| Subject | [dq] Revised combat document - stun | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| From | Keith Smith | ||
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:52:23 +1300 | ||
--=====================_43513347==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed I've just received a document from Errol to do with changes to the combat system with regard to stunning. Here ii is as a PDF. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz)
| |||
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:05:28 +1300 |
Isn't Stephen's & Mark's description of "what they would like" roughly what we have now? Or have I missed the point? (With the exception of unseen) Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Martin If we are going to make any further changes to Invis/WitchSight I would prefer something like this... Unseeable spell vs no witchsight => Can't be seen Unseeable spell vs lower ranked witchsight => May be seen as a blue translucent blob. Unseeable spell vs equal or higher ranked witchsight => Can be seen but has a faint blue halo around them. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Simpson might I throw a simpler solution into the melting pot: Where we have two characters, A and B. A is invisible and B is trying to use witchsight to see A, then: *Where B's rank in witchsight is greater than (or equal to) A's rank in invis - B sees A as if he/she was not invis at all ( or add blue tinge for flavour); *Where B's rank in witchsight is less than A's rank in invis - B sees vague shapes but no discernable outline (in my minds eye i'm picturing the "Predator" alien being observed moving around in its cloaking device/chameleon suit). The net effect of this is, say a 30% (or similar as agreed) reduction in the chance to hit the character in melee and not being able to target A with spells. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | [dq-announce] Revised combat document - stun (Word Doc) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?=" | ||||
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:53:03 +1300 | ||||
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
| |||||
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:25:31 +1300 |
There were TWO parts to my email. This first was expolicitly stating reasons to be cautious in changing Invis/Witchsight and saying DO NOT make it any harder for invisible figures to be seen. The second was a "thought of the moment" proposal which might create a better balance between the abilities without making any of them pointless to rank. More comments in reply below... > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Smith [SMTP:phaeton@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2001 18:53 > > >1) Being "unseeable" to your enemy is a HUGE tactical advantage. > >If this is not immediately obvious to you let me know and I'll give you > some > >specific examples. > > Agreed, if they can remain undetected. > [Stephen Martin] It's not hard to remain undetected. In a low to medium adventure it would not be unreasonable for a mage to have Rank 20 Walk Unseen and rank 6 to 10 in some sort of indirect attack spell. Maybe even Rank 11 sleep. If you throw Rank 16 Invis in there it becomes much easier to remain undetected but this shouldn't occur below med+ adventures. > Yes your points are valid. Unfortunately, as I read the current writeup on > > Wizardsight, even a low ranked Wizard sight will detect the presence of a > high ranked invisibility. They may not be able to know exactly where the > invisible entity is, but they can still affect them by using area effect > spells, which basically negates the whole point of being invisible. > [Stephen Martin] Currently (2000 Rulebook) a low ranked withsight will be able to detect the presence of a higher ranked walk unseen or blending. But NOT a higher ranked invisibility. > Also it's very easy to raise perception and, with the current proposal, a > high perception on top of a Wizardsight makes it even easier to see an > invisible entity > [Stephen Martin] Your definition of easy is interesting. Raising your perception is cheap in terms of XP but it may only be raised 1 point per session. It takes a minimum of 2 and a half YEARS to raise your perception by 10 points. Rank 10+ Walk Unseen is easy to get after your first adventure (55 days and 5,500xp), Rank 10 Invis after 2 adventures (though you probably couldn't do much else). Witchsight can advance a bit faster than PC but given the average length of adventures you are limited to 2-3 ranks per adventure. The WitchSight spell falls somewhere between Walk Unseen and Invis. [Stephen Martin] This Section onwards is NOT in the rules - it is an idea. > >Unseeable spell vs no witchsight => Can't be seen > >Unseeable spell vs lower ranked witchsight => May be seen as a blue > >translucent blob. > >Unseeable spell vs equal or higher ranked witchsight => Can be seen but > has > >a faint blue halo around them. > > It's the blue transluscent blob thing I'm having difficulties with at the > moment. It's implying that even a zero rank talent (Wizardsight) can > detect > a rank 20 spell (Invisibility). > [Stephen Martin] Yes! Bang on. With this idea anyone with an unseeable spell (W. Unseen, Invis, Blending) may be seen by someone with Rank 0 witchsight. This is where the stealth modifier comes in. If you are a low level tank in plate and you try to walk past an elf they will see you. If you are a low level hobbit thief with a low rank Unseen or blending on then your chances of sneaking over the town wall undetected will be reasonable. Or at the extreme end - a high level hobbit thief/spy/assassin with rank 20 invis on could walk up to the elven guard, take his favourite dagger and then wander into town. The spell makes it easier and more believable that he could do this. > >Being unseeable adds to your stealth base chance: > >Blending: +1 per rank > >Walk Unseen: +2 per rank > >Invisibility: +3 per rank > > It does? Where in the rulebook is that? I don't see that in the spell > descriptions. > [Stephen Martin] This is NOT in the rulebook, and it never has been. Nor is this a completely original idea, Stealth bonuses have been tossed around in invis/undetectable discussions several times. > Keith > (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) > > > > >Cheers, Stephen. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Keith Smith [SMTP:phaeton@ihug.co.nz] > > > Sent: Tuesday, 27 February 2001 12:42 > > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > > Subject: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 > > > > > > Given Andrew''s suggestions, I'd like to propose the following for the > > > next > > > Gods meeting: > > > > > > 1) Against Walking Unseen. If the Rank of Witchsight is greater than > or > > > equal to the Rank in Walking Unseen, then the target can be seen with > a > > > slight blue sheen. If the Rank of Witchsight is less than the Rank in > > > Walking Unseen then nothing is seen. > > > > > > 2) Against Invisibility/Blending. If the Rank of Witchsight is >= > twice > > > the > > > rank of Invisibility then the target can be seen otherwise nothing is > > > seen. > > > > > > Both Witchsight Ranks are modified by 1 for each point of perception > above > > > 15. > > > > > > As Andrew put it: > > > > > > Witchsight Talent or Spell > > > Can see unseen of up to (Rank + PC over 15). > > > Can see invis/blending of up to (Rank/2 + PC over 15). > > > > > > (Replace Witchsight with Wizardsight for E&E's) > > > > > > Keith > > > (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) > > > > -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:40:48 +1300 |
Yes it is and it probably needs explicit definition of what the affects of the blob/aura level of visibility mean as part of any revision. The main change on both of our emails (and scarily they were completely independent) was that was that any rank WitchSight could detect any invisible person (regardless of the spell used to make them so) and that an equal or higher rank WS could see them. The main counter to these proposals is that there is no point in using any sort of invis against someone with Rank 20 Witchsight. Yes, that's true. It was also true under the old rules but you only needed rank 10 Witchsight then. It is also part of the reason I added the stealth bonuses to my proposal. Cheers, Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [SMTP:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 08:05 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 > > Isn't Stephen's & Mark's description of "what they would like" roughly > what > we have now? Or have I missed the point? > (With the exception of unseen) > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Martin > If we are going to make any further changes to Invis/WitchSight I would > prefer something like this... > > Unseeable spell vs no witchsight => Can't be seen > Unseeable spell vs lower ranked witchsight => May be seen as a blue > translucent blob. > Unseeable spell vs equal or higher ranked witchsight => Can be seen but > has > a faint blue halo around them. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Simpson > might I throw a simpler solution into the melting pot: > > Where we have two characters, A and B. A is invisible and B is trying to > use witchsight to see A, then: > > *Where B's rank in witchsight is greater than (or equal to) A's rank in > invis - B sees A as if he/she was not invis at all ( or add blue tinge for > flavour); > *Where B's rank in witchsight is less than A's rank in invis - B sees > vague > shapes but no discernable outline (in my minds eye i'm picturing the > "Predator" alien being observed moving around in its cloaking > device/chameleon suit). The net effect of this is, say a 30% (or similar > as > agreed) reduction in the chance to hit the character in melee and not > being > able to target A with spells. > > -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Martin Dickson |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:51:12 +1300 |
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Stephen Martin wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE> [Stephen Martin] Currently (2000 Rulebook) a low ranked withsight <br>will be able to detect the presence of a higher ranked walk unseen or <br>blending. But NOT a higher ranked invisibility</blockquote> <p><br>Rules 2000 <br>======== <p>"Wizardsight: The Adept may see objects or entities that are invisible — they appear to have a slight blue sheen around them. If the invisibility effect (excluding Walking Unseen) is of a higher Rank than the Wizardsight, the object or entity may not be clearly identified or directly magically targeted". <br> <p><tt>If hasWizardsight then</tt> <br><tt> If (InvisType != WalkingUnseen) and (InvisRank > WizardsightRank) then</tt> <br><tt> Target = notClearlyIdentified</tt> <br><tt> else</tt> <br><tt> Target = Visible</tt> <br><tt> endif</tt> <br><tt>endif</tt> <p>No? <p>-- <p> _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com <br>_/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 <br> Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 <br> </html> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:56:16 +1300 |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001>I propose that we change the rules format to C++. Then these rule confusions should be a thing of the past.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001>Of course, it ups the entry qualification required to understand the rules, but this should be a positive influence towards developing a shared campaign rather than rule discussions.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001>We can also compile the rules to check if there are any errors.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001>(I do like the stealth bonuses - it encourages invisible people to be subtle / sneaky - it also lets my low character get over 250% stealth - or is that an argument against it?)</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=750195021-27022001>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV align=left class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR></FONT> [Stephen Martin] Currently (2000 Rulebook) a low ranked withsight <BR>will be able to detect the presence of a higher ranked walk unseen or <BR>blending. But NOT a higher ranked invisibility</DIV> <P><BR>Rules 2000 <BR>======== <P>"Wizardsight: The Adept may see objects or entities that are invisible - they appear to have a slight blue sheen around them. If the invisibility effect (excluding Walking Unseen) is of a higher Rank than the Wizardsight, the object or entity may not be clearly identified or directly magically targeted". <BR> <P><TT>If hasWizardsight then</TT> <BR><TT> If (InvisType != WalkingUnseen) and (InvisRank > WizardsightRank) then</TT> <BR><TT> Target = notClearlyIdentified</TT> <BR><TT> else</TT> <BR><TT> Target = Visible</TT> <BR><TT> endif</TT> <BR><TT>endif</TT> <P>No? <P>-- <P> _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com <BR>_/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 <BR> Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 <BR> -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] DQ - Death Aspect |
|---|---|
| From | Jim Arona |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:46:47 +1300 |
Keith Smith wrote: > > >At the time, I said that it should be changed to a bonus to success > >chances, rather than a subtraction to die rolls, but no one wanted to > >hear it, then. I doubt they're doing any listening, now. > > Sort of like what Greater Enchantment does now I presume. > > Interesting idea. Of course the reverse has to occur for birth effects > which means the penalties to death aspected characters will also be lessened. I don't think it's very important that there be a penalty, if the bonus were changed in that fashion. That would just be rule symmetry for the sake of rule symmetry. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?=" |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:03:51 +1300 |
from the 'Errol' aspect of the adara@ihug split personality > [Stephen Martin] It's not hard to remain undetected. In a low to >medium adventure it would not be unreasonable for a mage to have Rank 20 >Walk Unseen and rank 6 to 10 in some sort of indirect attack spell. Maybe >even Rank 11 sleep. > If you throw Rank 16 Invis in there it becomes much easier to remain >undetected but this shouldn't occur below med+ adventures. > Not that I see why you would actually rank above say rk 15 or 16. BC and duration are fine at this level. If you want to guarantee that the spell will work, you would wait until you have more 'spare' XP - I'm sure low to medium mages have better uses for XP than taking BC from 85 to 100. > >> Yes your points are valid. Unfortunately, as I read the current writeup on >> >> Wizardsight, even a low ranked Wizard sight will detect the presence of a >> high ranked invisibility. They may not be able to know exactly where the >> invisible entity is, but they can still affect them by using area effect >> spells, which basically negates the whole point of being invisible. >> > [Stephen Martin] Currently (2000 Rulebook) a low ranked withsight >will be able to detect the presence of a higher ranked walk unseen or >blending. But NOT a higher ranked invisibility. Sorry Stephen , the presence _can_ be detected, just "may not be clearly identified or directly magically targeted". Most Bolts of "whatever" can be targeted at an area/volume, and hence will work here. Likewise Walls and Webs are useful. Which I think is fine and good BTW. > >> Also it's very easy to raise perception and, with the current proposal, a >> high perception on top of a Wizardsight makes it even easier to see an >> invisible entity >> Agree with the para below > [Stephen Martin] Your definition of easy is interesting. Raising >your perception is cheap in terms of XP but it may only be raised 1 point >per session. It takes a minimum of 2 and a half YEARS to raise your >perception by 10 points. Rank 10+ Walk Unseen is easy to get after your >first adventure (55 days and 5,500xp), Rank 10 Invis after 2 adventures >(though you probably couldn't do much else). Witchsight can advance a bit >faster than PC but given the average length of adventures you are limited to >2-3 ranks per adventure. Much faster for your friendly Celestial, who needs a decent number of ranks to get the BC to a level where it is practical to regulaly cast on multiple party members. >The WitchSight spell falls somewhere between Walk >Unseen and Invis. > Agreed, and note the EMs even reflect this! > [Stephen Martin] This Section onwards is NOT in the rules - it is >an idea. > >> >Unseeable spell vs no witchsight => Can't be seen >> >Unseeable spell vs lower ranked witchsight => May be seen as a blue >> >translucent blob. >> >Unseeable spell vs equal or higher ranked witchsight => Can be seen but >> has >> >a faint blue halo around them. >> >> It's the blue transluscent blob thing I'm having difficulties with at the >> moment. It's implying that even a zero rank talent (Wizardsight) can >> detect >> a rank 20 spell (Invisibility). >> > [Stephen Martin] Yes! Bang on. With this idea anyone with an >unseeable spell (W. Unseen, Invis, Blending) may be seen by someone with >Rank 0 witchsight. This is where the stealth modifier comes in. > If you are a low level tank in plate and you try to walk past an elf >they will see you. If you are a low level hobbit thief with a low rank >Unseen or blending on then your chances of sneaking over the town wall >undetected will be reasonable. > Or at the extreme end - a high level hobbit thief/spy/assassin with >rank 20 invis on could walk up to the elven guard, take his favourite dagger >and then wander into town. The spell makes it easier and more believable >that he could do this. > As Ian W has just said to me (as he sits in the corner and writes down some more stuff about Undetectability), how do you stealth around wearing a blue glow (or being a blue blob, even a translucent one) IE the spell reduces their ability to stealth, rather than augmenting it - better off just stealthing really? This runs counter to the bit about adding to stealth... [New suggestion] Perhaps the blue blob reference should have 'providing they are otherwise noticed' added (that would need re-draughting, but Ian wants the computer for something more important.) Have any GMs played this? [Errol's Opinion Here] I don't like this bit of the proposal : >> >Unseeable spell vs lower ranked witchsight => May be seen as a blue >> >translucent blob. Invis is better than WU - the difference should be more than the extra stealthy-ness due to lack of shadow etc. >> >Being unseeable adds to your stealth base chance: >> >Blending: +1 per rank >> >Walk Unseen: +2 per rank >> >Invisibility: +3 per rank >> This stealth stuff is good in overall concept, but too inflexible. GMs should (and I am sure will in a sensible manner) treat each situation on its own merits. How about some guidelines under Stealth? There are times when blending is better than WU (e.g. sneaking past a single guard walking a beat near a big light source - just freeze when they turn towards you) Cheers Errol -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Jim Arona |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:05:43 +1300 |
Keith Smith wrote: > > >1) Being "unseeable" to your enemy is a HUGE tactical advantage. > >If this is not immediately obvious to you let me know and I'll give you some > >specific examples. > > Agreed, if they can remain undetected. > > >2) Usually only one third of a party have a chance to see invisible. If you > >have a celestial this goes up as they can cast their spell. > > > >3) Invisibility does not need to be toughened up in comparison to Walk > >Unseen. It is a more powerful spell. You don't cast a shadow or have a > >reflection, it's targetable on objects, at Rank 16 you can attack and have > >it stay on (very scary). > > > >4) It is much easier to get a high rank in Walk Unseen or Blending than it > >is to get a high rank in WitchSight. > > > >What is the point of all these points? DON'T MAKE IT EASY TO BE > >"UNSEEABLE". > > Yes your points are valid. Unfortunately, as I read the current writeup on > Wizardsight, even a low ranked Wizard sight will detect the presence of a > high ranked invisibility. They may not be able to know exactly where the > invisible entity is, but they can still affect them by using area effect > spells, which basically negates the whole point of being invisible. I don't think it was ever intended that Witchsight automatically detect the presence of concealment spells. If the spell description says it does that, then it is a stupid description. The original idea was that if your concealment spell was higher than the Witchsight, then the concealed person would have to do something to draw attention to themselves. If they did draw attention to themselves, possibly with a failed Stealth check, then their presence, but not specific location would be detected by someone with Witchsight. The fact that area affect spells can still be used on concealed targets is not news. It's always been the case that an area of effect spell targets everything inside it's stated dimension. > > Also it's very easy to raise perception and, with the current proposal, a > high perception on top of a Wizardsight makes it even easier to see an > invisible entity > > >Unseeable spell vs no witchsight => Can't be seen > >Unseeable spell vs lower ranked witchsight => May be seen as a blue > >translucent blob. > >Unseeable spell vs equal or higher ranked witchsight => Can be seen but has > >a faint blue halo around them. > > It's the blue transluscent blob thing I'm having difficulties with at the > moment. It's implying that even a zero rank talent (Wizardsight) can detect > a rank 20 spell (Invisibility). Only if the concealed entity draws an observer's attention. > > >Being unseeable adds to your stealth base chance: > >Blending: +1 per rank > >Walk Unseen: +2 per rank > >Invisibility: +3 per rank > > It does? Where in the rulebook is that? I don't see that in the spell > descriptions. I haven't seen it either. That doesn't stop it being a good idea. But, I don't really see any need to increase the Stealth base chance. Being concealed means that you get to use Stealth in situations that, normally, would never be allowed. That's advantage enough. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Jim Arona |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:22:13 +1300 |
I am very surprised that your low level can get to 250% Stealth, unless you mean that one day, your low level character can get to 250% Stealth. If it is the first case, then I don't like it. If it is the second case, then I don't really care too much. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?=" |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:13:27 +1300 |
Good summary Jim, I believe these are the two moot points for the initial part of the discussion, as we need to know the principles and circumstances surrounding unseeable people. Once these are resolved, we can discuss relative ranks, EMs etc. Other wise our assumptions may get in teh way of agreement. Lets look forward to what we want from future games, rather than focus on the baggage of our past games... Ian From: Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> >the concealed person would have to do something to draw >attention to themselves. If they did draw attention to themselves, >possibly with a failed Stealth check, then their presence, but not >specific location would be detected by someone with Witchsight. > >Being >concealed means that you get to use Stealth in situations that, >normally, would never be allowed. That's advantage enough. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:02:09 +1300 |
Run-Time Error in Line 33: Specification Not Correct, Shoot Analyst and re-compile (Error 666). Ooops, must read the rules more often. Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Dickson [SMTP:martin.dickson@peace.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 10:51 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 > > Stephen Martin wrote: > > [Stephen Martin] Currently (2000 Rulebook) a low ranked > withsight > will be able to detect the presence of a higher ranked walk unseen > or > blending. But NOT a higher ranked invisibility > > > Rules 2000 > ======== > > "Wizardsight: The Adept may see objects or entities that are invisible - > they appear to have a slight blue sheen around them. If the invisibility > effect (excluding Walking Unseen) is of a higher Rank than the > Wizardsight, the object or entity may not be clearly identified or > directly magically targeted". > > > If hasWizardsight then > If (InvisType != WalkingUnseen) and (InvisRank > WizardsightRank) then > Target = notClearlyIdentified > else > Target = Visible > endif > endif > > No? > > -- > > _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com > _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 > Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 > > -- 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] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 - The Evils of GLOW |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:16:33 +1300 |
Glow should never have been used in the effects description. It is a contendor for causing more stupid rules interpretations than any other word. Being invisible does not cause you to cast light. Using witchsight to observe someone does not cause them to start illuminating the area. While this may lead to some comic scenarios it is not reasonable. Imagine that someone invisible is wearing a form fitting bubble of blue glass. It doesn't make them easier to see it makes them look odd when you do see them. Perhaps we should say that invis people appear to be octarine translucent shapes, the whole idea is that it is obvious that the person you see is using some form of invisibility magic. Not that being invisible makes you easier to spot by people with witchsight. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 12:04 > > As Ian W has just said to me (as he sits in the corner and writes down > some > more stuff about Undetectability), how do you stealth around wearing a > blue > glow (or being a blue blob, even a translucent one) IE the spell reduces > their ability to stealth, rather than augmenting it - better off just > stealthing really? This runs counter to the bit about adding to stealth... > > -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Smith |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:25:48 +1300 |
> > Yes your points are valid. Unfortunately, as I read the current writeup on > > Wizardsight, even a low ranked Wizard sight will detect the presence of a > > high ranked invisibility. They may not be able to know exactly where the > > invisible entity is, but they can still affect them by using area effect > > spells, which basically negates the whole point of being invisible. > >I don't think it was ever intended that Witchsight automatically detect >the presence of concealment spells. If the spell description says it >does that, then it is a stupid description. > >The original idea was that if your concealment spell was higher than the >Witchsight, then the concealed person would have to do something to draw >attention to themselves. If they did draw attention to themselves, >possibly with a failed Stealth check, then their presence, but not >specific location would be detected by someone with Witchsight. (blinding flash of revelation....) Now that makes a heck of a lot more sense. I've taken the description of Wizardsight to imply that they're going to see that slight blue sheen regardless. If the concealed person with a high ranked concealment spell is standing in an open space and that space is looked at by a low ranked Witchsight then, assuming the target isn't drawing any attention to themselves then are they detected. By the current talent description they are, but by the above, they may not be if they succeed in their stealth. Maybe my invisible bandits up the trees had a chance after all.... >The fact that area affect spells can still be used on concealed targets >is not news. It's always been the case that an area of effect spell >targets everything inside it's stated dimension. No worries with that what so ever. > > >Being unseeable adds to your stealth base chance: > > >Blending: +1 per rank > > >Walk Unseen: +2 per rank > > >Invisibility: +3 per rank > > > > It does? Where in the rulebook is that? I don't see that in the spell > > descriptions. > >I haven't seen it either. That doesn't stop it being a good idea. But, I >don't really see any need to increase the Stealth base chance. Being >concealed means that you get to use Stealth in situations that, >normally, would never be allowed. That's advantage enough. It is a good idea, given what you've said. The whole thing is starting to make more sense now. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Smith |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:33:57 +1300 |
> [Stephen Martin] This Section onwards is NOT in the rules - it is >an idea. My apologies. The way you said it implied it was already in the rules and I was wondering if I had missed something in tracking all the changes. > > It's the blue transluscent blob thing I'm having difficulties with at the > > moment. It's implying that even a zero rank talent (Wizardsight) can > > detect > > a rank 20 spell (Invisibility). > > > [Stephen Martin] Yes! Bang on. With this idea anyone with an >unseeable spell (W. Unseen, Invis, Blending) may be seen by someone with >Rank 0 witchsight. This is where the stealth modifier comes in. Ah ha. Having the stealth modifier makes sense. Currently I was thinking they were automatically detected regardless. > [Stephen Martin] This is NOT in the rulebook, and it never has >been. Nor is this a completely original idea, Stealth bonuses have been >tossed around in invis/undetectable discussions several times. So let's do it then. Your suggestion actually makes more sense than mine. Thanks for your input. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - 250% Stealth - wandering off topic... |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:40:24 +1300 |
Let me try to guess... AG 25 = 75% Hobbit + 20% Rk 5 Stealth + 25% Rk 5 Thief + 5% Rk 5 Assassin + 10% Rk 5 Spy + 10% Rk 10 Greater +10% Cloth Armour +5% Total = 160% Proposed Rk 20 Invis + 60% = 220% Impressive but without adding more ranks than would be reasonable for a low character or any stealth items I don't see how you make the final 30%. Of course at the top end this would be AG 26 = 79% Hobbit + 20% Rk 10 Stealth + 50% Rk 10 Thief + 10% Rk 10 Assassin + 20% Rk 10 Spy + 20% Rk 20 Greater +20% Stealth Armour +25% Total = 244% Add the proposed Rk 20 Invis to get 304% BC! So what do you after you have snuck through heaven and hell undetected? > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Arona [SMTP:jimarona@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 10:22 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 > > I am very surprised that your low level can get to 250% Stealth, unless > you mean that one day, your low level character can get to 250% Stealth. > > If it is the first case, then I don't like it. If it is the second case, > then I don't really care too much. > > > > -- 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] Witchsight v Invisibility - No Rules Change? |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:01:54 +1300 |
Current Rules: "WitchSight: The Adept may see objects or entities that are invisible - they appear to have a slight blue sheen around them. If the invisibility effect (excluding Walking Unseen) is of a higher Rank than the WitchSight, the object or entity may not be clearly identified or directly magically targeted". Any Rank W.S. vs Any Rank Unseen => Can be seen. Lower Rank W.S. vs Blending or Invis => Visible Blob can't be magically targeted. Equal or higher Rank W.S. vs Blending or Invis => Can be seen. Assumptions/Interpretations: An invisibility type spell will never increase the chance of being spotted. An invisibility type spell may make it possible to use stealth in situations where it is not normally possible. An invisibility type spell may decrease the chance of being detected when attempting to sneak. ******************************** Given the above, is there any need to make a rules change at all? What are the problems? NB One downside of these rules is that there is no point in ranking your Walk Unseen beyond the benefit of higher base chance and duration - both of which are very reasonable to start with. But I don't think that this alone is sufficient reason to change the rules. Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - No Rules Change? |
|---|---|
| From | Michael Woodhams |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:24:54 +1300 |
I like the general idea that invis aids stealth. However, consider a PC trying to stealth past a blind guard through rank 20 darkness wearing Godzilla Slippers of Loud Footsteps. A rank 20 invis will increase their stealth by 60%??? (OK, so GM discresion can take care of this extreme case.) As an idle thought: we could do stealth by saying the PC has x% chance of being seen, y% chance of being heard, z% chance of being smelled, so roll against x+y+z% and try to beat it by more than the guard's perception. This way, once the chance of being seen has fallen to 0%, any extra effects (invis, unseen, darkness, etc.) do not effect the base chance. Taking this even further, the importance of the various senses should vary according to who/what is guarding (so you can't stealth past a wolf without removing your smell.) You could add a percentage to be detected on ESP, and have mind cloak aid your sneak-vs-ESP chance. I don't know if a system like this can be created without requiring exessive calculations. I don't think I'll try, but anyone else is welcome to. (First, mess with invisiblity rules; then stealth; tomorow, THE WORLD! Bwahahahaha!) Michael W. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Mark 3 - The Non-Evils of SHEEN |
|---|---|
| From | "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Ian__Wood_&_Ellen__Hume=A0&_Adara_Wood?=" |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:06:41 +1300 |
Great!
So everyone is clear on this distracting side issue then.
See suggested changing of four instances of one word to a different word
below.
From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz>
>It [ being Invis/Blend/WU] doesn't make them easier to see, it makes them
look odd when you
>do see them.
>
Absolutely!, especially once you (that is "I") actually read the spell
description(s) involved.
We should (quickly) ensure that this is clear to any first-time reader of
the rule-book, so they don't make incorrect assumptions.
>Perhaps we should say that invis people appear to be octarine translucent
>shapes, the whole idea is that it is obvious that the person you see is
>using some form of invisibility magic
I (like others, presumably) was remembering the "'glow" from earlier
versions (but not the official DQv2, cause it is not mentioned there). The
current write-ups for the visability magics say "they have a slight blue
sheen around them." While this is a massive improvenment over "glow", it
still gives an impression that is at least shiny, and therefore more visible
{SHEEN n. brightness; lustre.}. A incorrect impression, but can we do
better? Some time with thesasus and dictionary suggests:
TINT n.
1. a delicate colour or hue; tinge.
or
TINGE n.
1. a slight colouring; tint.
2. a slight trace, flavour, odour, shade [basically can apply to any sense
or aspect]
Neither of these words have any conatation of shininess, dullness,
reflectivity, or anything similar.
The absolutely simplist improvement (while we are making various minor fixes
to the rulebook anyway) would be:
Replace "sheen" with "tinge" in the following:
E&E (T-1) Wizardsight
Illusion (T-2) Illusion
Celestial (G-7) Witchsight
Witchcraft (T-3) Witchsight
Slightly less simple change:
There is no need to use a colour with "tinge". If the reference to "blue" is
removed (see below), the exact method used to indicate that a 'concealment'
effect is in use on the target being observed is not specified. What the
Adept 'sees' to indicate "## WARNING: Concealment Effect In Use ##" could be
anything that the player feels works in the circumstances. No-one else needs
to know what the specific effect is: the GM just says "You see a figure at
[location]. They are under an invisibility effect." (the Adept can't tell
which of Invis/Blend/WU it is). Note that Mind's Undetectability is/will
specifically exclude itself from "direct magical observation", so this does
not have to be stated in these Talents/Spell.
Therefore:
New description for Talents and Spell above, with college-specific stuff to
be added to each (assuming no change to the rules governing what can see
which spells):
Effects: The Adept may see objects or entities that
are invisible — they have a slight tinge to their appearance.
If the invisibility effect (excluding
Walking Unseen) is of a higher Rank than the
Wizardsight, the object or entity may not be clearly
identified or directly magically targeted.
Errol (Ian casts new, hoopy version of Undetectability - real world effect =
gets daughter from school)
-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - No Rules Change? |
|---|---|
| From | RMansfield@aj.co.nz |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:18:09 +1300 |
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Looking at the discussion it seems that no one agrees on what is specifically wrong with Witchsight v Invisibility and therefore everybody has a different approach. I couldn't even figure out the current rules from the emails (not being C++ literate) and had to go back to my book. And I definitely can't figure out what the group is trying to achieve.</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Does the group want to change Witchsight v Invisibility so that sometimes invis targets can't be seen? I remember when the last change was done the idea of Invis being 'completely' unseen wasn't approved; the majority wanted W/s to still detect any invisible target. </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Are people just confused by the concept that 'you know some bastard is hiding in the corner but you can't pinpoint them'? </font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It's a shame that the Terminator effect is too techo to quote. Can any one come up with a single line description of this effect that is easy to understand?</font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Re: adding a stealth 'bit' to invisibility. </font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I hate this, because it complicates the spell unnecessarily. If you want invis people to have to sneak, then say that the spell doesn't cover sounds. That way you don't have to balance two spells but can use the stealth rules. Personally I don't think stealth needs to come into it at all. </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Witchsight / Wizardsight</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Effects: The Adept may see objects or entities which are invisible and they appear to have a slight blue sheen around them. If the invisibility effect (excluding Walking Unseen) is of a higher Rank than the Witchsight, the object or entity may not be clearly identified or directly magically targeted. </font> <br> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Alternately amused and confused : - )</font> | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] DQ - Killing small animals |
|---|---|
| From | Jacqui Smith |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:37:43 +1300 |
At 18:49 27/02/01 +1300, you wrote: >on waht charge would someone be before the guild council? A cat is just a >non-sentient animal and there are always plenty of strays around. Conduct unbecoming to a Guild Member? Actually I suspect that cat-lovers among the rest of the party might have words on the subject. Could get interesting... Jacqui -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Witchsight v Invisibility - Almost Visible |
|---|---|
| From | Stephen Martin |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:38:44 +1300 |
Translucent is probably the best description. For those ex- or current D&Ders think Gelatinous Cube (mostly without the tempting magic weapons floating inside it). Or imagine them made out of medium grade glass. You can tell where they are by how they disrupt your view. Blue is traditional in DQ so add a blue tint or tinge to your gelatin or glass and you have an entity with high rank Invis. Now anyone for dessert? The E&Es are serving life-size hobbit shaped blueberry jelly outside the casting chambers :} Don't mind the screams that's just the illusionists trying to crash our party. Cheers, Stephen. Happy to help keep the amusement confusing. > -----Original Message----- > From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz [SMTP:RMansfield@aj.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2001 16:18 > > Are people just confused by the concept that 'you know some bastard is > hiding in the corner but you can't pinpoint them'? > It's a shame that the Terminator effect is too techo to quote. Can any > one come up with a single line description of this effect that is easy to > understand? > > Rosemary > Alternately amused and confused : - ) -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] DQ - Killing small animals |
|---|---|
| From | Clare West |
| Date | Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:46:06 +1300 |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at 04:37 PM, Jacqui Smith wrote: > At 18:49 27/02/01 +1300, you wrote: > >on waht charge would someone be before the guild council? A cat is just a > >non-sentient animal and there are always plenty of strays around. > > Conduct unbecoming to a Guild Member? > > Actually I suspect that cat-lovers among the rest of the party might have > words on the subject. Could get interesting... If the Guild can survive having Demon worshippers and Powers of Light worshippers and Necromancers and Undead and Eris knows what else on its roll, I fail to see how a bit of cat sacrifice is going to cause trouble. Conduct Unbecoming my foot clare -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- | |