Jim wrote:

> 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.

My proposal (and I still think I like your stealth version better) was 
one where you didn't make Stealth Checks. I made this proposal to see 
what the reaction would be - did people prefer the stealth route or just 
a weakening of the current writeup. I would propose a different wording 
if Stealth Checks were to be made.

On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 05:17  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz 
wrote:

>>> 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.

Mostly what I was doing was not changing the spell from the *current* 
writeup too much. In the current writeup you get to nominate X (where X 
varies with rank up to about 6 or 7 at rank 20) entities who can see 
(detect) the target when you cast the spell. This is there so that the 
spell doesn't split the party into individuals who can't interact. Both 
GMs (or at least me as a GM) and players prefer parties not to get split 
up to much.

It is *easier* to roleplay effectively when you don't know what your 
character doesn't know. Working out how much evidence is required to 
allow your character to realise what you already know is tricky. Working 
out what you would do if you *didn't* know that your comrade was 
bleeding to death in the corner. Dealing with these situations ethically 
is the sign of a good roleplayer. (Just as it is the sign of a good 
bridge player.) IMHO opinion of course - but on my games MHO decides 
your EP.

Mostly I see the ability to nominate people who can see the target as a 
way of allowing whole parties or at least a few people to sneak 
effectively as a unit. If we go the stealth route then speaking would 
indeed break the effect, but hand signals would not. Being hit and 
downed would also break the effect so you wouldn't run the risk of 
undetectably bleeding to death in the corner as you used to.

I am not wedded to that part of the spell, but I do think it a useful 
effect for the flow of the game.

clare
(note again please that I don't actually have the current writeup in 
front of me - I am working from memory)


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

For those that don't have a copy handy, plus Stealth. Note that stealth
rolls are made _once_ for each situation, subtracting the highest =
Perception
that is relevent.

While I'm kind of on the topic, we are just waiting for the final rules =
pdf
from Ross, so the file should be available soon-ish, people's workload
permitting.

Cheers
Errol

Undetectability (S-11)
Range: Touch
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 15%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion, Investment
Target: Entity
Effects: The target is totally undetectable by phys-ical
senses. Changes to the physical environment
which are made by the target and are entirely within
5 feet (+ 1 / Rank) (e.g. leaves tracks, opens doors,
picks up an object) will be unnoticed by normal ob-servers.
Other entities will automatically take such
changes in their stride (e.g. will just walk through the
previously shut door, will not sit down on the chair
that the target whipped out from under them but go
and get another drink instead).
Magical observation (Wizards Eye, Witchsight,
Clair-audience etc) will not detect the target. The
spell does not however, affect indirect observation,
such as Locate, Telepathy or ESP.
The Adept may nominate, at the time of casting, up
to 1 (+ 1 / 3 full Ranks) entities who will ignore the
workings of the spell.
The spell will dissipate if the target is in physical
contact with another entity for more than 5 seconds
(other than the nominated entities) or makes a strike
check for a non-ranged attack (regardless of its suc-cess).
The target may choose to end the spell at any
time.

29.6 Stealth
An adventurer can use stealth to move as soundlessly
and unobtrusively as possible.
An adventurer may use their stealth ability only if
they have adequate cover (i.e. space in which to con-ceal
or obscure themselves) in the area they wish
to traverse, they are appropriately clad (e.g. not in
plate armour or luminescent clothing), and they are
not currently under observation by the being(s) from
whom they are attempting to conceal their presence.
The GM will roll percentile dice to determine if a
character is able to use their stealth ability success-fully.
The GM only makes such a check if there is a
reasonable possibility that the character could be de-tected.
The GM makes one check each time the char-acter
attempts one continuous action, or each time an
unexpected change of condition has a significant ef-fect
upon the character's chance of remaining hidden
(e.g. one of the beings under surveillance heads for
a room which happens to be through the doorway in
which the character is hidden). The GM may modify
the success percentage.
A character's base chance of using their stealth ability
is (3 =D7 Agility + 5 =D7 Rank + Thief Rank + 2 =D7 Spy
Rank + 2 =D7 Assassin Rank)%. The greatest Percep-tion
value of the beings who may be able to discover
the character using the stealth ability is subtracted if
those beings are unaware of the character's presence,
or three times that Perception value if they are.


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

At 14:57 26/09/01 +1200, you wrote:
>"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."

I think you have the beginnings of a solution there, Clare.

I am very unkeen on using the stealth rules in connection with this, mainly 
because I find rummaging for rules that I don't use terribly often in a 
totally different section of the book to the spell in use, to be just 
another variety of time-consuming and annoying bookwork. I also think the 
stealth rules need revision. They are cumbersome, and lack even suggested 
conditional modifiers. For example, it's generally easier for a stationary 
person to conceal themselves than one who is moving, but the rule does 
nowhere suggest modifiers for this.

I do think that doing something which disrupts the "I'm not here" aspect of 
the spell should give the person or persons interacted with a chance to 
perceive the undetectable person, but I don't see how stealth applies. 
After all, at that point in time, the character is not sneaking, they're 
doing something else, which is the whole point. Now, most of the time it's 
not going to be a whole lot of people, just those targeted by spells or 
missiles. If the undetectable person is striking from hiding, they will be 
harder to spot, as opposed to someone who's "in your face" so a straight 1 
x PC isn't appropriate.

I don't think that it should disrupt the spell totally - I like the idea of 
the character sneaking back into the shadows, whereupon the spell comes 
back, and the character is undetectable again. The sneaking back into the 
shadows is where a stealth check may be appropriate.

Jacqui


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clare West [mailto:clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz]
> 
> Mostly I see the ability to nominate people who can see the 
> target as a 
> way of allowing whole parties or at least a few people to sneak 
> effectively as a unit. If we go the stealth route then speaking would 
> indeed break the effect, but hand signals would not. Being hit and 
> downed would also break the effect so you wouldn't run the risk of 
> undetectably bleeding to death in the corner as you used to.
> 

Just to make this idea/proposal a little clearer, walking around in full
view of the guard on the battlements doing funny hand signals (in general)
lets the spell work, but standing still waving an arm about and talking
(from 'How to cast spells - Preparing' "However,it does involve
gesticulations and conversation-level speech, which will be obvious to
observers. ") suspends the spells effects.

Is the difference the amount of noise that you make? This pushes the spell
very much towards a Walking Unseen / Invis that Witchsight etc don't help
against. It is tough luck on the other senses too, and the shapechanger in
the party makes the guard captain's horse nervous because they smell nasty?

I'm not sure of my opinion on this yet, just thinking things through a bit
more.

Cheers
Errol


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

Just throwing ideas about.
If you are not sneaking and someone sees/hears/smells ("perceives") you,
then the spell stops (maybe to resume again, maybe not). If you are sneaking
and fail to sneak well enough, the same applies.

This means that you can whisper to a friend, prepare a weapon quietly, etc
if the enemy isn't close, but casting a spell will get you noticed except
during a full-pitched storm/battle/sermon. If there is one guard and you
take them out instantly, no problem. If another person is watching them
though, your spell breaks. Yes, you can get odd situations, but the idea is
that if the PC does nothing obvious, and doesn't interact with others, they
should be safe. As soon as they walk across a courtyard, they better be
stealthing and keeping out of the way of the horses/hounds, who have high
PC.

General stealth:
The GM can always create tension by having people around, particularly
suspicious people, so you have to sit tight or sneak very quietly. The
arbitary bonuses for sitting still, penalties for running through a crowd
(try -100%+), wearing tap shoes, etc. should be based on the GMs mood (read
whim) and the tension they are trying to induce. The stealth rules are no
cumbersome - you have a known skill (stealth%), with known and unknown GM
moderated penalties (like life). Your approach, behaviour, dare I say
roleplaying, influences the GM, who then makes life easy/hard/exciting for
you.

This spell means that you don't need to worry about direct observation if
you are doing the right things not to be noticed.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----


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

I don't think that the Stealth rules are hard to administer. In fact, they're 
some of the easiest rules in the game to deal with.

The player tells you their unmodified Stealth value, you (as the DM) roll your 
percentile dice, and let them sneak around. You make a note of what you rolled, 
and how much Stealth 'leeway' they have, and so you know when they're likely to 
be spotted.

For example, Father Rowan has a Stealth Value of 54, once he's fully Enchanted. 
The DM rolls percentile dice, and he gets a 15. That's forty points of 
Stealth 'leeway'. The modifier for sneaking past guards, provided Father Rowan 
has available cover to even attempt this is a penalty of 4 x the PC of any 
observer. Possibly, one guard has a PC of 9, and he may not notice Father 
Rowan, at first, but the other guard has a PC of 10, and he definitely does.

We can make the general assumption that the alert guard is going to point out 
the skulking priest in the corner, because it seems very unlikely that it's the 
sort of thing you might forget to do, when discussing the finer points of ale, 
or women, or whatever it is that guards discuss with each other.

It is true that some rules in DQ are problematical to administer. Stealth is 
not one of them. And, even if it were one of them, then it still doesn't 
progess a point anywhere.

I am opposed to using a secondary (or tertiary or qaternary or whatever ordinal 
you prefer) PC check to see if someone notices when they are directly 
interacted with, whether it be be conversation level noise from the 
Undetectable character, or whether it be something it bit more obvious like 
having your tripes carved out by an Undetectable person with a garden trowel.

It seems clear to me that someone doing either of these things is clearly not 
trying to avoid detection.

I suppose you can ask yourself what flavour you're trying to achieve with the 
spell. 

If you want it to be something distinctly magical, then making it some kind of 
protection against detection is fine.

If, on the other hand, you want it to 'enhance' mundane abilities, then I 
contend that allowing a skill to be used in a situation that it wouldn't 
normally be able to has its uses, as well.

This is a discussion, now, about the flavour of the spell. It seems clear that 
the balance of the spell should not allow characters to be untargettable while 
raining devastation down upon their fellows.


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

On Thursday, September 27, 2001, at 12:53  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote:

[description of how stealth works deleted]

> If you want it to be something distinctly magical, then making it some 
> kind of
> protection against detection is fine.
>
> If, on the other hand, you want it to 'enhance' mundane abilities, 
> then I
> contend that allowing a skill to be used in a situation that it wouldn't
> normally be able to has its uses, as well.

This is indeed the main thing we have been discussing. The alternative I 
suggested addresses the first option, the version Jim is advocating 
addresses the second option.

> This is a discussion, now, about the flavour of the spell. It seems 
> clear that
> the balance of the spell should not allow characters to be 
> untargettable while
> raining devastation down upon their fellows.

Is anyone in disagreement with this statement? I certainly am not.

I don't think everyone who has an opinion has had a chance to respond 
yet. But I am going to now propose two versions of this spell for 
comment anyway. I am personally undecided as to which of these two I 
prefer. The first is simpler, the second is more satisfying somehow.

Undetectability (S-11)
Range: Touch
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 15%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion, Investment
Target: Entity
Effects: The target is totally undetectable by physical
senses. Changes to the physical environment
which are made by the target and are entirely within
5 feet (+ 1 / Rank) (e.g. leaves tracks, opens doors,
picks up an object) will be unnoticed by normal observers.
Other entities will automatically take such
changes in their stride (e.g. will just walk through the
previously shut door, will not sit down on the chair
that the target whipped out from under them but go
and get another drink instead).
Magical observation (Wizards Eye, Witchsight,
Clair-audience etc) will not detect the target. The
spell does not however, affect indirect observation,
such as Locate, Telepathy or ESP.
The Adept may nominate, at the time of casting, up
to 1 (+ 1 / 3 full Ranks) entities who will ignore the
workings of the spell.
If the target is in physical contact with another entity for
more than 5 seconds, makes a strike check for an attack
(ranged, melee or close), casts a spell, triggers an
invested item, reads a scroll or does anything else to
attack a potential observer they will become detectable
until they can conceal themselves from all observers
at which time the spell comes into effect again. The
time while detectable still counts against the duration
of the spell.
The target may choose to end the spell at any
time.

Undetectability (S-11)
Range: Touch
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 15%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion, Investment
Target: Entity
Effects: The target is able to use Stealth in
circumstances when it would normally be impossible.
For example they could sneak through a guarded
door in plain sight of the guards. See [29.6] for the
rules for stealth. If the target is detected and
subsequently manages to conceal themselves
from all observers, they may once again attempt
to use Stealth in ways not normally possible.
Changes to the physical environment
which are made by the target and are entirely within
5 feet (+ 1 / Rank) (e.g. leaves tracks, opens doors,
picks up an object) will be unnoticed by normal observers.
Other entities will automatically take such
changes in their stride (e.g. will just walk through the
previously shut door, will not sit down on the chair
that the target whipped out from under them but go
and get another drink instead).
Magical observation (Wizards Eye, Witchsight,
Clair-audience etc) will not detect the target. The
spell does not however, affect indirect observation,
such as Locate, Telepathy or ESP.
The Adept may nominate, at the time of casting, up
to 1 (+ 1 / 3 full Ranks) entities who will ignore the
workings of the spell.
The target may choose to end the spell at any
time.


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clare West [mailto:clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz]


[snip]
> 
> > This is a discussion, now, about the flavour of the spell. It seems 
> > clear that
> > the balance of the spell should not allow characters to be 
> > untargettable while
> > raining devastation down upon their fellows.
> 

Invisibility _approaches_ being 'untargettable' at high ranks. There are of
course important differences when compared with Undetectability eg. a rk20
Witchsight beats rk20 Invis, you still can indirectly attack with any rank
Witchsight (love that good old Bolt spell), a strike check dissipates Invis
rather than suspending. I just mention it as a kind of benchmark of how far
we allow characters to be untargettable while raining devastation.

> Is anyone in disagreement with this statement? I certainly am not.
> 
> I don't think everyone who has an opinion has had a chance to respond 
> yet. But I am going to now propose two versions of this spell for 
> comment anyway. 

Thanks. One comment on both proposals:
What is meant by 'observer'? Clearly not minor random wildlife on the
vicinity, but where do you draw the line? Dogs? Horses? Perception above x?
'Sentient observer' is probably clearest, but having characters running
around corners to get out of sight of the guard dog set on them has appeal.
Then there was the Guard's badger that got a spec grev biting the backside
of a PC, and just wouldn't let go!

Cheers
Errol


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

> > 
> > I don't think everyone who has an opinion has had a chance to respond 
> > yet. But I am going to now propose two versions of this spell for 
> > comment anyway. 
> 
> Thanks. One comment on both proposals:
> What is meant by 'observer'? Clearly not minor random wildlife on the
> vicinity, but where do you draw the line? Dogs? Horses? Perception above x?
> 'Sentient observer' is probably clearest, but having characters running
> around corners to get out of sight of the guard dog set on them has appeal.
> Then there was the Guard's badger that got a spec grev biting the backside
> of a PC, and just wouldn't let go!

I'm failing to see what your point is, I'm afraid. I don't see what difference 
it makes whether or not there are sentient observers, non-sentient observers, 
one or three million. As far as I can see, the nature of the observer(s) and 
their number is not addressed in either version of the spell, nor need it be.

Have I missed something,
somewhere?


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