----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacqui Smith" <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
.
>
> I am still of the opinion that we should keep to the pattern that all
> concealment spells should be targeted on the Adept not on the observers,
> for the reasons I have stated previously - that is, that even with
> telepathy available, any spell which is targeted on the observers demands
> that ALL the potential observers be first seen. Which implies that they
get
> to see you before you can cast your concealment spell. So it become a
waste
> of time, fatigue and XP.

This is a very good point, and a useful thing to consider about concealment
spells in general.

For  us to seriously consider George's spell as a concealment spell, we have
to assume that somehow the caster can cast it without being detected. If the
situations in which it CAN be cast become prohibitive, either because
they're unusual, or they cost huge amounts of FT, or some other quality,
then it starts creating a new pressure.

If we assume that this spell is put in place, and Undetectability is
removed, then it seems to me that a DM is likely to allow a Mind Mage to see
through the eyes of someone they have targetted on Telepathy, and even
target through the eyes of a victim of Telepathy.

In other words, a Mind Mage has A on Telepathy, and A can see B. B is in
range of the Mind Mage's concealment spell, and so the Mind Mage can cast on
A & B.

This is hypothetical, and I raise it merely as a possible development in
response to a percieved lack of functionality.
>
> Furthermore, giving all entities a resistance check BEFORE they have some
> reason to conclude that there is someone there makes this weakest of all
> the concealment spells (except possibly blending).

Another good point. If you have a concealment spell, how effective is it, if
you are going to force a saving throw? This is not an issue with NPCs. They
just make their saving throws and carry on with what they they're doing. If
they succeed or fail, they don't have to know.

If, on the other hand, a player makes a saving throw, and rolls a pretty
horrible number, and look up at the DM who says to you "Nothing happens",
well...They're not going to believe a word of it, are they? They're going to
guess pretty bloody quick that there's something crafty going on, and
they're going to reply with a right vicious stabbing when something unusual
happens.

Now, as a DM, you can provoke this kind of behaviour until you extinguish it
by having the PCs murder helpless children and the world's cutest puppies,
but it takes a long time to inculcate those kinds of responses, however
reasonable. And, you have to ask yourself if its worth the effort of going
to all that trouble.


Witchsight is common
> enough among guide parties, but NPCs must be either elves or mages to have
> it. Or have a celestial mage in every guardhouse...

I don't see that there's much of a problem having Celestial mages in every
guard house, actually. I cannot imagine any political entity that would
deprive itself of all of the things that a Celestial mage offers.

Aside from being able to field an airforce (shadow/star wings), they provide
healing, Light & Darkness, Str enhancements (Dark only), defense spells,
concealment spells as well as Witchsight. It's VERY hard to go past them as
an addition to your medieval military mind.

If this game were set in the same kind of world as The Black Company, then
the college of choise would HAVE to be a celestial. Other colleges are
specifically handy. Celestials are GENERALLY handy.

What this says to me is that Celestials are going to be the spell caster of
choice in your local armoured thug's retinue. While Witchsight is not the
province of the general public, it's almost certainly going to be de rigeur
in any place that is WORTH sneaking into.

It seems to me, therefore, that Witcsight probably does the right thing,
because it moves the game away from magical concealments like Unseen and
Invis etc, to other forms. Obviously, Stealth becomes much more important at
high levels than it does at low or medium levels.

I misdoubt me not that a concealment spell that is not  defeated by
Witchsight is not a bad thing. It should be counterable in some way,
however.
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> > I am still of the opinion that we should keep to the pattern that all
> > concealment spells should be targeted on the Adept not on the observers,
> > for the reasons I have stated previously.

As a response to this point, as we make changes to colleges they need to be
made in such a way as to fit the flavour of the college as well as be
playable.

My preference is to not have a concealment spell in the Mind college as I
cannot see any real reason for it to be there other than historical. However
if such a spell is to be included it should be within the Mind college
flavour. Given that that is primarily a flavour based around Mind Mages
reading and altering the minds of others I believe a concealment spell
should be targetted on "the victim" rather than being another concealment
spell that adds nothing to the game.

I suspect the best course of action however to is to save ourselves a heap
of time and effort and get rid of the damn spell entirely.

Mandos
/s


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@iconz.net>
>
> As a response to this point, as we make changes to colleges they need to
be
> made in such a way as to fit the flavour of the college as well as be
> playable.
>
> My preference is to not have a concealment spell in the Mind college as I
> cannot see any real reason for it to be there other than historical.
However
> if such a spell is to be included it should be within the Mind college
> flavour. Given that that is primarily a flavour based around Mind Mages
> reading and altering the minds of others I believe a concealment spell
> should be targetted on "the victim" rather than being another concealment
> spell that adds nothing to the game.

If we conclude that a concealment spell is reasonable for a Mind Mage to
have, then, perforce, we have to allow it to function as a concealment
spell. If the spell is actually a mental attack of one kind or another, and
is IMPLETMENTED as a mental attack, then it defeats it own purpose.

There is no point in allowing a spell that nobbles itself in the
description. If a weak concealment spell is required, then that's fine. If
an attack spell that allows a character to pass pass unobserved is wanted,
this is fine, too.

At this point, I suppose it becomes an issue  of how the spell should
behave. Do we want an attack spell, or a spell that provides concealment?


> I suspect the best course of action however to is to save ourselves a heap
> of time and effort and get rid of the damn spell entirely.

Yes. But, it seems that the majority of people feel that the college
warrants a concealment spell. So, withal that it might be more joysome to
consider a world with completely obvious Mind Mages, this isn't what most
people have responded with. For what that's worth.


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>
> if such a spell is to be included it should be within the Mind college
> flavour. Given that that is primarily a flavour based around Mind Mages
> reading and altering the minds of others I believe a concealment spell
> should be targetted on "the victim" rather than being another concealment
> spell that adds nothing to the game.
>

This is in accord with my own thinking - plus concealment targetted on the
victim is interestingly different. However, I'm prepared to abandon this method
if it proves unworkable.

Here are a couple of suggestions to solve the problem of needing to see the
targets and therefore they likely see you before you cast:

1) Targetable via ESP.
2) Concealed casting. This would require the mind mage to stealth (or bootstrap
off someone else's normal invis - although this is vulnerable to witchsight) to
get close enough to cast, but they could then cast without breaking stealth or
making noise.

I also think that Mandos's suggested number of targets of 1 + 1/5 full ranks is
too low, but didn't previously mention it as such things can easily be modified
if we can get a sound concept.

Michael.


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

At 14:32 22/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>I misdoubt me not that a concealment spell that is not  defeated by
>Witchsight is not a bad thing. It should be counterable in some way,
>however.

Which is what I liked about George's suggestions regarding Indetectability 
versus Mind Counters, Mind Cloaks etc.

What if a Mind Cloak of higher rank than the Indetectability defeated it 
for that entity?

(Remembering that Mind Cloak has a hideous duration so all medium or higher 
level Mind Mages can be considered to be Mind Cloaked as a matter of course 
- it's in the list of things you do before breakfast).

And stepping into the area of a Mind Spell Counter either negated or simply 
suspended the spell while in the area?

(The latter could have truly amusing results (-;)

At which point we could handle Indetectability much as we do the other 
concealment spells.

Jacqui


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

I'm afraid my responses below are fairly negative :-( 

What do people think of the 'Ignorance' concept? Is it too out of flavour
for most?

Any other approaches to throw into the ring?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
> 
> This is in accord with my own thinking - plus concealment 
> targetted on the
> victim is interestingly different. However, I'm prepared to 
> abandon this method
> if it proves unworkable.
> 

I agree that targeting the victim is more in flavour. However I think
something both useful and workable using this mechanism will be very
difficult to come up with. We need to be careful that work-arounds to make
the mechanism work don't do so at the expense of the flavour, defeating the
purpose.


> Here are a couple of suggestions to solve the problem of 
> needing to see the
> targets and therefore they likely see you before you cast:
> 
> 1) Targetable via ESP.

Ruins the flavour of ESP, plus often hard to pick out the mind(s) that you
want to hide from.

> 2) Concealed casting. 

Changes the flavour and balance of the college

> 
> I also think that Mandos's suggested number of targets of 1 + 
> 1/5 full ranks is
> too low, but didn't previously mention it as such things can 
> easily be modified
> if we can get a sound concept.
> 

So long as the concept is still workable when you have to allow for the
larger number of victims.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacqui Smith" <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Undetectability - Other options.


> At 14:32 22/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
> >I misdoubt me not that a concealment spell that is not  defeated by
> >Witchsight is not a bad thing. It should be counterable in some way,
> >however.
>
> Which is what I liked about George's suggestions regarding Indetectability
> versus Mind Counters, Mind Cloaks etc.

They're mine, I think  you'll find.


>
> What if a Mind Cloak of higher rank than the Indetectability defeated it
> for that entity?
>
> (Remembering that Mind Cloak has a hideous duration so all medium or
higher
> level Mind Mages can be considered to be Mind Cloaked as a matter of
course
> - it's in the list of things you do before breakfast).


I'm not too fussed. Witchsight is permanent when it's a talent, and it's
pretty easy to get it to the point where it lasts most of a watch period.



> And stepping into the area of a Mind Spell Counter either negated or
simply
> suspended the spell while in the area?
>
> (The latter could have truly amusing results (-;)
>
> At which point we could handle Indetectability much as we do the other
> concealment spells.

I don't really know that I'm concerned with the way the specific spells
interact, really. I do know that while I suggested them in a general kind of
way, I don't agree with rank of the mind cloak or counterspell having much
to do with it.

As it stands, there are only two colleges with MindCloak, and only two
colleges that can rank Mind Special Knowledge counterspells. That's probably
a little too low in terms of making the spell available, unless you're
prepared to maket he existence of invested Mind Special Counterspells and
MindCloak potions pretty commonly available.

It has to be an ACTUAL limitation for it to BE a limitation. If it LOOKS
like a limitation, but doesn't actually provide a limitation, then it's not
a limitation.

Similarly, if it is a limitation for a character that creates an advantage
for the same character, then it's not really that much of a limitation.
Assuming these ideas are accepted, then a Mind Mage would have at least two
forms of counter to apply to such a concealment spell.


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Undetectability - Other options.


> I'm afraid my responses below are fairly negative :-(
>
> What do people think of the 'Ignorance' concept? Is it too out of flavour
> for most?
>
> Any other approaches to throw into the ring?
>

>
> I agree that targeting the victim is more in flavour. However I think
> something both useful and workable using this mechanism will be very
> difficult to come up with.

So, you are predicting that we will be unlikely to produce something that is
EITHER useful OR workable?


> We need to be careful that work-arounds to make
> the mechanism work don't do so at the expense of the flavour, defeating
the
> purpose.

Well, and so you're saying that the flavour  of the spell shouldn't get in
the way of making it playable?

>
> > Here are a couple of suggestions to solve the problem of
> > needing to see the
> > targets and therefore they likely see you before you cast:
> >
> > 1) Targetable via ESP.
>
> Ruins the flavour of ESP, plus often hard to pick out the mind(s) that you
> want to hide from.

And, so you're saying that changing the flavour of ESP to specifically
advance the game is wrong?

>
> > 2) Concealed casting.
>
> Changes the flavour and balance of the college

You are denying that some form of concealed casting, whether it is for THIS
specific spell, or whether it is a general ability for Mind Mages would be
in flavour and balance for the college?
> >
> > I also think that Mandos's suggested number of targets of 1 +
> > 1/5 full ranks is
> > too low, but didn't previously mention it as such things can
> > easily be modified
> > if we can get a sound concept.
> >
>
> So long as the concept is still workable when you have to allow for the
> larger number of victims.

Well...

Look, I'm sure that these points may be useful. But, they ARE extremely
negative, as you have mentioned. And, forgive me, but it just doesn't seem
to me that they advance anything anywhere.

Ultimately, these comments seem to be saying, well, okay, so long as we
remember that the spell has to be playable, and easily administered by the
DM. And, that it has to be well balanced and in flavour with the college.

But...Well...it's a warning lost in the wilderness, really. Those people who
err in any of these regards do it because they're partisan, or because they
have made a mistake. The person who is partisan is NEVER going to accept the
warning, because they don't believe that it is for them. The person who
makes a mistake doesn't know they're about to make one...

How many people consciously go out of their way to contribute an ability
that is lacking in flavour or balance, and that is impractical to implement?
Show of hands, please?
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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