From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 03:19:24 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id DAA29685; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 03:19:24 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id DAA29674 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 03:19:21 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p7-max21.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.102.7]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA25887 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 03:09:56 +1300 Message-Id: <199811041409.DAA25887@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 02:42:42 +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 Janssen wrote: > > > > 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? I like your idea for Earth mages, i.e, let them have Blending, and that they can move slowly in natural environments, 1 TMR per Rank...I think you could do the same with Dark and Shadow celestials in shadowy or darkened areas, which would be very good for that college, I reckon...But it would be the only effect they have of a stealthy nature, you realise? As for using my spell suggestion, I don't care really...But we ought to change Undetectibility...A comment I heard a DM make about the current version was 'If the party uses it, so do I...' > > > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell that simply > > deceives the senses of the viewer. I'd have expected E&E to lose Invisibility and maybe get Walking Unseen...I wouldn't really have expected Illusionists to lose Invisibility. I'd have thought that was one of their strengths... > > > > 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)...I like this. I'd allow movement in any environment where the Blended character's feet are on the ground. > > > Witch: Leave WU, or substitute Blending, or drop it alltogether. I'd use Bart's suggestion, here, so that a Wiccan could move Blended through woods or like environment > > -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 08:43:34 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA29859; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:43:34 +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 IAA29848 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:43:32 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id IAA28717; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 08:34:05 +1300 Message-ID: <3640AD86.1A4D0E2E@peace.com> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 08:39:50 +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: > But it would > be the only effect they have of a stealthy nature, you realise? > Yes. But (to me at least) super stealth feels "right" for a Celestials... I can't argue it any more rationally than that. > As for using my spell suggestion, I don't care really...But we ought to > change Undetectibility... Agreed. No matter what else comes out of this discussion I think that Undetectibility needs a revamp. > A comment I heard a DM make about the current > version was 'If the party uses it, so do I...' Like lawyers and nuclear weapons. You have to have them becaue the other side does, but as soon as anyone uses one everything goes to hell. :) > > > > > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell > that simply > > > deceives the senses of the viewer. > > I'd have expected E&E to lose Invisibility and maybe get Walking Unseen...I > wouldn't really have expected Illusionists to lose Invisibility. I'd have > thought that was one of their strengths.. I don't have a strong opinion here, except to say that Invis feels like "strong" magic, actually cloaking the target so that they cannot be seen, whereas Walking Unseen feels like a "weak" magic, causing distractions and misdirection so that the target goes un-noticed. With WU they still are there, they cast a shadow, reflect in mirrors, etc... and I just felt that distraction and misdirection are more the Illusionists area of expertise. I don't have really strong opinions on any of this, save to say that there is just too much Invis around, and that it is too cheap and too powerful. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 09:16:03 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA29913; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:16:03 +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 JAA29902 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:16:00 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id JAA00867; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 09:06:33 +1300 Message-ID: <3640B522.9A8A1D9D@peace.com> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:12:18 +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: > > 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???? Sorry... I thought my other comments made this unnecessary. > 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) Yes, good summary. > 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. Yes again. > Yours is simpler but more powerful and less controlled. Simpler, yes. More powerful, maybe... the intentention is that everyone within an area (the area?) must make PC rolls (or somesuch) in order to penetrate the projected field of "Ignore us, these are not the Adventurers you are looking for". But I think the book-keeping saving is worth the extra bit of grunt. Anyone outside the area can automatically see the cloaked figures. So good in tight places, bad in open areas... I guess my feeling is that Mind Mage abilities in general should be short range "up close and personal" type stuff. > If you made > everyone who was "hidden from notice" unaffected by the mage then the > party confusion is limited. That would be OK too. I kinda presumed that the various affected targets could see each other, and that the area of effect wouldn't be too big. > > 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 I might see if it is possible to write up an integrated and comprehensive Witchsight/Invis document. One of Jim's proposals that has not been addressed was the Lvl of Witchsight vs. Lvl of Invis comparison -- this could be addressed in one form or another at the same time. > > Outside observers looking into the area cannot 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???? It would be sort of a "camouflage net" spell... of little use in tight areas -- although if the Illusionist made the area fairly small (Rank 0) then it could be useful but you would get to hide less people, etc. In wide open areas it would be great for making a party hard to spot from the air, from a hill with a spyglass, etc. This is intended to fit with the idea that Illusions are better further off and don't stand up so well to close scrutiny. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 14:08:50 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA30244; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:08:50 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA30234 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:08:49 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p21-max41.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.79.137.149]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA32009 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:59:16 +1300 Message-Id: <199811050059.NAA32009@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:56:07 +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 > > Jim Arona wrote: > > > But it would > > be the only effect they have of a stealthy nature, you realise? > > > Yes. But (to me at least) super stealth feels "right" for a Celestials... I > can't argue it any more rationally than that. I'm not disagreeing with you...I'm merely pointing out that Shadow and Dark mages are designed to support fighter mage type characters...Not stealth based characters. If you take one of these characters as a spy, thief or assassin, you are making your life very difficult, and yet that is the nature of those colleges...It was derived from Jack of Shadows, after all...but within the DQ rules system, they are in reality a warrior option. The only spell they have of a stealthy nature is Shadow Walking, and only Shadow Weavers get that... > > > > Illusion: Remove Invis, give them WU. This feels most like a spell > > that simply > > > > deceives the senses of the viewer. > > > > I'd have expected E&E to lose Invisibility and maybe get Walking Unseen...I > > wouldn't really have expected Illusionists to lose Invisibility. I'd have > > thought that was one of their strengths.. > > I don't have a strong opinion here, except to say that Invis feels like > "strong" magic, actually cloaking the target so that they cannot be seen, > whereas Walking Unseen feels like a "weak" magic, causing distractions and > misdirection so that the target goes un-noticed. With WU they still are there, > they cast a shadow, reflect in mirrors, etc... and I just felt that distraction > and misdirection are more the Illusionists area of expertise. Well, let us say that they have this Walking Unseen...Why don't they have a distraction spell, as well? I mean some kind of magical effect that draws your attention away from them...It can't just be some kind of noise maker, because given that people live in a magical world, the tough people will have people around them who know about Illusions. Therefore, it's probably a good idea for them to have a spell that allows them to distract people...magically... One of the more interesting spells in RoleMaster was Beautiful Assistant...The spell creates a beautiful woman, who distracts the attention of male observers...I suppose it isn't really interesting, just amusing...But that sort of idea.. And speaking of other kinds of cloaking spell, in EarthDawn, Illusionists get this spell called Nobody Here, and what it does, is create an area where the caster and as many other people as he has spell casting ranks are not noticed. What's interesting about the spell, is that if the observer runs into the concealed characters later, and this is after the spell has worn off, then he realises that they were concealed before and that he was duped. If he doesn't run into them again, and there is no other suggestion to the contrary, then he will assume that the concealed characters were supposed to be there, or that he'd dreamed them, had too much to drink...etc, etc, etc It creates really interesting situations... Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 14:51:45 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA30309; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:51:45 +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 OAA30299 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:51:44 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id OAA17880; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:42:15 +1300 Message-ID: <364103D2.23AE0633@peace.com> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:48:02 +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: > -> From: Martin Dickson > > Yes. But (to me at least) super stealth feels "right" for a > Celestials... I can't argue it any more rationally than that. > > I'm not disagreeing with you...I'm merely pointing out that Shadow and Dark > mages are designed to support fighter mage type characters...Not stealth > based characters. If you take one of these characters as a spy, thief or > assassin, you are making your life very difficult, and yet that is the > nature of those colleges...It was derived from Jack of Shadows, after > all...but within the DQ rules system, they are in reality a warrior option. Sad, no? Celestial has great "flavour" possibilites but is in actuallity a "swiss army knife" college -- A weapon spell, defence spell, flight spell, invis, attack spell, summon something, speak to something, etc, etc. I think part of this stems from trying to cover too much ground. A "shadow" college suggests all sorts of interesting possiblities, as does a "dark" college... but a combined shadow/dark/star (and more recently solar) college makes flavour much harder to pin down. I think I may have already stated that my personal preference would be to break the thing up and (with apologies to the 1? 2? star mages out there) lose the Star branch altogether... leaving 3 seperate colleges of Light, Shadow and Dark. I think there is no end to the material that could fit within those more specialised areas and that their flavour would be considerably improved. It may be possible to find enough material for a Star College, just because I can't think of enough certainly doesn't make it impossible. > Well, let us say that they have this Walking Unseen...Why don't they have a > distraction spell, as well? [snip] > And speaking of other kinds of cloaking spell, in EarthDawn, Illusionists > get this spell called Nobody Here, and what it does, is create an area > where the caster and as many other people as he has spell casting ranks are > not noticed. This is an excellent idea, and perfectly suited to the Illusion college. This is the "James Bond" invisibility: pick up a tray of drinks and suddenly you are a waiter. :) The best kind of invisibility really -- hiding things in plain sight. Party under this effect walk across fields and people just presume they are peasant labourers; they join on the tail of a caravan and they're just more guards; they walk through a castle kitchen and they're servants -- all presuming that they don't stuff it up by going and hitting somebody or acting in a manner grossly at odds with the situation they are in. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 14:58:55 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA30348; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:58:55 +1300 Received: from kcbbs.gen.nz (kcbbs.gen.nz [202.14.102.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA30339 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:58:55 +1300 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21544 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 14:46:32 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <364101AB.579A7837@games.co.nz> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:38:51 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Mind Speech Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C0C9B2803D3C8C084F4266B6" From: Mike Young 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. --------------C0C9B2803D3C8C084F4266B6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) wrote: > I think that the proposed spell write-up for Mind Speech is flawed, in > that it gives control of group dynamics to a player, and that it > facilitates the splitting of a party over vast distances. It also > unnecessarily opens cans of worms. It was never the intention that the Mind Mage got to edit the communication, merely that s/he was the centre of the effect. The original spell worked only if you where within range i.e. 30+30/Rank of the Mind Mage. I have no idea where this plane sized range came from, but only a moron would play it that way. It was never the intention that it translate languages, so one or more common languages would be needed. The spell ends if the Mind Mage dies or is unconscious, but is not a Contentration Spell. The sensory stuff is just wishful thinking. It might be ok for a character, but should not be part of the Mind Speech Spell. In summary, the way the spell was originally written is the same as Andrews proposal with the exception of being allowed to leave the effect as that never occured to me. Seems to me if you want to leave then you have to leave the area of effect. As the effect is intrusive Mind Speech is Passively Resistable. Storage is Potion. The GM can rule on the effects on concentration as this is conditional. Regarding, >> Maybe make the spell concentration, or dropped if the Adept falls unconscious? Martin wrote: >Concentration seems good. It would be nice to have some way of disrupting the thing. It is the perfect tool >for parties wishing to be quiet otherwise, there is no counter to it, or way of overhearing what is going on. The obvious counter is that a enemy Mind Mage with telepathy on any one of the participants could overhear everything (but might not understand the language(s) being used). But yes other than that it would require a special item or ability. I didn't want it to be a Concentration Spell originally as Mind Mages are already overburdened with concentration spells. Killing or knocking out the Mind Mage gives some level of disruption it seems to me. Stephen wrote: >I generally prefer your revised write-up, however I believe that the same-language restriction should be lifted at some point - rank 11? I'm against this. I might consider it at Rank 20. It is not a universal translator spell. Brent wrote: >The spell allows 1 (+ 1 / Rank) entities to speak with each other and the Adept using only their mind. If the >entity moves further from the Adept than the range of the spell, then the spell effect on them is dissipated. >This communication is verbal, as though by a spoken language, and is heard by all entites affected by the >spell. Targets familiar with each other, will be able to recognise each other based on the “sound” of their >voice. Targets unfamiliar with the spell, will experience the spell as voices in their head. This is fine except I prefer that the communication is interrupted rather than broken by exceeding the range. But I could live with it. Regards, Michael Young Balance of Andrew's original message: > Current Proposal: > Mind Speech (S-11) > Range: 30 feet + 30 / Rank > Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank > Experience Multiple: 400 > Base Chance: 20% > Resist: May not be resisted > Storage: Potion, Investment > Target: Entity > Effect: Allows the Adept to communicate telepathically with 1 + 1 / Rank > entities. The entities targeted must be both within the range of the spell > and either in sight or pinpointed via the Spell of Telepathy (at > the time of casting). If the entity subsequently leaves the range, the > communication continues, as long as the entity remains on the same planeas > the Adept. A language in common is required for verbal communication. At > Rank 6 and above visual images may be transmitted, and at Rank 10 and > above tactile, taste and olfactory sensations. All communication passes > through the Adept who cast the spell, and requires the same level of > concentration as for oral communication. > ------------------------- > Andrews Suggestion: > Effect: Allows the Adept to communicate telepathically with 1 + 1 / Rank > entities within range. The entities may be targeted via the Spell of > Telepathy. Entities may not communicate while outside the Adept's > range, but the spell continues as long as the entity remains on the same > plane as the Adept. A language in common is required for effective > communication. All communication by any target is heard by all targets. > A target may leave the mind speech at any time (or may choose not to > join?). > > All reference to Visual, Tactile, Taste, Olfactory sensations to be > dropped - remote Scrying, Locate study through others eyes, etc are cans > of worms, and the whole split sensory thing was dropped a couple of > years back. > > Maybe make the spell concentration, or dropped if the Adept falls > unconscious? > > The wording needs polishing, but is this preferred to the current > proposal? --------------C0C9B2803D3C8C084F4266B6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) wrote: 
I think that the proposed spell write-up for Mind Speech is flawed, in that it gives control of group dynamics to a player, and that it facilitates the splitting of a party over vast distances. It also unnecessarily opens cans of worms.
It was never the intention that the Mind Mage got to edit the communication, merely that s/he was the centre of the effect. The original spell worked only if you where within range i.e. 30+30/Rank of the Mind Mage.  I have no idea where this plane sized range came from, but only a moron would play it that way. It was never the intention that it translate languages, so one or more common languages would be needed. The spell ends if the Mind Mage dies or is unconscious, but is not a Contentration Spell.

The sensory stuff is just wishful thinking. It might be ok for a character, but should not be part of the Mind Speech Spell.

In summary, the way the spell was originally written is the same as Andrews proposal with the exception of being allowed to leave the effect as that never occured to me. Seems to me if you want to leave then you have to leave the area of effect.

As the effect is intrusive Mind Speech is Passively Resistable. Storage is Potion. The GM can rule on the effects on concentration as this is conditional.

Regarding,
>> Maybe make the spell concentration, or dropped if the Adept falls unconscious?
Martin wrote:
>Concentration seems good.  It would be nice to have some way of disrupting the thing.  It is the perfect tool >for parties wishing to be quiet otherwise, there is no counter to it, or way of overhearing what is going on.

The obvious counter is that a enemy Mind Mage with telepathy on any one of the participants could overhear everything (but might not understand the language(s) being used). But yes other than that it would require a special item or ability. I didn't want it to be a Concentration Spell originally as Mind Mages are already overburdened with concentration spells. Killing or knocking out the Mind Mage gives some level of disruption it seems to me.
 
 

Stephen wrote:
>I generally prefer your revised write-up, however I believe that the same-language restriction should be lifted at some point - rank 11?

I'm against this. I might consider it at Rank 20. It is not a universal translator spell.
 

Brent wrote:
>The spell allows 1 (+ 1 / Rank) entities to speak with each other and the Adept using only their mind.  If the >entity moves further from the Adept than the range of the spell, then the spell effect on them is dissipated. >This communication is verbal, as though by a spoken language, and is heard by all entites affected by the >spell.  Targets familiar with each other, will be able to recognise each other based on the “sound” of their >voice. Targets unfamiliar with the spell, will experience the spell as voices in their head.
 

This is fine except I prefer that the communication is interrupted rather than broken by exceeding the range. But I could live with it.
 

Regards,
Michael Young
 

Balance of Andrew's original message:

Current Proposal:
Mind Speech (S-11)
Range: 30 feet + 30 / Rank
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 400
Base Chance: 20%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion, Investment
Target: Entity
Effect: Allows the Adept to communicate telepathically with 1 + 1 / Rank entities. The entities targeted must be both within the range of the spell and either in sight or pinpointed via the Spell of Telepathy (at
the time of casting). If the entity subsequently leaves the range, the communication continues, as long as the entity remains on the same planeas the Adept. A language in common is required for verbal communication. At Rank 6 and above visual images may be transmitted, and at Rank 10 and above tactile, taste and olfactory sensations. All communication passes through the Adept who cast the spell, and requires the same level of concentration as for oral communication.
-------------------------
Andrews Suggestion:
Effect: Allows the Adept to communicate telepathically with 1 + 1 / Rank entities within range. The entities may be targeted via the Spell of Telepathy.  Entities may not communicate while outside the Adept's
range, but the spell continues as long as the entity remains on the same plane as the Adept. A language in common is required for effective communication. All communication by any target is heard by all targets.
A target may leave the mind speech at any time (or may choose not to join?).

All reference to Visual, Tactile, Taste, Olfactory sensations to be dropped - remote Scrying, Locate study through others eyes, etc are cans of worms, and the whole split sensory thing was dropped a couple of
years back.

Maybe make the spell concentration, or dropped if the Adept falls unconscious?

The wording needs polishing, but is this preferred to the current proposal?

  --------------C0C9B2803D3C8C084F4266B6-- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 15:15:53 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA30399; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:15:53 +1300 Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (mailhost.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.1.4]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA30388 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:15:52 +1300 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1/8.9.1-ua) with SMTP id PAA11232 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:06:24 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199811050206.PAA11232@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:09:54 +0000 Subject: Re: Mind Speech X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-to: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.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. Dear all, Here is my amalgamated response to the Mind Speech postings. In summary, I greatly prefer Brent's alternative proposal of > Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:36:00 > > Range : 30 feet + 30 / Rank Something like this is fine; The current linearly infinite range is stupid. > Duration : 10 minutes + 10 / Rank > Experience Multiple : 400 > Base Chance : 20% > Resistance : None > Storage : Investment > Target : Entity > The spell allows 1 (+ 1 / Rank) entities to speak with each other and the > Adept using only their mind. If the entity moves further from the Adept > than the range of the spell, then the spell effect on them is dissipated. Yes! I am not keen on Andrew's suggestion ( Mon, 2 Nov 1998 17:55:36 +1300): @ Entities may not communicate while outside the Adept's range, but the @ spell continues as long as the entity remains on the same plane as the @ Adept. meaning, presumably (as per Martin,Tue, 03 Nov 1998 08:57:22 +1300) # So, if a target leaves the area but then rejoins during the duration # they are once again part of the mind-speech group. OK. I believe spells that which were cast on targets who then leave the absolute range generally loose their effect immediately (e.g. locate) and do not reinstate. The only times this doesn't happen is when the magic is an indiscriminate area-of-effect on all potential target within a give range (Agony, etc). However, I acknowledge that a re-activation on re-entering type of effect is perhaps analogous to telepathy. > This communication is verbal, as though by a spoken language, and is heard > by all entites affected by the spell. Targets familiar with each other, > will be able to recognise each other based on the "sound" of their voice. > Targets unfamiliar with the spell, will experience the spell as voices in > their head. ================== Concerning other issues mentioned: Stephen said (Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:34:27 +1300) > I generally prefer your revised write-up, however I believe that the > same-language restriction should be lifted at some point - rank 11? Why? I don't think a mass-telepathy or universal translation concept to the spell is justified. I'd rather that mind-speech was like ordinary speech, mere clearly heard within the mind. If you can't comprehend the language(s), you should have no idea of what the voices in your head are saying > And possibly add that the adept may concentrate to filter the > conversation. I.e. Only I can hear what x says, or I'm saying this to > a & b only. Although such a STAR[flower]NET concept is undoubtedly arguable, I prefer that conversation is heard by all targets. This is primarily for ease-of-play. During an adventure, it is often difficult remembering a few real-weeks later what you saw and heard prviously in the game (even if it was only a few hours ago, game time); it is much harder and more confusing remembering what your character *didn't* hear, even though you explicitly did hear it as a player. Likewise, although roleplayers are capable of not acting immediately on information that they didn't really hear; I have seen [and committed] errors in games because the uncertain distinction between what was or wasn't heard by a specific character. I expect *every* GM who has, during a game, removed player(s) from the room or passed notes (rather than speak in the hearing of all) to dislike having the Adept's player say to other players "You didn't hear that, I only passed it on to ...." Furthermore, with an "all-targets-hear-all" policy you don't have to worry about the delay time of the adept/hub in relaying messages, system conlicts, or how quickly the Adept can censor, cut-off, or switch particular contributors from the general broadcast. ----------------- Concerning: >> A target may leave the mind speech at any time (or may choose not to >> join?). > > Don't see a reason for a special exemption. At the moment this is an irresistible spell. As Michael pointed out, hearing voices in your head while you want to do something else, especially magic *should* be a distraction. If ease of play already persuades us to prune back the original version of the I've discussed above, feel no qualms. As Martin pointed out elsewhere: > It is the perfect tool for parties wishing to be quiet otherwise, there > is no counter to it, or way of overhearing what is going on. Therefore don't feel we are unfairly penalising the Mind-mages concerned. Kind regards, Michael Michael Parkinson Assistant Librarian Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Science Library Phone: (9) 3737 599 x 5858 University of Auckland Fax: (9) 3082 304 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 16:01:17 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA30454; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:01:17 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA30445 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:01:15 +1300 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:51:16 +1300 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BE08D4.9968BE20@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:54:41 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Undetectability (Illusionists) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:54:39 +1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" 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. >> in EarthDawn, Illusionists >> get this spell called Nobody Here, and what it does is create an area >> where the caster and as many other people as he has spell casting ranks are >> not noticed. > >This is an excellent idea, and perfectly suited to the Illusion college. >This >is the "James Bond" invisibility: pick up a tray of drinks and suddenly you >are >a waiter. :) > >The best kind of invisibility really -- hiding things in plain sight. Party >under this effect walk across fields and people just presume they are peasant >labourers; they join on the tail of a caravan and they're just more guards; >they walk through a castle kitchen and they're servants -- all presuming that >they don't stuff it up by going and hitting somebody or acting in a manner >grossly at odds with the situation they are in. I tried to write one - Innocence. It is multi-target, these people just look normal/non-dangerous. It doesn't quite work right. However, this, combined with Disguise, can work OK. Maybe a re-write, based on this Nobody Here spell? Could we have this in before next Wednesday, 6:30pm? The other idea suggested for Illusionist Invisibility, a field of unseeability, not noticable far away, is the Ritual of Illusory Terrain. Even as a Special Ritual, it is very useful. I have used it very successfully for camping every night, excellent ambushes, private conversations in Inns/Castle, undisturturbed rituals, even breaking into buildings without waking people. (It does sight, sound, smell, scrying). Maybe something like this, portable on Adept, max 5'+5'/2 Ranks, only affects sight, general knowledge EM 450 like Invis. I'm still not convinced this is quite right - its like a portable umbrella of invis - I would rank it from a paltry Rank 11 to however high I need if it went like this - a bad sign... Andrew (sorry, I tried not to mention Illusionists, but I was asked!) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 16:08:07 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA30486; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:08:07 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA30476 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:08:05 +1300 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 15:58:08 +1300 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BE08D5.8ED20F60@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:01:33 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: Attempted Summary of 4 Mind Proposals Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:01:30 +1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" 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. As best I can tell, this is the (spoken) consensus of the group: 1) Phantasm isn't broken. 2) TK Rage should be instant, maybe EM 500 (ep then refunded?) 3) Mind Speech trimmed - a couple of details not finalised - leaving range yes/no? 4) Undetectability - definitely needs to be re-writen - no final conclusion, but some ideas generated; may generate review of all invis/unseen/blending/witchsight Andrew -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 16:17:13 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA30533; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:17:13 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA30522 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:17:12 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p21-max41.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.79.137.149]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA16762 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:07:39 +1300 Message-Id: <199811050307.QAA16762@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Undetectability (Illusionists) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 16:06:53 +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: Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >This is an excellent idea, and perfectly suited to the Illusion college. > >This > >is the "James Bond" invisibility: pick up a tray of drinks and suddenly you > >are > >a waiter. :) > > I tried to write one - Innocence. It is multi-target, these people just > look normal/non-dangerous. It doesn't quite work right. Innocence doesn't work quite right, because it doesn't state explicitly what it's intent was. It is certainly inferrable to use it that way, but without it being clearly stated as an option, then it will probably not be played that way. Another reason that it doesn't work that well is because it tries to do too many things, particularly if it deflects attention like that. At the moment, it's a 'It weren't me, yer 'Onner' type spell...Useful enough if you're caught by the village hayward, useless if you're in danger of being strung up by the Duke...Or, in fact, any entity with experience of spell casters and the ability to detect them... Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 18:30:00 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA30750; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:30:00 +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 SAA30740 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:29:56 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id SAA28087; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:20:23 +1300 Message-ID: <364136F2.CE3DE47F@peace.com> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 18:26:10 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Attempted Summary of 4 Mind Proposals 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. "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" wrote: > As best I can tell, this is the (spoken) consensus of the group: > 1) Phantasm isn't broken. Brent seems to think its broke. I think its broke. I'm not sure this is consensus. :) Much as I would like a total re-write into more of a "mind" flavour -- fear effects rather than pummelling, etc -- if ITN was removed from targetting possibilities I would be willing to downgrade my objection to a "badly sprained". I think that ITN targetting for Phantasm is badly broken. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Nov 5 22:44:58 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA30992; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:44:58 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id WAA30983 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:44:57 +1300 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz (p39-max6.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.98.103]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA20959 ; Thu, 5 Nov 1998 22:35:25 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981105223138.007ce350@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 22:31:38 +1300 Subject: Strength of Stone query (again) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith 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. Here's another query about SoS that came up in my game. I think I called it right but I'd just like a second opinion. If a character with SoS(EN) is hit for EN damage, then I presume the damage comes off the extra points first and the spell is weakened for that amount of EN for the remaining duration or until it is counterspelled. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --