----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacqui Smith" <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
>
> 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.

Yes, but specifically in the Phantasm spell, the thing is unseeable by
anyone NOT the target. Your mate suddenly screams and says 'They're in the
walls, they're in the walls!!!' and falls down dead...
>
> 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.

So, would this apply to someone who walked into the volume of a Telepathy
spell?

> 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.

Well, you know, not actually BEING  a Mind Mage with an active Telepathy
spell running, you will forgive me if I didn't just KNOW what you meant. I
have to rely on what you write.

Nevertheless, all this is offering is  a reduction of DM workload. That may
be fine for you, but I don't see why any spell, particularly a spell that
has behaved as reprehensibly as this one seems to have should be given any
privileges at all.

It's also pretty unoriginal.
>
> 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.

Not interested. More bookkeeping. Now the DM has to know what the range is
between members in the party. And, it means that it could be used to gauge
distances between party members.

Possibly the worst thing is having some  importunate dick of a Mind Mage
turning around and DEMANDING  that I tell them how far away a particular
party member is. Mind you, the only answer this is likely to engender is the
directions to the door of my house, engraved into my instep, and imprinted
on the butt of the departing Mind Mage's player.


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

Don't see the problem.

I think you're trying to solve too many problems before you know whether
they are problems.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


> 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 --
>


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

At 18:48 8/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>Yes, but specifically in the Phantasm spell, the thing is unseeable by
>anyone NOT the target. Your mate suddenly screams and says 'They're in the
>walls, they're in the walls!!!' and falls down dead...

But didn't you say:

"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."

So the concealment is ended for the target of the Phantasm, but presumably 
not their companions? This is considerably stronger that what I am 
suggesting - where you can make an MR check as soon as you have reason to 
suspect an indetectable entity is present - and a party member going 
"Arghhhh! Phantasm!" should be sufficient reason.

>So, would this apply to someone who walked into the volume of a Telepathy
>spell?

Given that the telepathy spell is self-targeted, and that characters are 
unaware of whether or not they have resisted the effect it seems highly 
unlikely that it would apply.

> > 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.
>
>Not interested. More bookkeeping. Now the DM has to know what the range is
>between members in the party. And, it means that it could be used to gauge
>distances between party members.

Sorry, Jim, but there's already this little spell called Mind Speech which 
stops working when party members get out of range. And there's telepathy 
and even ESP....

I suggest the simplest solution is that you don't allow Mind Mages in your 
game - especially if this is how you feel:

>Possibly the worst thing is having some  importunate dick of a Mind Mage
>turning around and DEMANDING  that I tell them how far away a particular
>party member is. Mind you, the only answer this is likely to engender is the
>directions to the door of my house, engraved into my instep, and imprinted
>on the butt of the departing Mind Mage's player.


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