| Subject | Re: Witchsight |
|---|---|
| From | Jim Arona |
"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > Intellectually, I agree with most of Jim's points on the new Witchsight, but > then when I see the effects in action in the game, I wonder why it doesn't > feel "right". It could be just a matter of getting used to the changes. I > would be interested in hearing from more people to get an idea of who is > finding the new Witchsight difficult to adjust to or fundamentally flawed, > and who is finding it better. > > Jim - the reason that I didn't put forward concrete or structured argument > for my position is because I am trying to air a nagging doubt and see if > others have the same or similar doubts, rather than declaiming an > unchangable opinion. Then, basically, you're wasting time. I DO think it works well. Prior to the change, there was no reason to rank Walking Unseen beyond 7. And, Witchsight went to about 14 or so and stopped. Yet, these are abilities that advance as high as 20. There was no game pressure to advance them. Therefore, they weren't advanced. This change means that there is a positive game pressure to advance the spells and the talents to 20. That's one bonus. The other one, and probably the most important one, is that it is now relatively easy to not only determine who can see what, but to be able to predict it. Prior to this, the rank of the concealment spell had no impact on the rank of the ability used to detect it. Now, they do, with a resultant pressure to develop both. I like that. I also like knowing that an NPC will be detected by the character in the party who has chosen to become special by having really good ranks in Witchsight... In large part, DQ suffered from, and, going by some of these posts, still suffering from catastrophic counter syndrome, where the effect is incredibly powerful, until a condition is achieved where it is completely invalidated. The fact that it was a dice roll, meant that a character like Silverfoam might not detect the invisible thing, whereas, a one adventure E&E mage might. The incidence in which it might happen is so rare that it might make a good story, but given the amount of characters being played, and the amount of dice rolling required, such things will happen too frequently. Perhaps it would be best if I recapitulated how I interpret their workings. 1) If you have Witchsight then you can detect the presence of something in a general area concealed by Invis, Walking Unseen or Blending, if it is making itself obvious to you. Which means that if someone is attempting to sneak past, then the Witchsighted individual may not notice the concealed individual(s). 2) If the rank of the concealment spell is higher than the rank of the Witchsight, then the concealed individual(s) may not identified, although they may be noticed. Which is to say that if your rank in Witchsight isn't good enough, but the concealed individual(s) blow the stealth roll, then you might know that there's something concealed in the area. This means that an invisible burning torch might be detected as being invisible, if someone is looking for it, but otherwise, will probably not be noticed, unless it's dark, or they're close enough to feel the heat, or downwind of it, etc. And, so on. I don't see that it's hard to understand, unless you combine it with the idea of the 'blue glow', which meant that you were either concealed by a spell, or using Stealth, but not both. Which makes little sense. Being concealed still has value, but it means that the guards at every city gate don't have to be covered with high ranked witchsight spells. Consider the ecology of the magical world in which we live. > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, 20 October 2000 9:34 p.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Witchsight > > "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > > > I was thinking of a slightly more open discussion. > > 1) Does the current Witchsight solution work? > > Yes. > > > 2) What problems does it have? > > DMs and players are not used to it. > > > 3) Does it achieve the goals it set out to achieve? > > Yes > > > 4) Are these goals still relevant? > > Yes > > > 5) Did the old version "work" better? > > No, it stunk. > > > And only after all of that, (6) are there any alternatives that we haven't > > trialed/considered that might work better? > > Who knows. Are you offering one? Or just saying > that we should get rid of the current solution, > because that way we might attract a better one? > > > My thoughts are: > > 1) ish, but not well at all levels > > If it's a thought that you have, I'd be interested > in you expressing in what way it works 'ish'. I, > sadly, am not gifted enough to penetrate the > workings of your mind. > > > 2) (a) the all there / blue glow / nothing there trinary state is > confusing > > to many (this may lessen with time) > > Who knows. You haven't actually stated that it is > a problem. > Without knowing what you're talking about, I don't > see how it's any different to the intensely binary > state of every player, and every NPC has to roll > to determine whether or not they can see the > Invis, and every entity gifted or cursed with the > ability then has to keep track of who can see > what. > I can see how it's a great deal better > > > (b) it devalues walking unseen on low to medium games (where some > people > > have some witchsight, but it wasn't automatic) > > Walking Unseen and Blending were incredibly > powerful effects, at low, med or high levels, and > they meant that there was no reason to rank them > beyond 7 or so. Then, it was a matter of > increasing your Rank in Witchsight to the point > that you could see 99% of unseen, blended or > invisible things. Which, is pretty bloody boring. > By the way, if you're a Celestial, the Witchsight > Spell went to 10, and stopped there. > > > (c) the "I can see something but I can't target it" is only a > functional > > distinction in combat - its otherwise obvious to all with Rank 0 > witchsight > > that a rank 20 invis person is going by, > > No, it's not. It means that a person with Rank 20 > Unseen or Invis might be able to sneak past anyone > with lower than Rank 20 Witchsight. It is not > completely obvious. If it is being played that > way, then people are mistaking what was intended. > > > (d) it creates confusion in parties where people can't target each > other > > because the invis's are too high > > Well, you can always cast Invis or Unseen lower > than the player's Rank in Witchsight. If people > choose NOT to do that, then that's there problem. > It's not a problem with design. It's a problem > with common sense. > > -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- > > -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | RE: DQ Rules 2000 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | "Jason Saggers" | ||||
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
| |||||
| Subject | RE: Seeing through Illusion |
|---|---|
| From | "Michael Parkinson" |
Dear Michael W. & all, > I don't think anyone should be able to see through illusions (except by > methods that would also see through real objects.) I think DQ illusions > have a real, physical effect (although often only on light). You > can't see > through an illusary wall because no light passes through it. Don't argue from this point -- either you are using a false analogy (e.g. real objects are counterspelled) or defining what an Illusion "actually" is, idiosyncratically, & then using that definition to bolster your reasoning which produced the definition in the first place. Argue from the view point of what we, as players (including GMs) want. I would prefer it, for the game, if the illusions could see through illusions that they had "detected" -- preferably with some sort of requirement concerning ranks -- but not automatically or using some method involving dice-rolling. E.g., say Illusionist has an "Ill-sight" spell that permitted them to see/sense through any illusion (as if it was a ghost) of lesser rank IF the illusion knows its an illusion; automatically sees through illusion of 1/3rd Rank or less. NB: it's a vague idea only, I do expect to be corrected by those who understand the college -- & I do hope that *someone* out there does understand the college; I'm sure I don't. Frankly, I would like the suggested spell to have a slight barb (a la the spell "Rune of Truth") -- e.g., cannot perceive/unaffected by illusion magic of less that 1/3rd rank of Ill-sight (a *mostly* beneficial aspect). > (Does an opaque illusion protect against a flash of light? Michael P. Michael Parkinson Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian Science Library, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, AUCKLAND, N.Z. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 ------------------------------------------------- He [Fermat] enjoyed challenges himself, and naively took it for granted that his correspondents did too. -- Simmons, "Calculus Gems" (1992) ====================================== -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | RE: Seeing through Illusion |
|---|---|
| From | "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" |
This idea of Michael Parkinson's is the sort of idea I was thinking of (details to be debated later if relevant). The question is, would it make our game better? Michael Parkinson thinks so, I think so, does anyone else care? NB: getting 99% detect illusion is even easier than doing this with witchsight (possible at rank 7-8) - reasons to rank this talent would be good. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Michael Parkinson [mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz] I would prefer it, for the game, if the illusions could see through illusions that they had "detected" -- preferably with some sort of requirement concerning ranks -- but not automatically or using some method involving dice-rolling. E.g., say Illusionist has an "Ill-sight" spell that permitted them to see/sense through any illusion (as if it was a ghost) of lesser rank IF the illusion knows its an illusion; automatically sees through illusion of 1/3rd Rank or less. NB: it's a vague idea only, I do expect to be corrected by those who understand the college -- & I do hope that *someone* out there does understand the college; I'm sure I don't. Frankly, I would like the suggested spell to have a slight barb (a la the spell "Rune of Truth") -- e.g., cannot perceive/unaffected by illusion magic of less that 1/3rd rank of Ill-sight (a *mostly* beneficial aspect). Michael P. ------------------------------------------------- He [Michael Parkinson] enjoyed challenges himself, and took it for granted that his correspondents did too. ====================================== -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | RE: Seeing through Illusion |
|---|---|
| From | Sally Jackson |
It seems to me as a step towards to the "original" flavour of illusions of DQ, where they could be disbelieved by anyone. (It has taken quite a few years to stop the habit of wanting to disbelieve anything abnormal.) I think this sort of spell would be a good compromise, between the original weakness of having anyone disbelieve an illusion, and their current strength of being "real". It adds an element of tension to using illusions, where it its no longer a dead cert than one can get away with them. Besides, (assuming the spell is self only), it gives a reason for taking an illusionist in the party :) For campaign consistency, I believe it is better to have an actual ability, such as this propsed spell, than having GMs make up appropriate abilities for the NPCs from nowhere. Regards, Sally At 13:22 25/10/00 +1300, Andrew wrote: >This idea of Michael Parkinson's is the sort of idea I was thinking of >(details to be debated later if relevant). The question is, would it make >our game better? Michael Parkinson thinks so, I think so, does anyone else >care? > >NB: getting 99% detect illusion is even easier than doing this with >witchsight (possible at rank 7-8) - reasons to rank this talent would be >good. > >Andrew > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Parkinson [mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz] > >I would prefer it, for the game, if the illusions could see through >illusions >that they had "detected" -- preferably with some sort of requirement >concerning ranks -- but not automatically or using some method involving >dice-rolling. > >E.g., say Illusionist has an "Ill-sight" spell that permitted them to >see/sense through any illusion (as if it was a ghost) of lesser rank IF the >illusion knows its an illusion; automatically sees through illusion of >1/3rd Rank or less. >NB: it's a vague idea only, I do expect to be corrected by those who >understand the college -- & I do hope that *someone* out there does >understand the college; I'm sure I don't. >Frankly, I would like the suggested spell to have a slight barb (a la the >spell "Rune of Truth") -- e.g., cannot perceive/unaffected by illusion >magic of less that 1/3rd rank of Ill-sight (a *mostly* beneficial aspect). > >Michael P. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | RE: Seeing through Illusion |
|---|---|
| From | Jacqui Smith |
At 13:22 25/10/00 +1300, you wrote: >NB: getting 99% detect illusion is even easier than doing this with >witchsight (possible at rank 7-8) - reasons to rank this talent would be >good. If you're talking about Enhanced Vision, be warned that this talent is definitely flavour of the season for PCs to acquire. Keith was running a party last session where four out of six had some species of Enhanced Vision, and only one was an Illusionist... Jacqui -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |