From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Oct 22 01:39:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id BAA08417; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:35:29 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id BAA08414 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:35:28 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p65-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.65]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA08820 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:35:26 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p65-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.65] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F2A544.79BD5C7B@ihug.co.nz> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 01:28:52 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Witchsight From: Jim Arona To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jacqui Smith wrote: > > At 01:17 21/10/00 -0700, you wrote: > >None of your proposed solutions would deal with > >this 'problem'. I don't know what it is, but > >renaming the Talent to Wizardsight, I venture, > >would have no impact on the ambush. > > That was passed into the rules. If you had bothered to actually READ my > original posting instead of reacting without thinking first, then you would > have seen that I was restating the original proposal, which I had been > asked to prepare for the gods meeting. > >Neither would changing the Wiccan version, unless > >the player in question happened to be one, and > >even if it did, I suspect that it would be knee > >jerk problem solving. > > It was also passed. There was an error. It was corrected. You can call that > a reflex, if you like. > > >Neither would giving the Celestial spell a base > >chance, seeing as it would then have the same > >problem that pertained prior to the change. > >And, finally, reducing the Base Chance does > >nothing useful at all, because the spell wouldn't > >be cast until it was Rank 16+, which means that > >you're merely delaying what you percieve as a > >problem. > > And again you've missed the point. The issue was that the Celestial version > of the spell should not work automatically ONCE CAST. This was perceived as > a problem by a number of people. There needed to be a base chance for the > recipient of the spell using witchsight, as well as the caster giving them > the ability. No, I haven't missed the point. You are including in a post an example from play. You offer no solution that pertains to that that example, from your posting. If you are saying that some other suggestion that you might have made was more a propos, then I suggest you append THAT suggestion, rather than some completely irrelevant posting. > > >> I can also cite a clear incident from play where one player character with > >> low-ranked witchsight made a serious mess of the GMs ambush. The problem is > >> that we have a small group of area effect spells, able to do serious damage > >> without any necessity for the PC to actually target any individuals. There > >> are also monsters, such as fire elementals, which can inflict damage by > >> simply entering a hex. > > > None of your proposed solutions would deal with > >this 'problem'. > > However, returning to something resembling the earlier version of > witchsight would. The contention is that the problems with the new version > of witchsight are worse than those with the old. > > 1. Anyone with witchsight automatically notices the presence of > someone passing invisible or unseen. They may not be able to identify them > or target them but they know that something is there. And therefore will > react appropriately. So invisibility is rendered far less useful for > sneaking purposes. No, they don't. If your Witchsight is lower ranked than the concealment spell, then the concealed entity has an opportunity to use their Stealth to move past the Witchsighted individual(s). It is NOT automatic that they're detected. It just means that they may be capable of using an associated concealment related ability. > > 2. While an invisible person may not be able to be directly targeted, > their rough position can always be sensed. So they can be the victim of > area effect spells, certain entity types like fire elementals, and area > effect weapons like grenados. So invisibility is rendered far less useful > for combat purposes. Well, a) that's not true, there's nothing automatic about it, and b) so what? An Unseen or Invisible attacker is almost impossible to deal with magic, unless you have area of effect spells. Nothing would change if you gave Witchsight a chance of working. And, then you'd have the attendant difficulty of dealing with all of the people who could see what. What you offer is not a solution, either. It just adds to the workload of the DM. Players only advance their Witchsight to Rank 14ish. Other characters take Unseen to rank 7 and stop. What have you achieved by your blind desire to return to a situation that was inadequate? The only thing that happens in such a return is that the players are no longer encouraged to advance abilities to Rank 20. Which is the point of advancing. > This may not be how you wanted it played, but it's what the rules currently > say. > Frankly, the rules are pretty meaningless to the running of any kind of interesting game. And, if you think otherwise, then I feel sorry for you. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Oct 22 02:49:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id CAA08493; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:45:48 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id CAA08490 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:45:47 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p65-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.65]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id CAA31779 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:45:44 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p65-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.65] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F2B5BF.A6E3DF43@ihug.co.nz> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:39:11 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Witchsight From: Jim Arona To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz I do, practice what I preach, George. I am not attacking Jacqui at a personal level. I am attacking something that produces a nett minus. It is not aimed at Jacqui, or her lifestyle. It is aimed, fairly and squarely, at what she presents to the game. If I were making a comment about her personality, appearance, gender, what have you, then you would have a point. As it is, you don't. And, more, George, you're not the moderator of this list. As far as I know, there isn't one. To make the point in another way, consider this. If polite critique doesn't work, perhaps lambasting will. Without wishing to point a finger (although, I will, if pressed on the matter) some people have real difficulty in staying focussed on what offers something useful to a game. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Oct 22 15:19:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id PAA15499; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:18 +1300 Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id PAA15496 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:15 +1300 Received: from work.ihug.co.nz (p160-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.160]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id PAA27472 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:15:12 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp4.ihug.co.nz: Host p160-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.160] claimed to be work.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001022145021.00adb2a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:16:07 +1300 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: Witchsight From: Jacqui Smith To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz At 01:28 22/10/00 -0700, you wrote: >No, I haven't missed the point. You are including >in a post an example from play. You offer no >solution that pertains to that that example, from >your posting. If you are saying that some other >suggestion that you might have made was more a >propos, then I suggest you append THAT suggestion, >rather than some completely irrelevant posting. I was not aware that there was a requirement to present a solution when describing a problem. Frankly, I believe we are still at the point of collecting data and I am reluctant to propose a solution until we have a better idea of what other problems may exist in this area. I would be very interested to hear other players and GMs describing difficulties they have had with the new witchsight rules. > > 1. Anyone with witchsight automatically notices the presence of > > someone passing invisible or unseen. They may not be able to identify them > > or target them but they know that something is there. And therefore will > > react appropriately. So invisibility is rendered far less useful for > > sneaking purposes. > > No, they don't. If your Witchsight is lower >ranked than the concealment spell, then the >concealed entity has an opportunity to use their >Stealth to move past the Witchsighted >individual(s). It is NOT automatic that they're >detected. It just means that they may be capable >of using an associated concealment related >ability. I had thought that the point of being invisible was that the character could use their stealth where it wouldn't normally be possible. To cross a narrow bridge under constant observation, for example. > > 2. While an invisible person may not be able to be directly targeted, > > their rough position can always be sensed. So they can be the victim of > > area effect spells, certain entity types like fire elementals, and area > > effect weapons like grenados. So invisibility is rendered far less useful > > for combat purposes. > > Well, a) that's not true, there's nothing >automatic about it, and b) so what? An Unseen or >Invisible attacker is almost impossible to deal >with magic, unless you have area of effect spells. >Nothing would change if you gave Witchsight a >chance of working. And, then you'd have the >attendant difficulty of dealing with all of the >people who could see what. Even when a stealth roll is appropriate, the protection afforded by invisibility is still weakened. And in many situations, stealth is not appropriate. > What you offer is not a solution, either. It just >adds to the workload of the DM. There are other ways around the problem of excessive dice rolls. >Players only >advance their Witchsight to Rank 14ish. Other >characters take Unseen to rank 7 and stop. What >have you achieved by your blind desire to return >to a situation that was inadequate? I have no blind desire to return to the old rules. I'm pointing out that the new rule is also flawed, and in my opinion, more so than the old rules (giving that the Celestial Witchsight spell was modified to have an additional base chance for the entity affected by the spell using their witchsight). I don't think that it is appropriate to propose a solution at this stage in the debate, either. >The only thing >that happens in such a return is that the players >are no longer encouraged to advance abilities to >Rank 20. Which is the point of advancing. I'm not sure what why advancing every ability to Rank 20 is the point. Or even a desirable thing, especially in terms of character variety. > > This may not be how you wanted it played, but it's what the rules currently > > say. > > >Frankly, the rules are pretty meaningless to the >running of any kind of interesting game. And, if >you think otherwise, then I feel sorry for you. So why do we bother discussing the rules at all? Jacqui -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Oct 22 16:20:01 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id QAA16457; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:12:18 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id QAA16454 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:12:09 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p399-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.209.145]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id QAA01222 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:12:07 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p399-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.209.145] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F372BC.ACCA1D51@ihug.co.nz> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:05:32 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Witchsight From: Jim Arona To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jacqui Smith wrote: > > At 01:28 22/10/00 -0700, you wrote: > >No, I haven't missed the point. You are including > >in a post an example from play. You offer no > >solution that pertains to that that example, from > >your posting. If you are saying that some other > >suggestion that you might have made was more a > >propos, then I suggest you append THAT suggestion, > >rather than some completely irrelevant posting. > > I was not aware that there was a requirement to present a solution when > describing a problem. Frankly, I believe we are still at the point of > collecting data and I am reluctant to propose a solution until we have a > better idea of what other problems may exist in this area. I would be very > interested to hear other players and GMs describing difficulties they have > had with the new witchsight rules. Um, yes, you did. You said that all that needed to happen was to use your old Witchsight document, to make matters right. That is an attempt at solution > > > 1. Anyone with witchsight automatically notices the presence of > > > someone passing invisible or unseen. They may not be able to identify them > > > or target them but they know that something is there. And therefore will > > > react appropriately. So invisibility is rendered far less useful for > > > sneaking purposes. > > > > No, they don't. If your Witchsight is lower > >ranked than the concealment spell, then the > >concealed entity has an opportunity to use their > >Stealth to move past the Witchsighted > >individual(s). It is NOT automatic that they're > >detected. It just means that they may be capable > >of using an associated concealment related > >ability. > > I had thought that the point of being invisible was that the character > could use their stealth where it wouldn't normally be possible. To cross a > narrow bridge under constant observation, for example. So? Why has the current rule changed that? You are invis of high rank, you can attempt to sneak past the guards. You would have to, anyway, I suppose, but now, the guards PC multiplier becomes higher, if they have Witchsight. If they don't, then they may only be able to apply a 1 or 2 x PC roll. With Witchsight, they may apply 4, 5 or even 6 x PC to the Stealth of the Invis person(s). > > > > 2. While an invisible person may not be able to be directly targeted, > > > their rough position can always be sensed. So they can be the victim of > > > area effect spells, certain entity types like fire elementals, and area > > > effect weapons like grenados. So invisibility is rendered far less useful > > > for combat purposes. > > > > Well, a) that's not true, there's nothing > >automatic about it, and b) so what? An Unseen or > >Invisible attacker is almost impossible to deal > >with magic, unless you have area of effect spells. > >Nothing would change if you gave Witchsight a > >chance of working. And, then you'd have the > >attendant difficulty of dealing with all of the > >people who could see what. > > Even when a stealth roll is appropriate, the protection afforded by > invisibility is still weakened. And in many situations, stealth is not > appropriate. And, I find myself saying, again, SO? Invis is a form of stealth, not a defence spell. In a magical world, characters are going to be aware of it, and take precautions, regarding it. If the game were a little less mechanical, which is unavoidable because of the Guild structure, then, maybe the spell would behave like that. However: 1) Invis and Unseen spells are General Knowledge spells. 2) For what they do, they're incredibly cheap spells. They offer concealment, and the also provide as much as 40 points of defence, if you can even target the concealed entity. That's very powerful. > > > What you offer is not a solution, either. It just > >adds to the workload of the DM. > > There are other ways around the problem of excessive dice rolls. Then, what is your solution? And, it's not dice rolling that's important, its bookkeeping. > > >Players only > >advance their Witchsight to Rank 14ish. Other > >characters take Unseen to rank 7 and stop. What > >have you achieved by your blind desire to return > >to a situation that was inadequate? > > I have no blind desire to return to the old rules. I'm pointing out that > the new rule is also flawed, and in my opinion, more so than the old rules > (giving that the Celestial Witchsight spell was modified to have an > additional base chance for the entity affected by the spell using their > witchsight). I don't think that it is appropriate to propose a solution at > this stage in the debate, either. If this is your new position, then I don't see you offering anything new to move the discussion, and the state of the game forward. It is, instead, simply fomenting dissent. > >The only thing > >that happens in such a return is that the players > >are no longer encouraged to advance abilities to > >Rank 20. Which is the point of advancing. > > I'm not sure what why advancing every ability to Rank 20 is the point. Or > even a desirable thing, especially in terms of character variety. Of course it is. If there is no point in advancing a spell to Rank 20, then players don't advance that high. You haven't offered anyone an opportunity to meaningfully specialise. All you've said that some poor muggins out there can advance their spell to Rank 20, even though it's pointless, because that's what's going to make them different. That's a pretty pathetic state of affairs. In a game like DQ, there is no chance for a player to advance all of their abilities to max Rank. It takes too long, and too much xp. Giving value to achieving max rank, especially in powerful abilities means that people are pressured to devote themselves in a direction. That creates variety. Not making it meaningless to advance rank, and expend XP. Look at what happened, prior to the change. Almost everyone had Unseen at 7. That is not variety. > > > > This may not be how you wanted it played, but it's what the rules currently > > > say. > > > > >Frankly, the rules are pretty meaningless to the > >running of any kind of interesting game. And, if > >you think otherwise, then I feel sorry for you. > > So why do we bother discussing the rules at all? I discuss what I like. Why do you discuss roleplaying games at all? -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --