At 15:04 7/02/02 +1300, Martin wrote:
>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.

Which suggests a solution to the problem.

How does this sound... The indetectable person is unable to be sensed until 
that person takes some action that suggests that there is someone there - 
arrows from nowhere, visible spell effects etc. At which point, anyone who 
realises that something's wrong gets a magical resistance check to perceive 
the indetectable person - perhaps taking a pass action to do this?

Does that make sense?

Would it have the desired result?

Jacqui


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]


> At which 
> point, anyone who 
> realises that something's wrong gets a magical resistance 
> check to perceive 
> the indetectable person - perhaps taking a pass action to do this?
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 

Possibly - especially if you cast the spell at the entity how you are trying
to hide from.

> Would it have the desired result?
> 
>

No, we are back to lots of dice rolls


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacqui Smith" <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.
>
> Which suggests a solution to the problem.
>
> How does this sound... The indetectable person is unable to be sensed
until
> that person takes some action that suggests that there is someone there -
> arrows from nowhere, visible spell effects etc. At which point, anyone who
> realises that something's wrong gets a magical resistance check to
perceive
> the indetectable person - perhaps taking a pass action to do this?
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Would it have the desired result?
>
> Jacqui

So, if you were, let's say, a Mind Mage, and you were undetectable, and you
cast, O, let's say, Telepathy...Then you wouldn't be detected, because  it's
not visible, and there is no visible special effect. Then, again, let's say
you cast Mental Attack, then again, then you wouldn't attract anyone's
attention, because, Holy loose cannon Mind Mage, Batman, THAT doesn't have a
visible special effect, and seeing as it's single target, then the person on
the end of the spell is going to know you are there, but chances are he's
going to be unconscious.

So, what you're really saying is that the only time this spell is going to
be compromised is when a Mind Mage casts an area of effect spell with
visible special effects. That would be TK Rage, wouldn't it?

While I don't have any specific problem with this spell being better in the
hands of a Mind Mage, I have a problem with this spell when it only makes
the spell weaker in the hands of NON Mind Mages. Which is what this spell
does.

The only time a MR would be invoked is when someone cast a spell that  had a
visible special effect. Mind Mages are famous for not having any. As are E&E
mages, mind you.

And, of course, it's a return to the original system were you made a check
of some kind to see if you could see through the undetectability. This would
mean a return to the bookkeeping that was so roundly condemned last time.

I don't think this is ANY solution at all.
 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Amongst other problems, this is the process flow for disbelieving illusions.

"The illusion is unable to be sensed until 
it takes some action that suggests that there is nothing there - 
arrows from nowhere, visible spell effects etc. At which point, anyone who 
realises that something's wrong gets a disbelieve perception check to
perceive 
the illusion - perhaps taking a pass action to do this?"

It didn't work for illusions, its extra dice rolls, and it also implicitly
uses stealth - someone moving by suggests that someone is there by noise
(let alone racket caused by spell casting), so if they fail a stealth roll
or do something obvious/unstealthy, the opposition then make a MR to
detect...

Its also too tough.

I think this is also phase 3.

* Phase 1 is do we want undetectability.
I've heard plenty of yes's, some implicit, no definite no's.
* Phase 2 is what sort of game effect do we want.
usable in combat, mass effect, area effect, detectable easily, uses skills,
mainly social, etc.
* Phase 3 is mechanics

* Phase 4 is spell write-ups

I suggest we move onto what sort of game effect we want, given we seem to
have general support for a mind concealment spell.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]

How does this sound... The indetectable person is unable to be sensed until 
that person takes some action that suggests that there is someone there - 
arrows from nowhere, visible spell effects etc. At which point, anyone who 
realises that something's wrong gets a magical resistance check to perceive 
the indetectable person - perhaps taking a pass action to do this?

Does that make sense?

Would it have the desired result?

Jacqui


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

Despite my own feelings on this being that we get rid of the damn spell
entirely. I offer a suggestion for replacement.

This is something Andrew suggested.

Ignore.
Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank
Resist: Passive.
Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally
unaware of the Adept for the duration of the spell.

It is tough and has the same issues as the current version but means in any
fight with a number of opponents the mind mage will be seen by someone.
Concentration removes some of the spells castable while under the effects,
although I have not read through the college to determine the effect of this
limitation.
Amajor point is that it is resistable so if you want o use it to sneak past
people you still need to use stealth in case they resisted.

Very few rolls, still very useful, not overly tough.

Mandos
/s


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

> * Phase 1 is do we want undetectability.
> I've heard plenty of yes's, some implicit, no definite no's.

I vote no. 

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos wrote:

>Ignore.
>Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank
>Resist: Passive.
>Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally
>unaware of the Adept for the duration of the spell.

Cant really see anything worthwhile in this suggestion. To start with it
gets back to the sitaution of the some people being able to see the target
of the spell and some cant (with the associated extra GM admin) - along
with extra multilpe dice rolls (resists). EG 8 guards confront the party  -
mind mage casts rank 20 spell on two party members - you then need to make
10 resistence checks then keep track of which 3-4 guards can see which
characters - guard A sees character X but not Y, guard B see Y but not X,
guard C sees neither etc etc.

Its also of very limited use - you have to be able to see the person that
you dont want to see you to cast this spell on them! This means they can
see you one would assume. Whats more the get a resist anyway. The spell as
currently written is a general utility type invisibility which was was
intended to "stop" once you entered combat. This suggestion is a limited
use "combat only" effect.






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

> Mandos wrote:
>
> >Ignore.
> >Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank
> >Resist: Passive.
> >Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally
> >unaware of the Adept for the duration of the spell.
>
> Cant really see anything worthwhile in this suggestion. To start with it
> gets back to the sitaution of the some people being able to see the target
> of the spell and some cant (with the associated extra GM admin) - along
> with extra multilpe dice rolls (resists). EG 8 guards confront
> the party  -
> mind mage casts rank 20 spell on two party members - you then need to make
> 10 resistence checks then keep track of which 3-4 guards can see which
> characters - guard A sees character X but not Y, guard B see Y but not X,
> guard C sees neither etc etc.


You miss the point, the targets of the spell is not the person becomming
invisible. The target is the person who will not see.

Ie the mind mage casts the spell on the guard watching the corridor and
controls his mind stopping him from seeing the mage as they trundle past him
down the corridor. Thus actually making it more of a mind focussed spell
more in flavour with the college.

It is one cast, one resistance per target. Even at max rank it is about 6
rolls and no confusion.

Mandos
/s
Mandos
/s


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

Mind magic works on individual's minds, trying to get a spell to get
round this fact is going to be very hard. In the end individuals are
each going to get a chance to reject the mind mage's efforts to blank
their mind to their presence. Mind magic that effects large groups of
individuals is always going to be hard as the mage is trying to control
a lot of minds at once. Trying to get the world to ignore you by mental
effort is hard, doing it to a couple of individuals is a lot easier.=20

As long as mind mages want to control a lot of minds at once there is
going to be a problem with dice rolls. Either we stick with this problem
or we dump that idea and find something that works. If you want to sneak
past a guard, you can fool the guard-not the dozen people walking past
him with you. If you want to be ignored in combat, work out who you want
to be ignored by. The rest of the people will see you. This creates a
powerful spell in small doses.=20

Invisibility can be seen by everybody and their dog, walking unseen is
useful but also has its limitations, as does blending. Mind mage
concealment equally should have its uses and limitations.=20

I suggest that we have two options.

1. a spell that effects one entity. That entity gets to resist then
totally ignores the caster. As the caster progresses in ranks they get
to do more invasive actions. At low levels they can walk past the entity
without being noticed, at the highest levels they can pick his pocket
and swipe his weapons belt and the entity will pay no attention at all.

2. walking unseen variant. It already exists, it works, it provides the
concealment option for the college without being overpowered or too
limited. To suit the college you can add the avoidance aspect of the
current undetectable write-up (people generally ignore the caster and
will walk around them).


Ian


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

>
> * Phase 1 is do we want undetectability.
> I've heard plenty of yes's, some implicit, no definite no's.

I suggest we ignore implicit yes's or no's and make people be specific. I
also suggest that there is a 'don't know' for those people that can't
decide.

As for me, then, explicitly, I am a yes. I think Mind Mage's should have a
concealment spell.

I'm not sure where we are up to, but here are the qualities that I think a
Mind Mage concealment spell should have.

1. It is a concealment that AUTOMATICALLY fails when someone is (or some
people are) aware of it.

2. When  the target is not actively trying to be concealed, then it provides
a passive, but lesser amount of concealment.

3. It automatically fails when the spell cannot possibly offer concealment
from the surroundings. In other words, you cannot use the spell to sneak up
on someone across an open courtyard waving an axe dripping the gore of your
best mate. The presence of the concealed person must have some creditable
reason for being there.

4. I think that the concealment cannot work in front of someone. You cannot
cast the spell and become undetectable that way. However, if you have the
spell in place, and you manage to get some cover, you could become
concealed.

This is so the players can see each other and interact. It's bootless to
suggest that they will ignore someone else, when in the real world they're
asking them to pass them the crisps.

5. I believe that a concealed person would be able to cast spells, including
some kinds of attack spells. I also believe that as soon as the spell was
used, the concealment effect would be ended for the target of the spell. The
concealment spell doesn't end, but the effect automatically ends when you
make an attack or attempt to cast a spell on someone.

Therefore, a Mind Mage can cast Empathy on his party members, and not become
obvious to the enemy, although he would completely obvious to his party
members. Casting Telepathy wouldn't have an effect on the concealment,
because, God knows why, but it's not considered an attack.

Although, how you can POSSIBLY think that someone rooting around in your
brain is NOT an attack is beyond me.

Whenever someone is the target of a spell, then the concealment
automatically fails for them. If the attack spell has multiple targets, then
the concealment fails for all of the intended targets. If the attack spell
is an area of effect spell, then the concealment fails for every target that
would be in the area of effect at the time when the spell was threatened.

Note that I said threatened, rather than cast. If the concealed caster was
about to cast windstorm but failed, then all of the people in the area would
notice them. In addition, spells that change the environment but that are
not direct attack spells (Windwhistle, for example) would stop the
concealment effect.

6. There should be some spell that prevents the working of this spell. Mind
Cloak, maybe, or some other spell(s).

Those are the things that I think of when I consider Mind Mage concealment,
anyway. As I say, I might have moved too far along the development path.


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

If we are going to start making concrete suggestions, I'm keener on:

Forget.
Duration: Instant
Resist: Passive? None?
Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to forget the last
30 seconds (+ 10 seconds / Rank) plus the subsequent 30 seconds. During the
next 30 seconds, the target(s) will be confused and only react to strong
stimuli <i.e. they will fight back>. Hypnosis may reveal the lost memories.

It's a concealment spell, useful for social situations or it you start a
fight and need to stop it again. Guards, social faux pas, even when a party
member inserts both feet into their mouth. Its very "mind", and yet utility.
It may just be a bit too different.

But are we up to the concrete suggetion stage?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hasell [mailto:IanH@dominionfunds.co.nz]

I suggest that we have two options.

1. a spell that effects one entity. That entity gets to resist then
totally ignores the caster. As the caster progresses in ranks they get
to do more invasive actions. At low levels they can walk past the entity
without being noticed, at the highest levels they can pick his pocket
and swipe his weapons belt and the entity will pay no attention at all.

2. walking unseen variant. It already exists, it works, it provides the
concealment option for the college without being overpowered or too
limited. To suit the college you can add the avoidance aspect of the
current undetectable write-up (people generally ignore the caster and
will walk around them).


Ian


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Hasell" <IanH@dominionfunds.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.



1. a spell that effects one entity. That entity gets to resist then
totally ignores the caster. As the caster progresses in ranks they get
to do more invasive actions. At low levels they can walk past the entity
without being noticed, at the highest levels they can pick his pocket
and swipe his weapons belt and the entity will pay no attention at all.

Not, personally, that I have an objection with the effect, but why couldn't
you use  Hypnotism to do the same thing?


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" >
> Forget.
> Duration: Instant
> Resist: Passive? None?
> Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to forget the
last
> 30 seconds (+ 10 seconds / Rank) plus the subsequent 30 seconds. During
the
> next 30 seconds, the target(s) will be confused and only react to strong
> stimuli <i.e. they will fight back>. Hypnosis may reveal the lost
memories.
>
> It's a concealment spell, useful for social situations or it you start a
> fight and need to stop it again. Guards, social faux pas, even when a
party
> member inserts both feet into their mouth. Its very "mind", and yet
utility.
> It may just be a bit too different.

I don't see why Hypnotism couldn't do this.

Also, I don't see that it's a concealment spell. It IS an useful spell, but
NOT a concealment spell.


> But are we up to the concrete suggetion stage?

No bloody idea at all.


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

Jim Arona wrote:

> I suggest we ignore implicit yes's or no's and make people be specific. I
> also suggest that there is a 'don't know' for those people that can't
> decide.

I'm happy for the Mind Mages to have a concealment spell.

I agree with Jim's suggestions for the qualities that such a spell should have.
I especially like #5:

> 5. I believe that a concealed person would be able to cast spells, including
> some kinds of attack spells. I also believe that as soon as the spell was
> used, the concealment effect would be ended for the target of the spell. The
> concealment spell doesn't end, but the effect automatically ends when you
> make an attack or attempt to cast a spell on someone.

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: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
> 
> It's a concealment spell, useful for social situations or it 
> you start a
> fight and need to stop it again. Guards, social faux pas, 
> even when a party
> member inserts both feet into their mouth. Its very "mind", 
> and yet utility.
> It may just be a bit too different.
> 
> But are we up to the concrete suggetion stage?
> 
>

Given that anything adopted needs to pass two hurdles (the right type of
effect, and being workable), I see no problem in giving an spell outline or
first attempt at spell description along with the concept.

I like Jim's points, but am unsure of the practicality of some of them. I
don't have time this afternoon to offer anything more constructive.

I would like to point out that Walking Unseen has good points (balanced,
well understood), as well has bad (for purposes of inclusion in Mind
College) eg making it a Special as a straight lift looks too weak, while
having it as a General causes problems with MA requirements (with are
surmountable with a bit of effort). We would need to be careful tweaking
Unseen it is fairly carefully balanced (removing either of its main
limitations - dissipates on touch plus any witchsight sees it - changes it
substantially).

Cheers
Errol


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
> 
> I like Jim's points, but am unsure of the practicality of some of them. 

Huh?


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

> * Phase 1 is do we want undetectability.
> I've heard plenty of yes's, some implicit, no definite no's.

In case it isn't obvious, I vote yes.

I would like to see* something different, with different strengths and
weaknesses, to other colleges' concealment.

A strong effect (difficult to penetrate - e.g. immune to witchsight) but on a
small number of people is interestingly different and fits the college well.

If limited to a few people, then a useful adjunct would be (possibly as a
separate spell) an 'innocence' like effect (don't mind me, I belong here)
and/or a stealth enhancement (don't look over here) to deal (less effectively)
with the crowds around the gate as well as the real spell for the gate guard.

A mass invisibility allowing the invis people to see each other and interact
without breaking the invis is also interestingly different - although ordinary
invis plus mindspeach achieves much the same thing.

It should not allow attacks/hostile magics and keep operating, for game
balance. (Well, possibly a good chance of breaking every time a hostile action
is taken might be OK)




* or perhaps to be unable to see...


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

At 11:48 8/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>So, if you were, let's say, a Mind Mage, and you were undetectable, and you
>cast, O, let's say, Telepathy...Then you wouldn't be detected, because  it's
>not visible, and there is no visible special effect. Then, again, let's say
>you cast Mental Attack, then again, then you wouldn't attract anyone's
>attention, because, Holy loose cannon Mind Mage, Batman, THAT doesn't have a
>visible special effect, and seeing as it's single target, then the person on
>the end of the spell is going to know you are there, but chances are he's
>going to be unconscious.
>
>So, what you're really saying is that the only time this spell is going to
>be compromised is when a Mind Mage casts an area of effect spell with
>visible special effects. That would be TK Rage, wouldn't it?

Actually I tend to consider people falling unconscious to be a fairly 
visible effect. And I tend to think phantasms are fairly visible, at less 
to the victim, as is the result of a mental disruption spell.

My wording was "an action which suggests someone is there", and spells 
which force a magic resistance must surely be covered by those words. 
"Visible spell effect" was an example, a subset if you like, of things that 
make someone obvious.

And, of course, it's a return to the original system were you made a check
>of some kind to see if you could see through the undetectability. This would
>mean a return to the bookkeeping that was so roundly condemned last time.

Not necessarily. Whereas the old version generated lots of number crunching 
to see multiple indetectable people, because a separate perception check 
was needed for each one, I'd recommend only one magical resistance check to 
see all the indetectable individuals present - especially if only one mind 
mage was responsible.

I'd also suggest that there's a range on this thing - that the indetectable 
entity must stay within a certain distance of the mind mage to stay 
indetectable.

Jacqui


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

The concepts for the type of effect sound right (what Mind Mages should be
able to do), but actually writing them down in a way that is useable by us
all (not too much hassle, basically).

For instance, I'm concerned about targets of concealee's (?) 'attack' spells
having the spells effects suspended, then possibly reinstated - especially
if it's a multi-target, and the targets then split up and get different
lines of sight. Seems a right pain to me.
I'm not sure how this works with your point 1 - which, while harder to
explain with logic (for what that is worth), is nice and simple.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2002 15:11
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
> > 
> > I like Jim's points, but am unsure of the practicality of 
> some of them. 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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