Michael et al.
As I see it, there are five "problems" with the new witchsight rules.
1) GMs aren't used to them yet, and don't instinctively get them right, so
they either need to back up and change what they've just done, or play by
the old rules for that encounter. This will be solved with a little time, if
the GMs *emotionally* accept the rule change.
2) The "something's there but I can't recognise/target it" result when
looking at high-ranked invis can be confusing to players & GMs. Again their
intuitions aren't in tune with the change. Is it counter-intuitive or just a
change?
3) In low level games, Walking Unseen has been depowered, requiring a
behaviour change by players. It was too powerful, now it might be too weak.
4) The PC witchsight talents / spells have not yet acclimatised to the new
rules. This means that PCs who expected to see everything now can't.
(Example, my PC had 108% witchsight at Rank 7 - now he needs Rank 20 for the
same result).
5) The GM needs to reveal the rank of the invis (at least approx).
Most of these problems will go away with a little time, practise &
acceptance. I had little trouble GMing or playing it, but my players and GMs
had trouble with the effects, whenever I used rank 16+ invis either as
player & GM.
On the other hand, Keith's suggestion last month gives an intermediate
result, making unseen useful against very low ranked witchsight, and
high-experience PCs have an advantage over newer ones, resolving most of
issues #2, #3 & #4 above. In summary, I think he suggested :
At Witchsight Rank WRk & Perception PC, a character can see Walking Unseen
of up to Rank WRk*2 + (PC over 15) and Invis of WRk/2 + (PC over 15). Each
player would have to write down once a session what invis & unseen ranks
they could see, next to their talent rank.
I feel this would resolve some of the issues and possbly get greater
acceptance.
-----------
The "Illusion thing" was more a matter of asking people's expectations and
raising awareness. Like Mark Simpson & Michael Woodhams, as a PC
illusionist, I don't need to see through my own illusions or anyone else's.
However, if GMs are generally going to consider that illusions should be
seen through and thus make a significant portion of NPCs ignore them for
other than specific plot/background reasons, then this should be an agreed
part of the campaign. Many illusions are only effective when *everybody* is
fooled, particularly in court/social/non-combat settings. I thought that
raising the topic of illusionists being able to see through illusions would
get people talking about illusions and people seeing through them in
general.
The next step is either to try to write up an exact proposal for a "see
through illusions" spell or talent, or drop the topic. As I'm not interested
in introducing such a spell or talent either as GM or player, I'm not doing
anything about it - but anyone else may, if they wish.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Young [mailto:m_young@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 1 December 2000 8:00 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] New draft of Namer College available
Well I havent read the new Namer college yet AT ALL, so I may be shooting in
the dark but from what I have seen here I have to agree with Mark. I'm not
sure what the problem with Illusions and Witchsight are that you are all
having cos its not a problem when I GM. But then I'm a genius, right? LOL
Be real useful if say Andrew W. explained the problem to me as I REALLY dont
understand what all the fuss is about regard Witchsight and invisible
effects. Ditto with all the illusion problems the rest of you seem to be
having. So someone give me a call or email and try and get it through my
thick skull. Because I'm cant see whats the problem!
Regards,
Michael Young
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Simpson <Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] New draft of Namer College available
> Re - Trueseeing - I still think the spell is a problem if it "sees
through" illusions
> /\/\ark
>
-- to unsubscribe see http://www kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
|