From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 7 11:52:58 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA32697; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:52:58 +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 LAA32687 ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:52:57 +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 LAA15635 ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:43:10 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199811062243.LAA15635@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:46:42 +0000 Subject: Collation of Undetectability proposals 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, Now that I finally have a chance to collate & re-read all the postings, here is a response to various common/conflicting themes: > Undetectability can be quite tricky to GM if you have multiple bad > guys/PCs with the spell on, and multiple people each trying to engage > visible people in combat. Agreed, but some of the other proposals do NOT fix the book-keeping involved -- besides, its just a simple grid of who can see which targets. For example, proposal such as: > It is probably better then that the spell has multiple targets say 1 > plus 1 per 2 ranks and as the mage chooses entities that cannot notice > the targets the selection applies to all targets of the spell at the > same time. or > If there is some element of choice (by the caster) involved then this > problem goes away. STILL require you to keep track of who can't see whom (although if the GM ranks their NPC is apparant scariness order the problem might be simplified). And, as was later pointed out: > My only real problem with this kind of treatment is that technically > the entities affected ought to get a magic resistance, but other spells > waive this so it doesn't seem to be a big problem. The comparison to "other spells" is not fair. Personally, I think far too many magical effects are irresistible. Furthermore there *is* an out-clause for ALL types of invisibility type spells at the moment. Withchsight, or Perception rolls. Even quasi-invisiblities like illusions may be aggressively counterspelled, etc. If the "nominated targets" proposal prevents 1+ 1/2 targets (or somesuch) from perceiving the Undetectabled being, you are automatically allowing the spell to work FLAWLESSLY if the number of opponents is less than the Adept's maximum. Currently, using Perception, in front of a small number of targets almost never works so perfectly -- this is one of its game-balances. An other consequence of the "nominated targets" approach is obvious: you are making the spell overly powerful. As well as preventing all the opposition (in smallish numbers) from perceiving the Undetectable One, you are automatically allowing ALL friendly forces to perceive the U.O. -- That would be a gross imbalance. One of the current limits on Undetecability is the *sometimes* unaceeptable risk of losing contact with multiple partymembers, in the given situation Concerning the suggestion; > If the intention is that the Mind Mage in some way projects a field of > "you can't see me" then it seems more sensible/logical/reasonable to be > an ability that only Mind Mages can use. and the counter-proposal > the Mage is projecting "You can't see me", but I see no problem with > "...and you can't see my buddy either". I confess an in-character interested motive for allowing the spell to be castable on persons other than the adept: it's more fun if *everybody* is invisible; and sometimes sneaking about undetectably is a very unpleasant job, so why not send someone else. Stepping back, for a more rational overview, I'm not certain that the game would necessarily loose-out if the spell *were* adept-only. One aspect proposed I did find promising: > 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. This approach, given the "mind-numbing field" theory of mind-mage undetecability, is attractive. Powerful magic, up close, with discrete gestures and subtle phrases from feels right. A feeling somehow absent when a mage over 200' away shouts "I SAID ... THESE AREN'T THE DRUIDS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR" I also like the possibility that any bystander in the mid-distance can wonder *why* the guard wordlessly let those people just wander by, without neither a challenge nor a salute. Concerning the specific suggestion: >> 1) Undetectability is changed back to being called Invisibility and >> works the same way as invisibility (they have the same EM), maybe with >> some waffle about cloaking the mind. I'm really keen on this, though it >> does give 3 colleges invisibility :( . I agree with the counter-responses: > Invis has its own problems in that people without a magical boost > (Witchsight) are completely poked. At least Undetect has the loophole > that everyone has a PC chance of spotting you. > I'd just like to say that while very simple this proposal sucks. Why > have a mind college at all if the spells are the same as E&E? If mind > mages can be invisible at all then it should be a different kind of > invisibility. I'd rather delete the spell that make it the same as the > other invisibilities. Concerning: > 2) Undetectability means that while you are stealthing, no one can see > you, or that it adds a bonus to your stealth. This is a nice concept for a spell -- perhaps it should be a Celestial spell of Night Stealth, Cloak/Blanket/Cover of Darkness, Night's Dark Mantle, Stealth-by-Night, Nightstalking, or whatever. There is no need to force Undetectability to become this spell, or that it should be a mind college spell. Furthermore I would suggest it that the effect of this NEW spell is merely a *bonus*; I prefer it that somethings (especially dragons) are hard to sneak up on and the last thing we need is for any spell recipient to have an *automatic* stealth. Concerning the specific suggestion: > Undetectability means that while you are stealthing, no one can see > you, or that it adds a bonus to your stealth. As soon as you stop > skulking and behave like a real hero/fool, people can shoot you down. some character's "real" heroes do skulk very successfully, that's why they considered role models. Gees, if you had to wait until Villa stopped skulking before you could notice him, he almost never be seen again. 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 Sat Nov 7 12:33:13 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA32744; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:33:13 +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 MAA32734 ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:33:12 +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 MAA17396 ; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:23:25 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199811062323.MAA17396@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 12:26:57 +0000 Subject: Collated TK Rage responses 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: 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. Dear all, Sorry -- this is mostly a "me too" posting. Like most respondants, > I like the area of effect, instant duration option. ditto: > I think the instantaneous effect is a good one. I also support an EM > reduction, on the basis that it has lost its durational nature. Concerning: > The way this spell does damage has always confused me. I'd much rather > be thrown 50' and tumble across some soft ground than thrown 25' into a > stone wall at the same speed. As a GM, I don't let it worry me. The damage *may* have been to simulate a character forcefully thrust at fixed speed across ground like a lump of cheese across a grater. But, working a posteri, I just assume that the further you go, the more it *has* to hurt when you are eventually stopped; i.e., you are always accellerating, as long as you are in motion -- just like falling off a cliff, only sideways. 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 --