The "original intent" when I first heard Jim talking about it seemed to be
that while you snuck it worked, so you could sneak in the open. Spell
casting, missile fire, etc. doesn't seem that sneaky (exceptions like
concealed casting, blowguns aside).

Is a party "happy" to have spells arrive from nowhere, with no way of
finding out where the enemy is (except esp or agony)?

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Dworkin [mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2001 11:11 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Mind Stuff


Should undetectability work as it is now written?

As it stands a character has no chance of detecting an undetectable
opponent. Only if the opponent melee attacks or goes into close with them
will the spell disipate. Thus they are free to cast spells or use missiles
with impunity.

This is well and good for the PCs as they currently have the Evil mind mage
with the spell. But I pity the poor slobs who find this spell being used
against them.

I just forsee wailing and gnashing of teeth.

How does the Sense Danger Talent work? As far as I can see it is still as
ambiguous as ever. How does it work for characters without Spy/Thief/Ranger?

William


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

At 08:14 26/09/01 +1200, you wrote:
>The "original intent" when I first heard Jim talking about it seemed to be
>that while you snuck it worked, so you could sneak in the open. Spell
>casting, missile fire, etc. doesn't seem that sneaky (exceptions like
>concealed casting, blowguns aside).

The spell has gone through several iterations both before and after Jim's 
concept was presented.

I consider it more of a "somebody else's problem" field. A sufficiently 
alert observer, such as a guard, or an adventurer who has been hit from 
nowhere with mind magic, should IMHO get a once perception check to spot 
that there is someone there, but not the peasants.

Back to the paperwork, methinks - but not as much.

I intend to play it that way anyway, and I'm happy to have Tom play it that 
way with Starflower.

>Is a party "happy" to have spells arrive from nowhere, with no way of
>finding out where the enemy is (except esp or agony)?

Obviously not. And ESP isn't that accurate.

Of course, mind mages can still pummel characters from hiding with Mental 
Attack and Phantasm spells.

Incidentally, don't forget that we have to edit "Sense Danger" to bring it 
into line with the new version of Ranger, replacing "detect ambush" with 
"detect hidden". Don't EVER try to ambush a party with a high-ranked ranger 
mind mage with high perception!

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Hang on - there were three reasons for changing undetectability that I
recall:
1) to remove the 1xPC because of the nightmare/paperwork in combat (where
everyone is alert).
2) to stop it making people invulerable in combat
3) To get consistent rulings in play.

You are suggesting breaking all these three reasons.

Please reconsider, Jacqui. Please.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:13 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Stuff


At 08:14 26/09/01 +1200, you wrote:
>The "original intent" when I first heard Jim talking about it seemed to be
>that while you snuck it worked, so you could sneak in the open. Spell
>casting, missile fire, etc. doesn't seem that sneaky (exceptions like
>concealed casting, blowguns aside).

The spell has gone through several iterations both before and after Jim's 
concept was presented.

I consider it more of a "somebody else's problem" field. A sufficiently 
alert observer, such as a guard, or an adventurer who has been hit from 
nowhere with mind magic, should IMHO get a once perception check to spot 
that there is someone there, but not the peasants.

Back to the paperwork, methinks - but not as much.

I intend to play it that way anyway, and I'm happy to have Tom play it that 
way with Starflower.

>Is a party "happy" to have spells arrive from nowhere, with no way of
>finding out where the enemy is (except esp or agony)?

Obviously not. And ESP isn't that accurate.

Of course, mind mages can still pummel characters from hiding with Mental 
Attack and Phantasm spells.

Incidentally, don't forget that we have to edit "Sense Danger" to bring it 
into line with the new version of Ranger, replacing "detect ambush" with 
"detect hidden". Don't EVER try to ambush a party with a high-ranked ranger 
mind mage with high perception!

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Hear hear!!  On top of that the Spell was not re-written to make it tougher,
it has no need to be tougher, if anything the opposite should apply.
Don't interpret an ambiguous re-write to make it a tougher spell than it
originally was.

Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:35 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Stuff


Hang on - there were three reasons for changing undetectability that I
recall:
1) to remove the 1xPC because of the nightmare/paperwork in combat (where
everyone is alert).
2) to stop it making people invulerable in combat
3) To get consistent rulings in play.

You are suggesting breaking all these three reasons.

Please reconsider, Jacqui. Please.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:13 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Stuff


At 08:14 26/09/01 +1200, you wrote:
>The "original intent" when I first heard Jim talking about it seemed to be
>that while you snuck it worked, so you could sneak in the open. Spell
>casting, missile fire, etc. doesn't seem that sneaky (exceptions like
>concealed casting, blowguns aside).

The spell has gone through several iterations both before and after Jim's 
concept was presented.

I consider it more of a "somebody else's problem" field. A sufficiently 
alert observer, such as a guard, or an adventurer who has been hit from 
nowhere with mind magic, should IMHO get a once perception check to spot 
that there is someone there, but not the peasants.

Back to the paperwork, methinks - but not as much.

I intend to play it that way anyway, and I'm happy to have Tom play it that 
way with Starflower.

>Is a party "happy" to have spells arrive from nowhere, with no way of
>finding out where the enemy is (except esp or agony)?

Obviously not. And ESP isn't that accurate.

Of course, mind mages can still pummel characters from hiding with Mental 
Attack and Phantasm spells.

Incidentally, don't forget that we have to edit "Sense Danger" to bring it 
into line with the new version of Ranger, replacing "detect ambush" with 
"detect hidden". Don't EVER try to ambush a party with a high-ranked ranger 
mind mage with high perception!

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Well actually Jacqui is correct. The new write up is not amibiguous. Unless
you make a melee attack or are located  with telepathy/esp/locate  you
cannot be detected. So you can sit there throwing mental attack and
phantasms at an oppenent who has no chance whatsoever of detecting you.

Now this may have been what was intended. Previously you could attack
whilst undectable and remain so, but every opponent got that once
perception check to see you (which was unwieldy). Now nobody can directly
see you (indirect maybe) but you cannot make a melee attack without
cancelling the spell. This leaves the possibility open of attacking an
opponent whilst undetectable, with spells (or missile weapons?).

If a fix is needed (which im not certain it is - but could be persuaded)
then I must say I dont favour Jacqui's proposed one. I would suggest that
if you throw a targeted spell at an entity, and they resist that spell,
then they and they alone get see you from then on (as if they were one of
the nominated exempt entities at casting). This will not require any dice
rolls and hopefully minimal extra record keeping.

/\/\




Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz> on 26/09/2001 11:04:57

Please respond to dq@dq.sf.org.nz

To:   dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc:    (bcc: Mark Simpson/WestpacTrust/NZ)
Subject:  Re: [dq] Mind Stuff




Hear hear!!  On top of that the Spell was not re-written to make it
tougher,
it has no need to be tougher, if anything the opposite should apply.
Don't interpret an ambiguous re-write to make it a tougher spell than it
originally was.

Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:35 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Stuff


Hang on - there were three reasons for changing undetectability that I
recall:
1) to remove the 1xPC because of the nightmare/paperwork in combat (where
everyone is alert).
2) to stop it making people invulerable in combat
3) To get consistent rulings in play.

You are suggesting breaking all these three reasons.

Please reconsider, Jacqui. Please.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2001 10:13 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Stuff


At 08:14 26/09/01 +1200, you wrote:
>The "original intent" when I first heard Jim talking about it seemed to be
>that while you snuck it worked, so you could sneak in the open. Spell
>casting, missile fire, etc. doesn't seem that sneaky (exceptions like
>concealed casting, blowguns aside).

The spell has gone through several iterations both before and after Jim's
concept was presented.

I consider it more of a "somebody else's problem" field. A sufficiently
alert observer, such as a guard, or an adventurer who has been hit from
nowhere with mind magic, should IMHO get a once perception check to spot
that there is someone there, but not the peasants.

Back to the paperwork, methinks - but not as much.

I intend to play it that way anyway, and I'm happy to have Tom play it that
way with Starflower.

>Is a party "happy" to have spells arrive from nowhere, with no way of
>finding out where the enemy is (except esp or agony)?

Obviously not. And ESP isn't that accurate.

Of course, mind mages can still pummel characters from hiding with Mental
Attack and Phantasm spells.

Incidentally, don't forget that we have to edit "Sense Danger" to bring it
into line with the new version of Ranger, replacing "detect ambush" with
"detect hidden". Don't EVER try to ambush a party with a high-ranked ranger
mind mage with high perception!

Jacqui


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

  The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you have received this
 communication by mistake, please advise the sender immediately and delete
                     the message and any attachments.
 Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia





---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

When I first read the spell, my initial reaction was that this was a spell that 
would kill players, wholesale.

I suggested a change that allowed players to make make Stealth checks, even 
when they were in the open, which, it seemed to me, did several things at once, 
without generating any more rules.

1. It provided for an opportunity to break the Undetectability, so that party's 
couldn't be slaughtered, at a whim. Instead of a huge number of PC checks, the 
DM simply rolled the Undetectable character's Stealth, modified by situation 
and Perception. Then, it was relatively easy to determine who could and 
couldn't see them.

2. It denied the Undetectable person the ability to conceal themselves while 
lambasting nine bells out of their opponents. DMs may rule differently on 
different occasions, but by and large, most of them are not going to allow you 
to remain Stealthed, after you have made an attack on someone. This does not 
break the duration of the spell, but it does break that continuous period of 
Stealth.

3. It rewarded the player who identified with their environment, and used it to 
their advantage.

4. Because the Stealth roll is not known to the player, it created an ambience 
of uncertainty. There is nothing quite like sneaking around not entirely sure 
whether your about to be sprung or not, to put you on the edge of your seat.

5. It provided an alternative means of concealment than Invisibility or Walking 
Unseen, both of which can be seen with Witchsight or Enhanced Vision.

The downside with my version of the spell is that it might pressure Mind Mages 
to develop Stealth and Stealth based professions like Spy, Thief and/or 
Assassin. 

Or not. 

Personally, if I were a dedicated Mind Mage, and not interested in these 
skills, I would still learn the spell, because it might be useful to cast on 
another player.

Anyway, I don't really care which way you want to do it, except that it should 
not provide a means of security for any player. It should always be fraught 
with peril to use this spell, because Witchsight doesn't get to see through it. 

In particular, I don't think that this spell should work that well with crowds, 
unless the Undetectable person is trying to blend into a crowd. If they are 
running hither and yon wearing 30 odd pounds of steely violence about 
themselves, it seems to me that they might arouse more than the slight interest 
of passers by. Particularly if the Undetectable person is running from duly 
appointed officers of the Law.





> The "original intent" when I first heard Jim talking about it seemed to be
> that while you snuck it worked, so you could sneak in the open. Spell
> casting, missile fire, etc. doesn't seem that sneaky (exceptions like
> concealed casting, blowguns aside).
> 
> Is a party "happy" to have spells arrive from nowhere, with no way of
> finding out where the enemy is (except esp or agony)?
> 
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dworkin [mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, 23 September 2001 11:11 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Mind Stuff
> 
> 
> Should undetectability work as it is now written?
> 
> As it stands a character has no chance of detecting an undetectable
> opponent. Only if the opponent melee attacks or goes into close with them
> will the spell disipate. Thus they are free to cast spells or use missiles
> with impunity.
> 
> This is well and good for the PCs as they currently have the Evil mind mage
> with the spell. But I pity the poor slobs who find this spell being used
> against them.
> 
> I just forsee wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> How does the Sense Danger Talent work? As far as I can see it is still as
> ambiguous as ever. How does it work for characters without Spy/Thief/Ranger?
> 
> William
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 02:21  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz 
wrote:

> When I first read the spell, my initial reaction was that this was a 
> spell that
> would kill players, wholesale.

yep. It sure does look that way right now. I'm very happy the mind mage 
is on my side right now.

> 2. It denied the Undetectable person the ability to conceal themselves 
> while
> lambasting nine bells out of their opponents. DMs may rule differently 
> on
> different occasions, but by and large, most of them are not going to 
> allow you
> to remain Stealthed, after you have made an attack on someone. This 
> does not
> break the duration of the spell, but it does break that continuous 
> period of
> Stealth.

So if you were undetectable, did something to "break stealth" and then 
later managed to go out of sight of those who had seen you, you could 
then have another go at sneaking past them using your undetectability. 
Although the situational modifiers might have got worse in the meantime.

I like this, but I would also be happy with the stronger (but weaker 
than currently) version that goes something like this (please take into 
account the fact that I don't have a rule book here as I write this):

"The target cannot be detected except by those nominated during the 
casting of this spell or by ESP, Telepathy or Locate (or similar). If 
the target makes an attack (ranged, melee, or close) or touches another 
entity or casts a spell or triggers an item or reads a scroll (or...?) 
they become visible until they can conceal themselves again by normal 
means, whereupon the undetectability takes effect once more."

just throwing out ideas, take 'em or leave 'em.

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I prefer the "must be successfully stealthing" bit. This encourages an
otherwise underutilised skill (useful in Low, but seldom in High), and puts
a component of skill other than just a single spell. It also restricts the
targets' actions appropriately, and vaguely enough (stealth is GM whim) so
the GM can let them get away with stuff or not as they wish to develop their
plot. tension, etc.

It might mean that if you can kill someone with a garotte/dagger quietly, or
sap them briskly, the spell may not come off, but more than likely, almost
all violence is prevented.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Clare West [mailto:clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2001 2:58 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Stuff



On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 02:21  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz 
wrote:

> When I first read the spell, my initial reaction was that this was a 
> spell that
> would kill players, wholesale.

yep. It sure does look that way right now. I'm very happy the mind mage 
is on my side right now.

> 2. It denied the Undetectable person the ability to conceal themselves 
> while
> lambasting nine bells out of their opponents. DMs may rule differently 
> on
> different occasions, but by and large, most of them are not going to 
> allow you
> to remain Stealthed, after you have made an attack on someone. This 
> does not
> break the duration of the spell, but it does break that continuous 
> period of
> Stealth.

So if you were undetectable, did something to "break stealth" and then 
later managed to go out of sight of those who had seen you, you could 
then have another go at sneaking past them using your undetectability. 
Although the situational modifiers might have got worse in the meantime.

I like this, but I would also be happy with the stronger (but weaker 
than currently) version that goes something like this (please take into 
account the fact that I don't have a rule book here as I write this):

"The target cannot be detected except by those nominated during the 
casting of this spell or by ESP, Telepathy or Locate (or similar). If 
the target makes an attack (ranged, melee, or close) or touches another 
entity or casts a spell or triggers an item or reads a scroll (or...?) 
they become visible until they can conceal themselves again by normal 
means, whereupon the undetectability takes effect once more."

just throwing out ideas, take 'em or leave 'em.

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> 
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 02:21  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz 
> wrote:
> 
> > When I first read the spell, my initial reaction was that this was a 
> > spell that
> > would kill players, wholesale.
> 
> yep. It sure does look that way right now. I'm very happy the mind mage 
> is on my side right now.
> 
> > 2. It denied the Undetectable person the ability to conceal themselves 
> > while
> > lambasting nine bells out of their opponents. DMs may rule differently 
> > on
> > different occasions, but by and large, most of them are not going to 
> > allow you
> > to remain Stealthed, after you have made an attack on someone. This 
> > does not
> > break the duration of the spell, but it does break that continuous 
> > period of
> > Stealth.
> 
> So if you were undetectable, did something to "break stealth" and then 
> later managed to go out of sight of those who had seen you, you could 
> then have another go at sneaking past them using your undetectability. 
> Although the situational modifiers might have got worse in the meantime.

Yes. I imagine that, in general, situations would get a lot worse. It's kind of 
hard to pull off non-chalant whistling as you saunter casually away, drenched 
in the blood of your victims.

> I like this, but I would also be happy with the stronger (but weaker 
> than currently) version that goes something like this (please take into 
> account the fact that I don't have a rule book here as I write this):
> 
> "The target cannot be detected except by those nominated during the 
> casting of this spell or by ESP, Telepathy or Locate (or similar). If 
> the target makes an attack (ranged, melee, or close) or touches another 
> entity or casts a spell or triggers an item or reads a scroll (or...?) 
> they become visible until they can conceal themselves again by normal 
> means, whereupon the undetectability takes effect once more."

The problem I have with the phrase 'The target cannot be detected', is that it 
leads to an ambiguity, if you are talking about making this a spell where you 
have to make a Stealth check, because, then, you ARE detectable, without the 
aid of any special magic. The PC of potential observers may be high enough to 
penetrate whatever obfuscation you're trying to engineer.

Actually, I don't see why the target has to be detectable 'by those nominated 
during the casting of this spell...'What's the point of this? I mean...what 
does this rule try to achieve, Clare? Are you trying to ease communications 
between players, or is this attempting to do something else?


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> 
> The downside with my version of the spell is that it might 
> pressure Mind Mages 
> to develop Stealth and Stealth based professions like Spy, 
> Thief and/or 
> Assassin. 
> 
> Or not. 
> 
> Personally, if I were a dedicated Mind Mage, and not 
> interested in these 
> skills, I would still learn the spell, because it might be 
> useful to cast on 
> another player.
> 

I think that under this change to the spell effects, it becomes a good spell
to use to 'power up' those in the party is most able to make use of it.
There are many spells in the game like this. Many mages with, for instance,
Enhance Armour-type spells are lousy fighters. If the best stealther in the
party is the Mind mage (because they are the sneaky Spy type), that is fine
too.

So I don't see this aspect as a downside.

> Anyway, I don't really care which way you want to do it, 
> except that it should 
> not provide a means of security for any player. It should 
> always be fraught 
> with peril to use this spell, because Witchsight doesn't get 
> to see through it. 
> 
 
[different e-mail]
>Actually, I don't see why the target has to be detectable 'by those
nominated 
>during the casting of this spell...'What's the point of this? 

So (some of) the party can interact with each other, and all the player's
DON'T have to do mental gymnastics about what they would do if they hadn't
heard the person sitting on their left tell the GM where they were going.
This type of thing is something that we all have to handle occasionally, but
it is better to minimise the occasions when the party splits up into a
collection of solo adventures. 



I'm fairly sure that the brief for the 'Mind College Clarification' exercise
excluded the possibility of changing spell EMs. The scale of changes for
Undetectability under discussion would warrant a review if implemented, IMO.

Cheers
Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> >Actually, I don't see why the target has to be detectable 'by those
> nominated 
> >during the casting of this spell...'What's the point of this? 
> 
> So (some of) the party can interact with each other, and all the player's
> DON'T have to do mental gymnastics about what they would do if they hadn't
> heard the person sitting on their left tell the GM where they were going.
> This type of thing is something that we all have to handle occasionally, but
> it is better to minimise the occasions when the party splits up into a
> collection of solo adventures. 

 It's definitely possible that that's what Clare meant. But, maybe it won't. I 
don't know. Personally, I don't see it as necessary, if it is considered a kind 
of Stealth assistor. If you speak directly to someone, I would have ruled that 
you are no longer sneaking around, and that the effect had ended for you. 

In any case, I would like to know what Clare's thoughts on the matter were.
> 
> 
> I'm fairly sure that the brief for the 'Mind College Clarification' exercise
> excluded the possibility of changing spell EMs. The scale of changes for
> Undetectability under discussion would warrant a review if implemented, IMO.

Quite possibly.
<shrug>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --