From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 21 17:26:19 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA02270; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:26:19 +1200 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA02267 for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:26:16 +1200 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.28]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id nz for ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:20:12 +1200 Received: by falaklex00.fcl.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:19:22 +1200 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A7294D5@falaklex00.fcl.co.nz> Subject: RE: Undetectability Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:19:21 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain 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 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz I agree with Scott that the proposed write-up had all the problems he suggested. Multiple perception checks by each observer of each target are implied by the spell write-up. AARRGGHH!! The new write-up must avoid this or it just compounds the problems we are trying to solve. Also, it needs to be simple to administer/GM. I feel that the write-up I proposed covers all of Rosemary's points, as well as minimising admin hassles. If not, where are the flaws? Blindly, Andrew > ---------- > From: > Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@aj.co.nz[SMTP:Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@aj.c > o.nz] > > Scott wrote: > While not at the Gods meeting that discussed this I feel this adds extra > work on > to the GM. > > A simpler approach is needed as in this case thr GM needs to keep checking > for > conditions which keep changing. At least the old write up was a singlre > fail/suceed roll. > **** > Sorry you are wrong. Currently you need to make checks for every > individual > that is Undetectable, and if they are mobile, keep track of who can see or > hear > which particular individuals. > > The new write up is designed to create an area effect that: > a) every one covered by the spell when cast can see each other > b) the area moves with the adept > c) if an observer detects one target then they detect all > *** > Andrew Wrote > This spell descriptions is not as I remember the discussion. > > For instance, any melee attack, successful or otherwise (like E&E invis) > breaks the spell for all targets. > Other attacks had some multiple of PC > Doing nothing had no multiple - i.e. targets could not be seen if > successfully stealthing. > > Could others present confirm this, or was I just hallucinating? > *** > That was the theme of discussion. > > Individuals covered by the spell had to stay close to the adept was traded > off > against being Undectectable unless they > 1) did something obvious like attacking or knocking into somebody, talking > or > spell casting etc > 2) an observer was paying particular attention to they area, eg. alert > guards, a > person searching for something. > > I think Jacqui's write is mostly good, but didn't quite hit the right > point. > I'll reply directly to her with editing suggestions. > > Rosemary > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --