If this spell is / becomes common (and most medium+ mind mages have it),
stealth becomes irrelevant. This would be yet another skill/ability swamped
by magic. At the moment, the adventuring skills are not really
affected/swamped by magic (with the exception of two talents affecting
swimming and flying base chances). Having a spell that is far superior to a
skill and can be applied to everyone is generally bad. Stealth is higher EM
than undetectability and needs to be about the same rank to work - 5-10. It
also needs to be ranked by ALL, not just one entity, and supported by other
skills, stats, and light armour. This is one instance that Mind mages
shouldn't use the EM argument (along with empathy, ESP, control animal...).

Ian, if Isil Eth can't sneak, try dressing for stealth - less flashy
earrings and sparkly dresses. Or, admit that every man's eye is drawn to
her, and she should be a distraction while others sneak in. The spell is
intended to be used differently from before, and your behaviour or
expectations will have to change to suit. I think.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wood [mailto:adara@ihug.co.nz]

my tuppence ha'p'ny would be:
I am (conditionally) against the use of stealth rules as part of a spell.

I would prefer the spell to act on the target's intentions, rather than
skills or the environment.


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

At 08:10 4/10/01 +1200, you wrote:
>If this spell is / becomes common (and most medium+ mind mages have it),
>stealth becomes irrelevant. This would be yet another skill/ability swamped
>by magic. At the moment, the adventuring skills are not really
>affected/swamped by magic (with the exception of two talents affecting
>swimming and flying base chances). Having a spell that is far superior to a
>skill and can be applied to everyone is generally bad. Stealth is higher EM
>than undetectability and needs to be about the same rank to work - 5-10. It
>also needs to be ranked by ALL, not just one entity, and supported by other
>skills, stats, and light armour. This is one instance that Mind mages
>shouldn't use the EM argument (along with empathy, ESP, control animal...).

But most arguments for using stealth with indetectability make the spell 
practically useless without the skill, thus forcing Mind Mages to rank both 
to achieve anything effective. I'm tending to be with Ian on this one.

However, how about this?

Remember that my concept of the effect of indetectability is essentially 
"I'm not here, so you'll ignore me". It affects the mind, not the senses. 
Now if the indetectable person does something to directly interact with 
another person, that must surely suspend the spell's effects for that 
person, but not necessarily for other people. Indirect interaction is more 
difficult to judge. I don't think simply altering the environment by moving 
an object should suspend the spell - unless that object is under intense 
constant observation.

As for missile fire, and spell-casting, let's assume our Mind mage assassin 
isn't stupid, and has used indetectability to sneak into a 
nice  well-concealed spot. The mind mage sniper raises his weapon, aims, 
and fires, striking the target, then drops back into hiding. The target 
falls, the guards look around. Now unless someone happened to be looking 
directly at the point where the mind mage was standing at the time of 
firing, they've no chance of spotting him. Heck, snipers are damned hard to 
spot without magic!

If however, someone was looking in that direction, then a perception check 
applies. It cannot be stealth, because the character was not sneaking at 
the time. It's not huge amounts of book work, because only characters who 
are looking might spot him.

Jacqui


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

This spell is best cast on other people, rather than as a primarily self
spell. I know this is difficult for mind mages as most of their spells boost
them and not the party, but try casting on the most appropriate people, not
the nearest.

Both Isilfluff and *flower complain they can't stealth with the spell - give
it to the sneaky ones. Compare with a weapon spell that gives you +10 to
hit, rather than 150% strike chance - you cast it on those who are already
good at weapons. If the weapon spell gave you 150% strike chance regardless
of skill, it would be SILLY. Ditto Undetectability (though less so).

You now have a second support spell, to go with empathy.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
But most arguments for using stealth with indetectability make the spell
practically useless without the skill, thus forcing Mind Mages to rank both
to achieve anything effective. I'm tending to be with Ian on this one.

From: Ian Wood [mailto:adara@ihug.co.nz]
I hated lying flat in the grass only to have one barbarian spot and spit IE
- what do you have to do to get this spell to work as intended???


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

I think we need to compare Undetectability to invisibility and not stealth.
Stealth is a skill associated with thieves and the like - undectability and
invis are spells cast by mages. From a flavour point of view do we want to
see what are supposed to be flamboyant mages dressed in black/camo to
increse their stealth skill. I say no - its magic - "the wizard in the
purple and red robes and covered with archaic shiny baubles chants the
arcane words, theres a flash of light and he disappears into thin air!" -
not "he gets out his camo gear and goes skulking  quietly into the
shadows".

To compare invis to undectability. The advantages of invis are that you can
interact physically with other entities and at rank 16 you can attack in
melee without becoming visible. The drawback is that you can be detected by
higher ranked witchsight. With undetectablility you cannot be detected with
witchsight but you also can never make melee attacks without coming visible
and also you cannot interact physically with another enitity (im going from
memory here - you cant come into contact with somone for more than a pulse
- so dragging a fallen comrade away is out - regardless of there
"visibility" status).

I think the problem is that you can cast spells whilst undectable. The
simple solution is to therefore change the spell so that casting a spell
cause the spell effect to cease. A slightly more refined amendment is so
say that you can cast spells on yourself but that when you target another
entity with a spell then the undectability ceases.

By the way has anyone considered just how nasty high rank invis is now?
Imagine this : the E&E with rank 16 invis and rank 8 (say) enhance, casts
his or her invis under the "rank" enhance. Hands up everyone with rank 25
witchsight. Hmmm. Undectable AND able to make melee attacks at will ....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 --

Putting aside Mark's (reasonable) comments on Mind at the moment, Enhance
Enchant increases either Base chance, range, damage or duration. It does not
increase effective rank for any other purposes. Enhance Enchant will not
boost invis (or witchsight spell), or any other spell for rank vs rank
purposes, or any effects described in the text of the spell except for
damage, range and duration.

In practise, high rank invis is a defence spell that stops some of the bad
spells and all the nice spells from targetting you, and doesn't work against
demons. It doesn't give an invisibility effect in the game - more of a
personal fog effect. Oh, and half the non-mages won't see you.

Invis on low to medium games can give invis, but you don't get rank 16 invis
then.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]

By the way has anyone considered just how nasty high rank invis is now?
Imagine this : the E&E with rank 16 invis and rank 8 (say) enhance, casts
his or her invis under the "rank" enhance. Hands up everyone with rank 25
witchsight. Hmmm. Undectable AND able to make melee attacks at will ....


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

Both Isilfluff and *flower complain they can't stealth with the spell - give
>it to the sneaky ones. Compare with a weapon spell that gives you +10 to
>hit, rather than 150% strike chance - you cast it on those who are already
>good at weapons. If the weapon spell gave you 150% strike chance regardless
>of skill, it would be SILLY. Ditto Undetectability (though less so).

Actually Starflower tends to complain that the stealth skill specifies that 
you can't stealth in plate - when her (highly weird) plate armour is 
quieter that most people's leather (0% stealth modifier)!

Arghhhhhh!

Aside from that, I still do not see the necessity for applying stealth to 
indetectability. It isn't applied to other invisibility magics, so why this 
one - especially since it is Mind magic and therefore affects the minds of 
surrounding entities. You're saying that indetectability is a 
stealth-enhancing spell, so give to people who have stealth, which is 
logical enough - as long as that assumption is accepted. I'm querying the 
assumption, not the logic following it.

Jacqui


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

On Thursday, October 4, 2001, at 09:33 , Mark Simpson wrote:

> By the way has anyone considered just how nasty high rank invis is now?
> Imagine this : the E&E with rank 16 invis and rank 8 (say) enhance, 
> casts
> his or her invis under the "rank" enhance. Hands up everyone with rank 
> 25
> witchsight. Hmmm. Undectable AND able to make melee attacks at will ....

Nope - that doesn't work. With Enhance Enchantment you can affect 
"Range, Duration, Base Chance or (where appropriate) Damage". The spell 
also says "Note the actual Rank of the affected spell is unchanged - 
only the effect of one characteristic is enhanced".

clare

--
So long and thanks for all the fish


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

The concept behind the new write-up seems very simple and straight forward
to me.

Undetectability makes you undetectable to entities provided that you do not
make yourself conspicuously obvious.
This precludes any form of attack, obvious spell casting, or other behaviour
that is deemed conspicuous by the GM.
High stealth will assist an undetectable entity in remaining inconspicuous.

Other skills would probably help too in the right situations.  For example:
Ranger makes it easier to be inconspicuous in the wilderness.
Courtier makes it easier to be inconspicuous in crowds of people.
Seamanship/Navigator would make it easier on a ship.
etc.

Wearing plate doesn't mean you can't be undetectable, but it probably means
you can't be undetectable in a room crowded with people dressed in street
clothes.
But if you were wanting to be undetectable in the middle of a muster of
church knights then wearing plate is damned appropriate.

The bit where you can exclude x people from the effect is to avoid the
bloody annoying situation of tracking who can see/talk to/hear who when
everyone has undetectability.

Now as to writing this concept up in a clear, concise, unambiguous manner...

Cheers, Stephen.


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

Mark Simpson wrote:

> From a flavour point of view do we want to see what are supposed to be
> flamboyant mages dressed in black/camo to
> increse their stealth skill. I say no - its magic - "the wizard in the purple
> and red robes and covered with archaic shiny baubles chants the
> arcane words, theres a flash of light and he disappears into thin air!" - not
> "he gets out his camo gear and goes skulking  quietly into the
> shadows".

Doesn't that depend on the flavour/style you want for the individual mage... or
group of mages?

I can see E&Es (for example) as dressing up in the "Wizzzard" hats and mirror
satin robes, and vanishing into thin air... I've always seen Mind Mages as
quieter and more subtle... the Jedi school of wizardy... ("Did you hear
something", says the Stormtrooper, as the brown robed Kenobi slips quietly
away).

Matter of taste and personal opinion I guess.

Cheers,
Martin

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400


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

It seems to me that, once again, people have wandered away from the point.

The area of agreement is that Undetectability should not provide a means 
whereby a character can cast spells, or fire arrows, or whatever form of 
destruction takes your fancy.

Any version of Undetectability, then, is NOT workable, if it allows a character 
the opportunity to do just that.

Let us concern ourselves with 'what we think the spell does' line of thinking. 

This can be an interesting mode of thought, if it leads to something new. If, 
on the other hand, 'what you think the spell does' is create something that 
inevitably leads back to a Mind Mage being able to rain destruction from the 
secure concealment of this spell, then it's a waste of time. 

It is already not appropriate.

At the moment, there are two versions on offer, at least that I have seen. 

One is a version that allows a character to use Stealth in situations where 
they wouldn't be allowed.

The other is a version that provides concealment that is more 'magical' in 
nature.

Perhaps there is another version that I don't know about, but, since I don't 
know about it, I can't comment on it. As far as I know, these are the two broad 
categories of versions.


The advantage of the first version is that provides a concealment spell that at 
medium and higher level is more valuable than Invisibility. 

From a story telling point of view, this version creates more player tension, 
because the Stealth check is always rolled by the DM, and the character doesn't 
know how well they are sneaking...As, in real life you  don't know, until 
someone puts their arm on the scruff of your neck and leads you elsewhere. At 
this point you can make the deduction that you've been spotted.

The advantage of the other version is that it creates a more directly magical 
ambience. 

The disadvantage of the 'Stealth' version is that it is most effective on 
someone with lots of Stealth skill. Unless the target is already concealed by 
something like terrain, or is very still, or something, then it's not as 
effective as a spell like Invisibility, or Walking Unseen.

The disadvantage of the magical version is that it's a little more ... binary, 
and probably not as useful at higher levels.

No spell rationalisation is going to work well for everyone. And, consensus is 
impossible in the Guild, if it is EVER actually possible.

Someone is not going to like the version for one reason or another, and you 
might as well get on with making a choice, because hesitating over it isn't 
going to make it any less painful...In fact, it's more like pulling an 
elastoplast off a millimetre at a time.


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

On Thursday, October 4, 2001, at 03:56 , jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> The area of agreement is that Undetectability should not provide a means
> whereby a character can cast spells, or fire arrows, or whatever form of
> destruction takes your fancy.
>
> Any version of Undetectability, then, is NOT workable, if it allows a 
> character
> the opportunity to do just that.
>
[snip]

All good points. I think Jim is spot on with this. Personally I am in 
favour of the stealthy version. What do other people think?

clare
--
So long and thanks for all the fish


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

Clare wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>All good points. I think Jim is spot on with this. Personally I am in
>favour of the stealthy version. What do other people think?
>
>clare

I think turning a 400em special knowledge spell into nothing more than a
stealth modifier is a really bad idea. I think the spell you would create
would bear little to no resemblence to what it previously has been,
something analagous to the invisibility spell. What i understand started
out as a re-write to remove the "who can see who" paperwork of all those
perception checks (a commenable aim) has turned into a destroying the old
spell completely and creating something totally different, and, as Jim
points out, weaker than  walking unseen (a low em general spell in another
college).

I support the minimal change of simply making the adept visable when he/she
tattacks in melee OR targets someone with (or simply jus casts) a spell or
a missile weapon.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 --

Well said Jim

Regarding Clare's first proposed write-up (what is in 2001 rulebook, plus
you can't do _anything_ offensive, or cast/trigger magic):
This is a down power of the current spell. It is not clear why casting or
triggering stops the spell working. This makes it a bit harder to decide
what happens in borderline situations, but I'm sure we can handle this. 

I think Mark's suggestion of allowing casting on self (and maybe
not-targeted-at-entity effects within the 'exclusion zone' of 5+1/rank)
works. You can justify it by saying mana flowing 'breaks the bubble' if you
need to. So you can do stuff in your own little bubble, but it you chuck
magic outside it, or do stuff directly to other entities, the magic falls
off. This is less 'binary' than what Clare proposed. It is also less of a
down power.

I have recently decided that I don't like the stealth version, mainly for
the reasons given by Mark just now.

I agree with Ian that we should all play substantially the (a?) same
version. This is more important than which of the 3 (including 2001
rulebook) is used.

Cheers
Errol


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

>I support the minimal change of simply making the adept visable when he/she
>tattacks in melee OR targets someone with (or simply jus casts) a spell or
>a missile weapon.

Of relevance I suppose are the two spells that also allow spell-casting 
"invisibly" or at least from out of sight - namely wizard's eye and 
telepathy. I remember an entire party being captured by one E&E with a 
wizard's eye and sleep spells.

It is just a convention that wizard's eyes are visible to witchsight - and 
they're hard to spot anyhow.

If I may plea for a version of indetectability that is only suspended by 
targeting, and not destroyed entirely. I think it would be exciting to play...

Jacqui


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
> 
> If I may plea for a version of indetectability that is only 
> suspended by 
> targeting, and not destroyed entirely. I think it would be 
> exciting to play...
> 
> Jacqui
> 
> 

All specific proposals under discussion suspend rather than dissipate
(unlike Invis, BTW)

Cheers
Errol


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