the nominated entities).
2) casts a spell or performs a ritual.
3) makes a strike check for any attack (regardless of its success).
4) is damaged and does not make a WP check to remain calm.  4xWP for FT
damage, 2xWP for EN damage, 1xWP if stunned.
5) is otherwise stressed or affected by something which would disrupt their
calm and does not make a WP check of a difficulty as determined by the GM.
6) is otherwise intrusive on affected observers, though there is a chance
(determined by the GM) the spell will maintain its effect depending on the
Rank of the spell and the level of intrusion.

Current write-up is attached below.

Cheers, Stephen.

******************************
Undetectability (S-11)
Range: Touch
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 15%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion, Investment
Target: Entity
Effects: The target is totally undetectable by physical senses. Changes to
the physical environment which are made by the target and are entirely
within 5 feet (+ 1 / Rank) (e.g. leaves tracks, opens doors, picks up an
object) will be unnoticed by normal observers.
Other entities will automatically take such changes in their stride (e.g.
will just walk through the previously shut door, will not sit down on the
chair that the target whipped out from under them but go and get another
drink instead).
Magical observation (Wizards Eye, Witchsight, Clair-audience etc) will not
detect the target. The spell does not however, affect indirect observation,
such as Locate, Telepathy or ESP.
The Adept may nominate, at the time of casting, up to 1 (+ 1 / 3 full Ranks)
entities who will ignore the workings of the spell.
The spell will dissipate if the target is in physical contact with another
entity for more than 5 seconds (other than the nominated entities) or makes
a strike check for a non-ranged attack (regardless of its success).
The target may choose to end the spell at any time.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Agreed, the current undetectability missed out a key caveat and is BROKEN.

Note that "staying calm" could be replaced with the original proposal
"maintains stealth". This rules out all spell casting, combat, etc., without
requiring excitement checks for enthusiastic players. I feel Undetectable
people have the right to bleed to death without their party members
noticing. Either way solves most of the problems.

By the way, a couple of other mind spells missed out sections that were in
the version I thought was voted in. Did some post-vote editing take place,
or am I (!shock horror!) behind the times? I'm thinking about Phantasms
being harmed by area effect spells as one rule that I remember but can't
find.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 4 February 2002 12:15 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


Those who guessed I'm talking about Undetectability win!

Sure there are no more dice rolls, but there is also no more risk.  Provided
you don't enter melee and don't get targeted via Telepathy then you are
virtually invulnerable.
You can sit at range and cast or fire off ranged attacks and your opposition
has NO CHANCE of seeing you or counter-attacking.  If you've got a few ranks
in it then after you've spent all your FT, you can even make a refreshing
brew and have an hours rest to recover FT and keep blasting.
Enough rambling, I'm sure you can all see how completely unplayable this
version of the spell is.

I suggest the following instead of the second to last paragraph of the spell
effects:

Maintaining the effect of this spell requires that the target remain calm
and unobtrusive.  The spell will dissipate if the target:
1) is in physical contact with another entity for more than 5 seconds (other
than the nominated entities).
2) casts a spell or performs a ritual.
3) makes a strike check for any attack (regardless of its success).
4) is damaged and does not make a WP check to remain calm.  4xWP for FT
damage, 2xWP for EN damage, 1xWP if stunned.
5) is otherwise stressed or affected by something which would disrupt their
calm and does not make a WP check of a difficulty as determined by the GM.
6) is otherwise intrusive on affected observers, though there is a chance
(determined by the GM) the spell will maintain its effect depending on the
Rank of the spell and the level of intrusion.

Current write-up is attached below.

Cheers, Stephen.

******************************
Undetectability (S-11)
Range: Touch
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 15%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion, Investment
Target: Entity
Effects: The target is totally undetectable by physical senses. Changes to
the physical environment which are made by the target and are entirely
within 5 feet (+ 1 / Rank) (e.g. leaves tracks, opens doors, picks up an
object) will be unnoticed by normal observers.
Other entities will automatically take such changes in their stride (e.g.
will just walk through the previously shut door, will not sit down on the
chair that the target whipped out from under them but go and get another
drink instead).
Magical observation (Wizards Eye, Witchsight, Clair-audience etc) will not
detect the target. The spell does not however, affect indirect observation,
such as Locate, Telepathy or ESP.
The Adept may nominate, at the time of casting, up to 1 (+ 1 / 3 full Ranks)
entities who will ignore the workings of the spell.
The spell will dissipate if the target is in physical contact with another
entity for more than 5 seconds (other than the nominated entities) or makes
a strike check for a non-ranged attack (regardless of its success).
The target may choose to end the spell at any time.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

At 12:14 4/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>1) is in physical contact with another entity for more than 5 seconds (other
>than the nominated entities).
>2) casts a spell or performs a ritual.

What about invested or shaped items?
Should a self-targeted spell affect the indetectability?
Should there be a difference between damage spells and 
information-gathering magic?

>3) makes a strike check for any attack (regardless of its success).

A successful strike check is certainly intrusive - but a miss might not be....

>4) is damaged and does not make a WP check to remain calm.  4xWP for FT
>damage, 2xWP for EN damage, 1xWP if stunned.
>5) is otherwise stressed or affected by something which would disrupt their
>calm and does not make a WP check of a difficulty as determined by the GM.

Huh? How does personal stress make a person intrusive?

>6) is otherwise intrusive on affected observers, though there is a chance
>(determined by the GM) the spell will maintain its effect depending on the
>Rank of the spell and the level of intrusion.

I'm not happy with the current version either - the group I'm playing in 
has reverted to the old version after Flamis spent one combat blazing away 
at the opposition who could not attack her, even avoiding the hex she was 
standing in. Which led to the novel situation of Rowan protecting Flamis by 
standing BEHIND her and attracting the missiles meant for Flamis.

However, I'm loath to see the spell weakened this much. Or turned into a 
stealth modifier...

Flamis


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

One of the major reasons given for changing the spell was its abuse in
combat. I'm not keen on any use in combat. If we assume it shouldn't be used
in combat <arguable, I agree>, we get left with something like Stephen's or
my suggestions.


Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 4 February 2002 2:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


At 12:14 4/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>1) is in physical contact with another entity for more than 5 seconds
(other
>than the nominated entities).
>2) casts a spell or performs a ritual.

What about invested or shaped items?
Should a self-targeted spell affect the indetectability?
Should there be a difference between damage spells and 
information-gathering magic?

>3) makes a strike check for any attack (regardless of its success).

A successful strike check is certainly intrusive - but a miss might not
be....

>4) is damaged and does not make a WP check to remain calm.  4xWP for FT
>damage, 2xWP for EN damage, 1xWP if stunned.
>5) is otherwise stressed or affected by something which would disrupt their
>calm and does not make a WP check of a difficulty as determined by the GM.

Huh? How does personal stress make a person intrusive?

>6) is otherwise intrusive on affected observers, though there is a chance
>(determined by the GM) the spell will maintain its effect depending on the
>Rank of the spell and the level of intrusion.

I'm not happy with the current version either - the group I'm playing in 
has reverted to the old version after Flamis spent one combat blazing away 
at the opposition who could not attack her, even avoiding the hex she was 
standing in. Which led to the novel situation of Rowan protecting Flamis by 
standing BEHIND her and attracting the missiles meant for Flamis.

However, I'm loath to see the spell weakened this much. Or turned into a 
stealth modifier...

Flamis


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Perhaps it is time to remove it from the books altogether.

If it is causing this much grief, then it's probably not worth having at
all.Kill it, and let God decide if it was an okay spell afterwards.

The only real measure of the value of a spell is how much it contributes to
the game as a whole. Issues of what kind of character should have access to
which types of spell are rationalisations. Mind mages do not HAVE to have a
concealment spell. It is NOT critical to their function.

It is, undoubtedly, an useful spell, and players have validated this by
ranking it to a level that makes it safely castable. And, then stopped.

There seems little point in advancing the spell, because you gain no
particular advantage in so doing, beyond base chance and duration (big fat
hairy deal). Range is not usually a factor, because in most cases you are
near enough to the  person you want  to render concealed.

Please do NOT post about the standard advantages of ranking this spell, I'm
all too aware of them, as is just about everyone who is capable of reading.

It seems to that the only reason we are discussing this stupid spell is
because historically, a lot of people put xp into it and they have shared
experience of the spell. This is a irrelevancy, really. The issue ought to
be: "Does this spell contribute usefully to the game? Is it easy enough to
administer? Does it create the right sort of feeling?"

I put it to you all that it fails in all of these regards. And, even if
someone could find away in which it might succeed in one or more of them, is
it actually worth all of the tediousness to implement it.

Because this spell has had to be balanced and rebalanced and rebalanced yet
again then it is time to look at killing it off, so that:
1 Valuable time is wasted on rubbish like this. It wouldn't be so bad if it
weren't adressed 90 days previously, and 90 days or so previous to that.

2 The sooner something is decided, however draconian, then at least the
shared world has an opportunity to accomodate the change.

3 This spell is the only one that I know of where several DMs confessed to
me that they regularly fudged it. Partly because of the endless die rolling
and book keeping involved in the old version. But, also because the effect
was so stupid.

Any rule that has attended this much argument really doesn't needed to be
part of the game.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Didnt we go thru all this before?

The simple solution is to simply say that making "any" sort of attack
and/or offensive action - be it a spell, a missile weapon, triggering an
invested or whatever causes the spell to cease. The problem is the current
write-up only refers to melee attacks.

Perhaps also add in the last of Stephens "other"  criteria (point 6) as a
catch-all, although most of the abuse sould already be caught by the above.

I dont agree its not a combat spell. It is, at least in so much as it
should allow the adept to get to where he/she want to lauch yan attack.
After you attack in whatever way it should cease to function.

Another thing you could persuade me of is putting a small chance of the
spell "slipping" when you do something extreme. Perhaps a 1-5% chance,
rolled by the GM at his/her discretion, each time you attempt to use the
spell to do something like walking past the two vigilent guards at the
palace gate or snatching an item off a table crowded with observers. Having
an invisibility that cannot be seen thru is perhaps too good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Just to make my view point on this clear - I don't care as long as neither
of the versions (original or current) remain in the rules.
I have no problem with tieing it to stealth, this creates the appropriate
limitations.  I avoided tieing it to stealth in what I wrote this morning in
the hopes we could get this fixed without reverting to the arguments about
the appropriateness of stealth and the value of magic vs skills.
Jim's Nuke-it-Till-it-Glows proposal appeals as it is a simple and final
solution to the problem.

I would like to work towards a vote prior to the next guild meeting.  I
suggest 2 quick votes:

1) Delete it/Fix it.
2) Assuming it survives vote 1, method of fix:
 a) Link it to Stealth as previously proposed
 b) Calm and Unobtrusive rationale as I proposed
 c) Some other variation which applies appropriate limits (assuming someone
comes up with one before March).


Cheers, Stephen.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> At 12:14 4/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
> >1) is in physical contact with another entity for more than 5 seconds (other
> >than the nominated entities).
> >2) casts a spell or performs a ritual.
>
> What about invested or shaped items?

good point -- I would *prefer* that triggering is also an action incompatible with remaining
invuln... undetectable.  This is purely for game reasons (as are all good rules justifications) --
permitting triggering would still permit the undetectable mage-assassin.

> Should a self-targeted spell affect the indetectability?

Given Stephen's suggestion
   "Maintaining the effect of this spell requires that the target remain calm and unobtrusive."

(which I like --the inner calm of the concealed one), then yes.  We *could* decree that spells
targeted on the undetectee or the permitted viewers and that originate from the undetectee are
exempt from the effect -- but that would spoil the elegance of the justification, let alone have
more significant effects

> Should there be a difference between damage spells and
> information-gathering magic?

No, in my opinion there should not be a distinction.  But again we could [inelegantly] make the
distinction.

> >3) makes a strike check for any attack (regardless of its success).
>
> A successful strike check is certainly intrusive - but a miss might not be....

I agree with the suggestion, making an attack attempt is not symptomatic of inner calm

> >4) is damaged and does not make a WP check to remain calm.  4xWP for FT
> >damage, 2xWP for EN damage, 1xWP if stunned.
> >5) is otherwise stressed or affected by something which would disrupt their
> >calm and does not make a WP check of a difficulty as determined by the GM.
>
> Huh? How does personal stress make a person intrusive?

I could point out, as someone who has been around stressed people [I mention no names], they often
fail to be unobtrusive -- but again it goes back to the first part of the Stephen's key condition
"Maintaining the effect of this spell requires that the target remain calm ...

-- having recently been prompted into reading the Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series, I was keen
to suggest some system that required the undetectee to "concentrate," as it were, on being
undetectable -- but Stephen's suggestion is more elegant and easier to GM.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Whilst agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with what Jim just wrote...
<p>Jim Arona wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The issue ought to be: "Does this spell contribute
usefully to the game? Is it easy enough to administer? Does it create the
right sort of feeling?"
<p>I put it to you all that it fails in all of these regards.</blockquote>
Agreed -- and for the rest of this post... assume we kill it.&nbsp; :-)
<p>But backing up a bit:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>Issues of what kind of character should have access to which types of spell are rationalisations. Mind mages do not HAVE to have a
&nbsp; concealment spell. It is NOT critical to their function.</pre>
</blockquote>

<p><br>But, if we can say that Concealment is not critical to the function
of a Mind Mage then presumbaly we can say something about what is critical.&nbsp;
So... what is critical?&nbsp; Or... what makes you say that Concealment
is not critical?
<p>The tests for whether a type of spell fits within a College -- and let
me make it clear that this particular spell is not the issue here... indeed
let us assume it gone -- the tests are: genre and flavour, along with appropriateness
and desirability in the game, when deciding whether to include a spell
at all, and power, game-world balance and ease of administration when designing
a solution.
<p>So... start from the top.&nbsp; Concealment magics.&nbsp; Should we
have them in the game?
<br>They seem to fit with the genre and flavour requirements -- invisibility
powers of various sorts are fairly common in fantasy literature... although
it is worth noting that not all fantasy literary devices work well in RPGs...
the ability to summon heroes to save ones butt may be interesting in a
book, but in an RPG basicially results in NPCs rescuing the PCs... not
a terribly desirable device.
<p>So, assuming we decide Concealment magics are generally OK, we know
that we need to be careful to make them fit well into the world and not
be overpowering.
<p>Next, should the Mind College have Concealment magic?&nbsp; Is the flavour
a good fit?&nbsp; I imagine opinions may differ here.&nbsp; Personally
I think Mind Magics fit better in SciFi than Fantasy and are often a flavour
of magic in their own right.&nbsp; That said, mental domination and control
type effects are again common enough in Fantasy Lit... what about Concealments?&nbsp;
The only thing I can think of off hand is the Jedi walking unseen trick
(yep, I think of Star Wars as Fantasy).&nbsp; Would we want something like
that perhaps?
<p>Having decided what contribution and flavour we want for a spell, we'd
then create a game rules "technical" write-up ensuring that we preserved
balance and created something easy to administer.
<p>Anyway... the short version of this long-winded post...
<p>What is the issue with killing the version we have, deciding whether
we want any form of concealment in the College at all, and if so, writing
a spell that fits Jim's requirements of flavour, contribution and ease
of administration?
<p>Cheers,
<br>Martin
<br>--
<p>&nbsp;_/_/&nbsp; Peace Software International&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
<br>_/&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Martin Dickson&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Phone: +64-9-373-0400
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Senior Analyst&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Fax&nbsp; : +64-9-373-0401
<br>&nbsp;</html>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Michael Parkinson wrote:

> -- having recently been prompted into reading the Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series, I was keen
> to suggest some system that required the undetectee to "concentrate," as it were, on being
> undetectable -- but Stephen's suggestion is more elegant and easier to GM.

Actually, Michael, I'd suggest that making it require Concentration _actions_ to remain undetectable
would be both simple and elegant.

Magical pass actions are used for concentration, and otherwise allow 2 hexes of movement.  There,
fixed, no attacks, no spells, requires slow, calm movement.  Done.  :-)

--

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

If we are to kill Undetectability, the easiest thing to do is to refund the
PC's EP. I'm sure that most Mind mages will have some idea of what to do
with 10-20k EP - a couple of ranks in telepathy for instance.


However, as the campaign is what players and GMs make it, I would like to
know what Mind mages who use it expect from Undetectability, as that may
help us to understand the problem. If what they want is to be invulnerable
in combat, we can't help them, but if what they really mean is "I vant to be
alone", or "I like to get a spell off before the bad guys see me", or "I
like to run and hide", or "I love to fool storm troopers", or "I like to
watch - so what?", thats five different effects that are all possible.

If there is history in the campaign that is useful, we might as well pick a
version which mind mages want to play and is playable, even if it turns out
to be a 100 EM hypnotic walking unseen.


Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> However, as the campaign is what players and GMs make it, I would like to
> know what Mind mages who use it expect from Undetectability, as that may
> help us to understand the problem. If what they want is to be invulnerable
> in combat, we can't help them, but if what they really mean is "I vant to be
> alone", or "I like to get a spell off before the bad guys see me", or "I
> like to run and hide", or "I love to fool storm troopers", or "I like to
> watch - so what?", thats five different effects that are all possible.

I [meaning SF]  was rewarded, by R---l, with a non-teachable Namer Special knowledge spell otherwise
identical with the mind-mage spell  for successfully completing one of those save-the-universe, such
as we know it, adventures.  I *could* have had Telepathy instead (like the other Namer) -- but I
considered that too invasive & unsporting; no doubt too many mind-witches would disagree.

I prefer to use it as a defence for someone who needs the odds tweaked in their favour -- because
they're spying out the land, or we want to minimise the chance that the crucial healer or the person
with the only escape spell is killed.  I do give it to the mage firing off combat spells, but
usually only in the big melee where you can hope that *some* (but *only* some) of the enemy won't be
able to retaliate directly.

Originally, when I was just the namer I would often cast it on myself.  Ironically, since I'm
normally military scientist, I now seldom cast it on myself.

Oh well,  perhaps I *should* have gone for my second choice of big white fluffy wings.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 04:01 , Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

> However, as the campaign is what players and GMs make it, I would like 
> to
> know what Mind mages who use it expect from Undetectability, as that may
> help us to understand the problem. If what they want is to be 
> invulnerable
> in combat, we can't help them, but if what they really mean is "I vant 
> to be
> alone", or "I like to get a spell off before the bad guys see me", or "I
> like to run and hide", or "I love to fool storm troopers", or "I like to
> watch - so what?", thats five different effects that are all possible.

Nick's mind mage Albion uses it to hide while he casts empathy on the 
party. He might use it for control person as well, but in discussions 
has accepted that that isn't too likely to continue once the spell is 
fixed.

I just thought of a way you could split spells up based on whether they 
were resistable but then I remembered that Phantasm isn't resistable.

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clare Baldock [mailto:clare@orcon.net.nz]
> 
> I just thought of a way you could split spells up based on 
> whether they 
> were resistable but then I remembered that Phantasm isn't resistable.
> 

Are there any 'offensive' spells that are target self only? TK Rage?

Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Greetings,

I feel that Compel Obedience has been depowered too far. The example 
given is that brigands commanded to flee wouldn't do so if they felt 
they were winning the fight. You might rather be able to direct them to 
a different target. 90% (perhaps even 100%) of the time that I have ben 
attacked by brigands there haven't been any other targets available. If 
the spell isn't meant to be able to be used on hostile targets rename it 
Charm. If it is meant to be used on hostile targets then lets allow 
their obedience to be compelled, rather than letting the Namer give them 
suggestions and hope they'll listen.

cheers,

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --