The only collective definition of what a mind mage is, is our shared history
- the campaign. We could quote books, movies or TV shows that the college
may have come from, or which have neat powers we would like, but if we are
going with a feeling on what mind mages should have, as opposed to other
mages, we need to look at the campaign and at balance.

(a) do mind mages, in the campaign's oral history, have concealment?

(b) does this, with everything else, make them not work well as a component
of a party?

I think, yes to both, so I'd like to keep a concealment ability, but one
that isn't as "wrong" as the last and current abilities. If this means
changing EM, BC, etc., to get something that works, its still better than
chucking it all away.

Andrew

--------------------------
Again, the question should be asked, do Mind Mages need a concealment spell?
That should be the first order of business. If the general tenor is that
they really shouldn't have one, then get rid of undetectability. It is no
longer necessary.

If the feeling is that Mind Mages should have a concealment spell, then,
perhaps we should discuss what form that concealment should take.


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

I asked Ian Wood (who has just gone back to Oz for a couple of weeks - NSW
and Sth Qland this time) his feelings on this.

He agrees absolutely that starting from scratch is the way to go.

He feels Mind Mages should have a "concealment" spell.

I won't attempt to articulate his suggestions, for fear of inadvertently
mis-representing them.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message------------------------------------------
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> 
> Again, the question should be asked, do Mind Mages need a 
> concealment spell?
> That should be the first order of business. If the general 
> tenor is that
> they really shouldn't have one, then get rid of 
> undetectability. It is no
> longer necessary.
> 
> If the feeling is that Mind Mages should have a concealment 
> spell, then,
> perhaps we should discuss what form that concealment should take.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

To look from another angle, can anyone provide a reason or rational why Mind
mages should have a concealment spell.

If there are enough reasons showing that it is in the flavour of the college
to do so then we can work on the spell. If not we can ditch it.

Mandos
/s


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

That is what we're doing now. I'm quoting Andrew Withy:

'The only collective definition of what a mind mage is, is our shared
history
- the campaign. We could quote books, movies or TV shows that the college
may have come from, or which have neat powers we would like, but if we are
going with a feeling on what mind mages should have, as opposed to other
mages, we need to look at the campaign and at balance.'

Perhaps I've missed your point. Why is it addressing the issue to look at it
from another point of view to consider:

1. Whether or not mind mages make sense from within the framework of the
game, i.e. whether or not mind mages can be readily rationalised to have
concealment, or whether such a rationalisation might be too great a stretch.

2. Assuming that they HAVE a concealment function, does it cause any
difficulty with the implementation of the game at an administrative level
(how much work is involved in bookkeeping, etc), or at a balance level (how
much impact the spell might have on the sensible functioning of people
within the 'world'). Against that, does the concealment function provide
something that is useful enough that it might outweigh any other negative
properties.


If on the other hand, your suggestion is something like 'Why don't we just
sit around and come up with a really, really neat rationalisation for what
kind of concealment a mind mage might be able to do', well, then, I'm afraid
I'm completely uninterested.

The reasons are relatively simple. Anyone with half a brain and a morning to
kill can come up with 10 rationalisations why a mind mage can use some kind
of concealment magic. Some of these may well be fascinating, but who cares?
Once each of these rationalisations are presented, then the whole business
becomes one of wading through screeds of suggestions.

There will be endless disagreement about which is the best rationalisation,
and eventually in frustration, Undetectability will be accepted as the best
concealment spell for  a mind mage to have. After all, they've had it for
years, now.

The argument will move from whether or not concealment is necessary for mind
mages, to which particular form of concealment is necessary for mind mages,
and as a result of an embarrasment of richesse, the body of public opinion
will fall behind the 'trusted and true' method, forgetting that the initial
question hasn't been answered.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@iconz.net>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


>
> To look from another angle, can anyone provide a reason or rational why
Mind
> mages should have a concealment spell.
>
> If there are enough reasons showing that it is in the flavour of the
college
> to do so then we can work on the spell. If not we can ditch it.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Do mind mages absolutely need a concealment spell?  Of course not , no
college "must"  have a particular spell. You can use that spurious
justification to remove any spell from any college. But surely that is not
the point. The old undetectability (the "perception check" version)
operated for many years. It was changed recently not because the old
version was "over-powered" but simply because it was at times difficult to
administer (book keeping wise). Nevertheless the fact remains that there
are numerous mind mages out there amoungst the playership who have been
ranking/using this spell on a regular basis for many years. To some of them
it is a spell they use more than most others, and one around which the
character has been moulded. To remove the spell is to cut out part of those
characters. Is this in any way fair to those players? Will that inspire
confidence in the Gods and continued participation in the campaign?

It would be all very well to raise these issues if we were designing a new
game or a new college from scratch, but we are not. We are trying to modify
a game/college that is already in use and has been for some considerable
time. There are other isues we need to take account of.

I would suggest, until the point that someone come up with a totally new
version of the spell that everyone is happy with, that we make a few simple
tweaks to the existing published write-up, which I (and it seems most
other) agree has been inadvertantly overpowered in the new write-up. These
would be that casting a spell or taking any form of offensive action causes
the spell to cease.

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

>Again, the question should be asked, do Mind Mages need a concealment spell?

Yes I think so.
I was thinking about the concealment spells of the whole game, and they are
in E&E (x2), Illusions, Earth, Celestial and Wicca as well as Mind.  
I think it is more apporiate for Mind mages to have concealment spells than
Earth, or celestial.  

My idea of mind mages is that they affect what other people think of the
target, so that having the spell, as written, not be able to be deteceted
via physical (cf mind) senses jarrs for me.  

I think it would be more appropriate to have the observer not notice the
target, that is, "to make them unnoticed, not invisible", to whit, walking
unseen.

So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.

(Yes I know one is not meant to use justification to work a way to the
working of the rule, but I still like the DQ world to have some consitency
of realism, so that's how I do it.)

Regards,
Sally


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

Jim:Perhaps I've missed your point. Why is it addressing the issue to look
at it
from another point of view to consider:

Simply that at the moment the discussion is centered on why it is broken and
what we should do about it. I would like to concentrate on the 'should we
keep it' angle. To that end I have heard very few reasonable reasons that
the spell should exist other than the 'it has always been there' one.

If there is a GOOD reason to keep the spell I would like to hear it and if
there isn't one then I feel we should save time and effort and remove the
spell entirely.

Mandos
/s


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Simpson" <Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


>
>
>
> Do mind mages absolutely need a concealment spell?  Of course not , no
> college "must"  have a particular spell. You can use that spurious
> justification to remove any spell from any college.

It's not a spurious reason. It's just a step in the procedure. And, it's
worth considering. Simply assuming that mind mages MUST have a concealment
spell means that the basic premise hasn't been investigated.

But surely that is not
> the point. The old undetectability (the "perception check" version)
> operated for many years. It was changed recently not because the old
> version was "over-powered" but simply because it was at times difficult to
> administer (book keeping wise).

That was one of the reasons, yes. It wasn't the only one. The others were:

DMs were fudging die rolls and making the spell completely ineffective in
their games. To make the spell more likely to be applied as written, it was
changed to be DM friendly.

The effect, once the PC rolls had been made, made a character very
unbalanced. There was no way of penetrating the spell, meaning that it was
something of a simple answer to a certain kind of problem.

 Nevertheless the fact remains that there
> are numerous mind mages out there amoungst the playership who have been
> ranking/using this spell on a regular basis for many years. To some of
them
> it is a spell they use more than most others, and one around which the
> character has been moulded. To remove the spell is to cut out part of
those
> characters. Is this in any way fair to those players?

If it produces a better game, yes, of course it is a fair way to treat
players. What a stupid question.

 Will that inspire
> confidence in the Gods and continued participation in the campaign?

Who knows what vagaries of spin will affect the minds of ANY group of
people? Is your contention simply to do nothing when something is found to
be a problem? Wouldn't that be JUST as likely to threaten the players'
confidence in Gods and continued participation in the campaign?

Or, are you advocating that all of the rules should have fallen perfectly
formed, without need for revision, at the very dawn of role playing?


> It would be all very well to raise these issues if we were designing a new
> game or a new college from scratch, but we are not. We are trying to
modify
> a game/college that is already in use and has been for some considerable
> time. There are other isues we need to take account of.

What other issue? That, once something has been touched by a player, it is
no longer subject to variation? Why is that the case? To make the history of
players as inviolate  as the real world?

This is a game. That's all. There is no particular sacrosanctness of 'player
history'. If what you were saying made any real sense, then Dungeons and
Dragons would never have developed into Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, then
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons II and now to Dungeons and Dragons (2000).

The world CHANGES. The game world changes, the players change, and the RULES
change. It's a fact of life. You can cling to what has been accepted in the
past, but it's a simple waste of time. However much you resist change, you
are inevitably changed. Embrace it or resent it.

> I would suggest, until the point that someone come up with a totally new
> version of the spell that everyone is happy with, that we make a few
simple
> tweaks to the existing published write-up, which I (and it seems most
> other) agree has been inadvertantly overpowered in the new write-up.

Which 'most others' are you talking about. The people who are doing the
talking are saying that we need to consider whether or not mind mages should
have a concealment spell. I bet there's no evidence you can offer to support
your contention.

As far as tweaking is concerned, that usually doesn't solve much, in a rule
as broken as undetectability. I say this, because, historically, tweaking
HASN'T solved much. That's why Steven Martin raised the point in the initial
thread.

And, it's not as if Steve is the first person since the lastest emendation
to express dissatisfaction. He is simply the latest.

An attendant problem of tweaking is that it takes a long time to solve
problems. The tweaks get mistaken for solutions, even when they aren't, and
they are accepted until DMs start fudging against the spell, again.
Ultimately, we are no further ahead, and players feel unhappy because the
experience points they spend on advancement in this area are rendered
valueless.

You could choose to rail against DM behaviour, if you like. It will get you
just as far as railing against greed, or laziness or apathy.

These
> would be that casting a spell or taking any form of offensive action
causes
> the spell to cease.

It's certainly one method of controlling the spell. As yet, other people
have suggestions to offer that may be less draconian. Or more, I suppose.
But, then, if mind mages don't have a concealment spell at all, it may not
be necessary.


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> I would like to concentrate on the 'should we
> keep it' angle. To that end I have heard very few reasonable reasons that
> the spell should exist other than the 'it has always been there' one.
>
> If there is a GOOD reason to keep the spell I would like to hear it

I submit that this IS a good reason to keep the ability. Not an ironbound,
guaranteed unsinkable reason, but a good one. Mark's post summed this up pretty
well.

Given one good reason to keep the ability, are there good reasons to loose it?

* Misfit with college concept? No, it isn't like we're discussing mind mages
turning themselves into tentacled acid-exuding monsters. Either the existence
or non-existence of concealment fits a mind mage college.
* Current spell broken - This has a little substance, but not much. There are
available fixes that, while not perfect, can be very quickly put in place.

(Just to stir things up a bit, here's another possible fix: mass walking
unseen. Like walking unseen, except multiple targets who can see each other and
touch each other without cancelling the spell.)

Michael


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

That's what people are doing now. They are working out whether or not they
think mind mages should keep the concealment spell.

I mean, I think that's the whole reason for this current thread.

Does it sound as if I'm asking something different to that?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@iconz.net>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


>
> Jim:Perhaps I've missed your point. Why is it addressing the issue to look
> at it
> from another point of view to consider:
>
> Simply that at the moment the discussion is centered on why it is broken
and
> what we should do about it. I would like to concentrate on the 'should we
> keep it' angle. To that end I have heard very few reasonable reasons that
> the spell should exist other than the 'it has always been there' one.
>
> If there is a GOOD reason to keep the spell I would like to hear it and if
> there isn't one then I feel we should save time and effort and remove the
> spell entirely.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Mandos asked:

> >Again, the question should be asked, do Mind Mages need a concealment spell?
>

One *good* argument for them to have it, is that it has always been a noticeable element of the
college and has  impacted much on the game in the past, often crucially.  I would prefer a "tweak"
that still left them with some sort of concealment spell.  Of course this argument is not absolute
or irrefutable.  If *nothing* works, even one of the other "not-seeing-you" spells from the other
colleges, then by all means wipe Mind-mage concealment -- but, if you're consistent, you may have
collaterally ruled it to be inappropriate in other colleges as well.

However, as Sally cogently points out (below) "Walking Unseen," or something similar, is both
appropriate & playable; and finally the college has a cheap spell.

> Yes I think so.
> I was thinking about the concealment spells of the whole game, and they are
> in E&E (x2), Illusions, Earth, Celestial and Wicca as well as Mind.
> I think it is more appropriate for Mind mages to have concealment spells than
> Earth, or celestial.
>
> My idea of mind mages is that they affect what other people think of the
> target, so that having the spell, as written, not be able to be detected
> via physical (cf mind) senses jars for me.
>
> I think it would be more appropriate to have the observer not notice the
> target, that is, "to make them unnoticed, not invisible", to whit, walking
> unseen.
>
> So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.

But the big design concept is what *sort* of concealment spell do we want the mind-mages to have --
including any restrictions on the behaviour of the target and the environment they're interacting
with.  You should not blame legislators or architects for producing something inappropriate, if you
didn't tell them in the first place what you wanted.

Personally I would prefer something a bit stronger that Walking Unseen (although that may just be
habit on my part); and I'm not keen on it being *automatically* defeated by any old bimbo with an
innate or cheap talent.

An aside:  I've always justified the old spell, to myself, that Mind-mage spell worked by preventing
the "perception" or sight-rays from an observer's eyes striking the target -- perhaps
Perception-flux is somehow related to how the mind, or mind-college, works.  Hence that is why you
roll against the PC stat.  If the PC-ray gets through (another of those "binary effect" magics) you
see the target, same as you see anything else.  If it fails, of course you can't see the target.
Clearly, the observer has no sensory feedback as to whether the PC-rays punch through the
invisibility or not; and your other inabilities to sense the target are derived from the primacy of
sight as a sense [and confusion in the mind of DQ editors].

regards, Michael


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Arona" <jimarona@ihug.co.nz>
To: <michael.woodhams@peace.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


> > I submit that this IS a good reason to keep the ability.
>
> Huh?
>
> >
> > Given one good reason to keep the ability, are there good reasons to
loose
> it?
>
> What are the good reasons for keeping the spell?
>
> > * Misfit with college concept? No, it isn't like we're discussing mind
> mages
> > turning themselves into tentacled acid-exuding monsters. Either the
> existence
> > or non-existence of concealment fits a mind mage college.
>
> As far as I can see, that simply means that there's no strong reason to
have
> concealment in a Mind Magic spell list. Neither is there any compelling
> reason to remove it. But, it certainly doesn't, in and of itself,
encourage
> me to believe that it's a good reason to have it.
>
>
> > * Current spell broken - This has a little substance, but not much.
There
> are
> > available fixes that, while not perfect, can be very quickly put in
place.
>
> Does ANYONE seriously believe that Undetectability is NOT broken? I find
> this VERY hard to believe.
>
> While 'tweaks' can be put very quickly in place, they often cause as many
> problems as they solve. Most commonly, they simply fail to solve the
issue,
> as players find ways around the 'tweak'.
> >
> > (Just to stir things up a bit, here's another possible fix: mass walking
> > unseen. Like walking unseen, except multiple targets who can see each
> other and
> > touch each other without cancelling the spell.)
>
> Has actually been suggested, and was not considered a good idea. I don't
> know why. I always thought it was perfectly fine, myself.
>
> Just to make the point, this is NOT a tweak, it's a complete rewrite of
the
> spell. Not that I mind.
>


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

Sally Jackson wrote:

> >Again, the question should be asked, do Mind Mages need a concealment spell?
>
> I think it is more apporiate for Mind mages to have concealment spells than
> Earth, or celestial.

As Jim said, part of the process is deciding if a College can be "readily
rationalized" to have a type of spell, without going too far down the path of
working out how any and all types of magic would fit by conceiving clever
rationales... but the basic fit is still a form of rationalization, deciding
which Elements, memes and "flavours" are consistent with types of magic.

So.. conceding that your opinions may differ... where does the concealment "type"
of magic fit?

The "element" of Darkness conceals by its nature, and concealment magics seem
(IMO) to reasonably reside there.  We have some issue here in the Celestial
college encompasses both Dark and Light... and Light is really not going to pass
any basic reasonableness test for concealment magics. :-)

The element of Earth doesn't seem to me to have any particular affinity for
concealment -- other than by burying things -- but the Earth college is also
associated with animals and camouflage is a fairly common trait... so perhaps.

Outside of elements, with Witches and Wizards the test seems more one of
tradition and genre.  Both turn invisible in stories and pass by without being
seen, sometimes through the use of magical items, sometime through their own
powers.

Mind Mages are a sub-flavour of Wizard focused on mentalist abilities.  Is there
a tradition of mentalist type mages who read minds and speak from mind to mind
and the like?  Do they often (sometimes?) have the ability to pass unseen?  If
they do, then "how" does this work?  Do they cloud observers minds?  Or turn to
mist like Vampires??

Can someone offer examples of mentalist concealment in the fantasy genre outside
of DQ's own history?

Cheers,
Martin

--

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Dickson" <martin.dickson@peace.com>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.

> Mind Mages are a sub-flavour of Wizard focused on mentalist abilities.  Is
there
> a tradition of mentalist type mages who read minds and speak from mind to
mind
> and the like?

Personally, I'd have said that they were elementalists, the element being
'Mind crap', but that is simply splitting hairs. I certainly understand what
you mean, Martin.

  Do they often (sometimes?) have the ability to pass unseen?  If
> they do, then "how" does this work?  Do they cloud observers minds?  Or
turn to
> mist like Vampires??
>
> Can someone offer examples of mentalist concealment in the fantasy genre
outside
> of DQ's own history?
>
D&D in it's various forms has Psionic invisibility, which defeats Detect
Invis, but is, in turn, defeated by things that defeat having your mind
fiddled with telepathically, like Mind Bland, Mind Bar, and the like.

In addition, it sucks Inner Strength Points out of you like nothing on God's
green earth. I can't remember the numbers, but when you go Psi Invis, you
affect a number of people who would be able to see you, (whether or not you
are directly aware of them). Each person that you affect costs a certain
number of ISP.

The experience has been that the psionic manages to get into the nest of
darkness that you're trying to cleanse of evil, only to find that they're
almost or completely drained of ISPs, and facing a nasty walk out without
the benefit of almost all of their psionic abilities.

In addition, it fails once an attack of any kind has been made.

Palladium Mind Mages have a level III spell called Turn Invisible, which is
your basic manipulation of light, to make the Mind Mage unseeable. Nothing
special there.


GURPS, although not specifically in the fantasy genre, does have psionics,
and none of the psi abilities specifically offers concealment. (Although,
mindwiping is explicitly stated, and depending on the DM, you might be able
to argue that Telesend could provide you with a kind of invisibility).

In the magic section, Invisibility is a form of Light magic, involving
bending light, again.

In the section of magic that they call mental, then there are two different
ways you might do it.

Daze is a spell that attacks a target making them 'simply not noice what is
going on around them, or remember it later. A 'dazed' guard will stand
quietly while a thief walks past. Any physical injury, or successful
resistance causes the target to snap out of the daz and return to full,
alert status.'

The other way is an area of effect spell called Avoid, which:

'Makes the subject area unnattractive to all creatures except the caster.
Gazes will be averted, and approaching character will feel an intense
unease, an urge to be somewhere else.'

It goes on to say:

'This is a suble spell. The victims (read players) should not be told "You
can't look in that closet", but just "you see nothing". The spell made them
THINK they had checked the closet, or made each searcher thing that another
one had checked it... and so on.'

These spells are interactive in nature, and provide targets with an
opportunity to resist their workings, which, when you consider the way they
work, sounds pretty reasonable. The spell is getting pretty down and dirty
in someone's mental innards.

In EarthDawn, then there isn't any Invisibility at all. The closest talent
would be 'Silent Walk', which is something that Thieves and Scouts get. It's
a magical kind of Stealth. A thief or scout can use this skill in open view
of observers (although with some serious penalties) and slither off to best
pursue their designs.

Liberators have a kind  of magic that lets them hide. The better this
magical skill of hiding, the smaller the thing that they can hide under. In
the discipline description, they talk about Liberators who have such
advanced skill in it that they hide beneath specially trained cockroaches.

In the Illusionist discipline, the spell that comes closest to invisibility
is 'Nobody Here'. The Illusionist targets a particular volume. The spell
creates an illusionary blanket of about 3 metres on a side. Inside that
volume, a number of named people equal to the Illusionist's rank can be
hidden. Once inside the area, these people can't be seen.

If the people leave the volume, they become visible. To move and remain
hidden, the Illusionist must cast the spell again into a new and presumably
adjoining volume.

The spell can be penetrated by anyone, as in, it doesn't require any special
magical ability to see through it. It is a hard roll to make, however. BUT,
the difference is that if one observer sees through the illusion, and
communicates it to other observers, then they get to see through it as well.

In addition, the spell has a duration. Not only does the illusion wear off
in a few minutes, but every observer who has been affected by the 'Nobody
Hear' spell will 'remember' whoever was in the volume. In other words, the
spell lasts ten minutes, and you use it to sneak past a guard at the front
gate. It works and you are well inside the complex.

Ten minutes later, the guard 'remembers' someone sneaking past them, and
sounds the alarm, and tells everyone that there is another bloody
Illusionist inside.

This, by the way, is my favourite form of invisibility as a spell.


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

At 09:59 7/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>My idea of mind mages is that they affect what other people think of the
>target, so that having the spell, as written, not be able to be deteceted
>via physical (cf mind) senses jarrs for me.
>
>I think it would be more appropriate to have the observer not notice the
>target, that is, "to make them unnoticed, not invisible", to whit, walking
>unseen.
>
>So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.

This suggestion raises the objection that Witchsight allows an entity to 
see an Unseen character. Witchsight is a sensory enhancement, but Mind 
Mages generally affect the mind directly, and not through the senses - else 
they would be Illusionists.

Actually I have problems with the preponderance of Walking Unseen spells 
across Colleges which surely have different mechanisms for achieving the 
effect - perhaps Earth Mages should have a "Camouflage" spell, Celestials 
"Walking in Shadows" and so on. While it may be said that nomenclature is 
irrelevant, the name of a spell is a major clue.

I'm currently toying with the idea that a indetectable entity may be sensed 
indirectly - using wizard's eye, crystals etc. or perhaps even using a 
mirror. Would that be enough? Does that work with the idea that 
indetectability affects the mind - a "you-WILL-not-see-me" as opposed to 
"you-can't-see-me" effect of other spells?

Jacqui


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

Unwillingly getting dragged into the details...

If the spell alters the minds of everyone around the target so that they
don't/won't see the target then passive resistance by all observers seems
appropriate.  Woohoo more dice rolls!

You also make the assumption that Witchsight is a spell/talent that enhances
your sense of sight, why isn't it a spell that reveals concealment?

Both of these are good reasons to go back to basics - Do we want the spell?
What do we want it to do?  What is its downside/counter?
Then rationalise the effects into the theme of the college.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2002 1:41 p.m.

At 09:59 7/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.

This suggestion raises the objection that Witchsight allows an entity to 
see an Unseen character. Witchsight is a sensory enhancement, but Mind 
Mages generally affect the mind directly, and not through the senses - else 
they would be Illusionists.


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

Sally Jackson wrote:
> >I think it would be more appropriate to have the observer not notice the
> >target, that is, "to make them unnoticed, not invisible", to whit,
walking
> >unseen.
> >
> >So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.

Jacqui Smith wrote:
> This suggestion raises the objection that Witchsight allows an entity to
> see an Unseen character. Witchsight is a sensory enhancement, but Mind
> Mages generally affect the mind directly, and not through the senses -
else
> they would be Illusionists.

The definition of the way that Walking Unseen works is to "make them
unnoticed, not invisible". That would seem to be a mental effect, I would
have said. For some reason, Witchsight and Enhanced Vision allows someone to
penetrate the deception. I don't know why, but I dare say I could come up
with a rationalisation or ten give sufficient time.


>
> Actually I have problems with the preponderance of Walking Unseen spells
> across Colleges which surely have different mechanisms for achieving the
> effect - perhaps Earth Mages should have a "Camouflage" spell, Celestials
> "Walking in Shadows" and so on. While it may be said that nomenclature is
> irrelevant, the name of a spell is a major clue.

It may be that there are too many spells that are identical in nature across
the colleges, but it is a different kind of discussion. And, anyway, somehow
I think that the damage that Undetectability offers the game is greatly
outweighed by any damage that might be caused by extending Walking Unseen to
yet another college.

>
> I'm currently toying with the idea that a indetectable entity may be
sensed
> indirectly - using wizard's eye, crystals etc. or perhaps even using a
> mirror. Would that be enough? Does that work with the idea that
> indetectability affects the mind - a "you-WILL-not-see-me" as opposed to
> "you-can't-see-me" effect of other spells?

Who knows whether it is enough. Some people are still thinking about whether
or not a concealment spell is reasonable  for Mind Mages.

As for whether or not it works with indetectability affecting the mind in
the way you suggest, well, who knows again...

At the root of it, this particular line of rationalisation indicates a spell
effect  that would allow an observer a magic resistance roll.


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]

<snip useful comparisons with other systems from Jim>

> 
> GURPS, although not specifically in the fantasy genre, does 
> have psionics,
> and none of the psi abilities specifically offers 
> concealment. 

Agreed

(Although,
> mindwiping is explicitly stated, and depending on the DM, you 
> might be able
> to argue that Telesend could provide you with a kind of invisibility).
> 

The psionic Illusion ability (think that is the right one, it has been a few
months since I played it) lets you convey any sensation to a target whose
mind you have already entered - from falling into Jupiter to total sensory
depravation. So you can get into the giant spider's mind, and tell them to
see/feel/etc what they expect to on the path back to their lair - ignoring
the party that they walk past. Roll once per minute to maintain the
illusion, and roll again and concentrate to make significant changes to the
illusion IIRC. The main defence was keeping someone out of your mind in the
first place. Very powerful against a small number of targets, providing your
chance of successful rolls is very good.


Cheers
Errol


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

> >So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.
>
> This suggestion raises the objection that Witchsight allows an entity to
> see an Unseen character. Witchsight is a sensory enhancement, but Mind
> Mages generally affect the mind directly, and not through the senses - else
> they would be Illusionists.

You're leaping to a conclusion there not sustained by the mechanics; although I agree most
mind-mages Affect [i.e., counterfeit having] a mind.   Firstly if mind mages Effect the mind
directly, why do the effected minds not get a MR vs Mind magics.

Secondly -- although again I agree, the *old* version of the spell had a PC-roll allowing the
inference that the DQ writers, in their folly, thought the mind-college spell effected, or was
defeated by, the senses.  It is quite possible for us to concede that perhaps several spells act in
the same way, although they are of different colleges.

> Actually I have problems with the preponderance of Walking Unseen spells
> across Colleges which surely have different mechanisms for achieving the
> effect - perhaps Earth Mages should have a "Camouflage" spell, Celestials
> "Walking in Shadows" and so on. While it may be said that nomenclature is
> irrelevant, the name of a spell is a major clue.

I concur.  Different college, different name!  (even if the effect is practically identical).
Hopefully any "common" spell will also have slight distinctions [in BC, range, etc] for each
college.

I *am* keen on the possibility of Martin's "magical pass action"  Definite potential there for a
high-grade not-being-noticed effect that prevents the undetectable target from being perceived by
all, yet restricting the targets choice of actions and mobility.

Could I plea again for open suggestions as to what we want in terms of effect & playability and
then, when/if we know what we really want, we construct/tweak a spell that fits the requirements


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

Um...So, you think that Mind Mages SHOULD have a concealment spell?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Parkinson" <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


>
> > >So I suggest, replace Undetectabily with Walking Unseen.
> >
> > This suggestion raises the objection that Witchsight allows an entity to
> > see an Unseen character. Witchsight is a sensory enhancement, but Mind
> > Mages generally affect the mind directly, and not through the senses -
else
> > they would be Illusionists.
>
> You're leaping to a conclusion there not sustained by the mechanics;
although I agree most
> mind-mages Affect [i.e., counterfeit having] a mind.   Firstly if mind
mages Effect the mind
> directly, why do the effected minds not get a MR vs Mind magics.
>
> Secondly -- although again I agree, the *old* version of the spell had a
PC-roll allowing the
> inference that the DQ writers, in their folly, thought the mind-college
spell effected, or was
> defeated by, the senses.  It is quite possible for us to concede that
perhaps several spells act in
> the same way, although they are of different colleges.
>
> > Actually I have problems with the preponderance of Walking Unseen spells
> > across Colleges which surely have different mechanisms for achieving the
> > effect - perhaps Earth Mages should have a "Camouflage" spell,
Celestials
> > "Walking in Shadows" and so on. While it may be said that nomenclature
is
> > irrelevant, the name of a spell is a major clue.
>
> I concur.  Different college, different name!  (even if the effect is
practically identical).
> Hopefully any "common" spell will also have slight distinctions [in BC,
range, etc] for each
> college.
>
> I *am* keen on the possibility of Martin's "magical pass action"  Definite
potential there for a
> high-grade not-being-noticed effect that prevents the undetectable target
from being perceived by
> all, yet restricting the targets choice of actions and mobility.
>
> Could I plea again for open suggestions as to what we want in terms of
effect & playability and
> then, when/if we know what we really want, we construct/tweak a spell that
fits the requirements
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> Um...So, you think that Mind Mages SHOULD have a concealment spell?

Yes for the strong (but not irrefutable) reasons in previous mailings.


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

Michael Parkinson wrote:

> ...the *old* version of the spell had a PC-roll allowing the
> inference that the DQ writers, in their folly, thought the mind-college spell effected, or was
> defeated by, the senses.

Perception as a stat seems (seemed? DQ2) to have more than just a meaning of keen senses.  It was also
a measure of experience and possibly world knowledge.

Perhaps the inference was that more experienced characters had more chance of realizing that their
minds were being played with and then penetrating the effect.

Cheers,
Martin

--

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

> Michael Parkinson wrote:
>
> > ...the *old* version of the spell had a PC-roll allowing the
> > inference that the DQ writers, in their folly, thought the mind-college spell effected, or was
> > defeated by, the senses.
>
> Perception as a stat seems (seemed? DQ2) to have more than just a meaning of keen senses.
>  It was also
> a measure of experience and possibly world knowledge.

The way we played it was a bit more binary.  Frankly I have nothing against a concealment spell that
allows a perceptive character to realise that "there's something not quite right with that empty
chair over there."  Unfortunately you don't just notice that the chair is stressed as if it had a
lot of extra weight, you see & hear the entire 300 lb warrior in full-plate & 2hd Swd that is
distressing the furniture in all his solidity.

> Perhaps the inference was that more experienced characters had more chance of realizing that their
> minds were being played with and then penetrating the effect.

Although the realisation, like the befuddlement, has an absolute effect (see or not see).  Therefore
the "realisation that their minds were being played with" is entirely devoid of conscious thought --
until you discuss the matter with people who can't see him, you don't realise that lesser minds have
been deceived and that you have not.  This is different from the "not quite right" PC rolls normally
made.  Although I have given Players who succeeded with their perceive-invis PC roll  *another* PC
roll -- because of their  "world knowledge" -- to realise that there is something wrong with the way
a mind-mage-invisible target is behaving, with the multiple depending on how inappropriate the
behaviour is.


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Parkinson [mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz]
> 

> Jacqui
> > Actually I have problems with the preponderance of Walking 
> Unseen spells
> > across Colleges which surely have different mechanisms for 
> achieving the
> > effect - perhaps Earth Mages should have a "Camouflage" 
> spell, Celestials
> > "Walking in Shadows" and so on. While it may be said that 
> nomenclature is
> > irrelevant, the name of a spell is a major clue.
> 
> I concur.  Different college, different name!  (even if the 
> effect is practically identical).
> Hopefully any "common" spell will also have slight 
> distinctions [in BC, range, etc] for each
> college.
> 

Didn't we decide that Spells with identical _effects_ should have the same
name (fewer things to remember), and different effects different names (less
confusion).

Therefore same effect by different mechanisms (including BC, Range etc)
should be same name (and meanwhile provide a bit more mystery in DA
responses - "oh c**p, last spell was Unseen").

Is the extra flavour worth the hassle of sorting out different effects? I
won't pretend that what we have is divine perfection, but making minor
changes to the different Unseens (and Blending and... hey, are there any
shared spells that aren't conceal/vision related?) is definitely too much.

If we decide we want something like Unseen in Mind, we can then decide if it
is a straight copy of the others, or something different (and worth the
hassle of being different.)

Cheers
Errol


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