A couple of points:
Using Rk16+ invis against a low or medium party has always been nasty.  In
the same way as using Undetectability against them is nasty.  High levels
have usually been fine against Invis as most of them had or had access to
100% witchsight.
Now (as Andrew mentioned below) the ranks in Witchsight need time to adjust,
and GMs need to be cautious in their use of Rk16+ invis in the same way that
they are cautious in their use of Undetectability.

Keiths suggestion while it may be reasonable and desirable from a balance
point of view, needs to be weighed up against the fact that a large number
of DQ players will never be able to work it out.  I'm talking about the
players who need to be told what their unengaged and engaged IV values are
every pulse.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [SMTP:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 4 December 2000 09:13
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	[dq] Recap of Witchsight & Illusion issues
> 
> 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.
> 
	[Stephen Martin]  snip 


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

I agree with making the effect rank for rank.
However as far as area goes I'm like something along these lines...
Range: 5 feet (+5 per rank)
Area of Effect: 30 foot radius from target (+30 per rank)

A nasty spell ) but it usually affects everybody - including the caster
<Evil Grin>.

Or possibly just range self like agony - only without the immunity.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Martin Dickson [SMTP:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent:	Monday, 4 December 2000 09:15
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	[dq] Bane -- Re: [dq] Namer Specials
> 
> Michael Parkinson wrote:
> 
> > ...you'll have another spell like the current Compel -- few people
> > ranking it, but those who do tending to become (for atleast a few years)
> a
> > 1-spell mage, as they do everything to it to highish ranks.
> 
> I'll play with some numbers for AoE.  My preference is for an area that
> gets
> larger with Rank, and which as Michael says: "may be vacated by almost all
> entities within 1 pulse [say 35' dia] with the Effect within that AoE
> starting
> low & increasing per rank".
> 
> > That being said, I do suspect eitherway that the %age reduction *may*
> need
> > tweaking:
> 
> After some off-board discussions about the efficacy of Bane the per Rank
> effect
> will be dropping in the next draft to a reduction of 3%.  The base may
> also be
> dropped to either 5% or 3%.
> 
> The overall effect of this is to make each Rank in Bane negate only a
> single
> Rank of spells in the area.
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 


-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

Lets face it Stephen. Half the GM's cant figure it out either! This whole
Witchsight, Illusion and Light/Dark has never been a problem for me as a GM.
Just some other dummies out there! At least now I know why they are having
problems.

Regards,
Michael Young


----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Recap of Witchsight & Illusion issues


> A couple of points:
> Using Rk16+ invis against a low or medium party has always been nasty.  In
> the same way as using Undetectability against them is nasty.  High levels
> have usually been fine against Invis as most of them had or had access to
> 100% witchsight.
> Now (as Andrew mentioned below) the ranks in Witchsight need time to
adjust,
> and GMs need to be cautious in their use of Rk16+ invis in the same way
that
> they are cautious in their use of Undetectability.
>
> Keiths suggestion while it may be reasonable and desirable from a balance
> point of view, needs to be weighed up against the fact that a large number
> of DQ players will never be able to work it out.  I'm talking about the
> players who need to be told what their unengaged and engaged IV values are
> every pulse.
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [SMTP:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
> > Sent: Monday, 4 December 2000 09:13
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: [dq] Recap of Witchsight & Illusion issues
> >
> > 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.
> >
> [Stephen Martin]  snip
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>



-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --

I've just had to remove Julia's clear.net.nz from the lists as I was 
getting bounce messages saying the address no longer is valid. Could anyone 
provide me with a new one please?

Keith
(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)



-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --