----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacqui Smith" <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


> 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.

I also said:

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

If someone is under attack by a concealed Mind Mage with a Phantasm spell,
and they yell out 'Concealed Mind Mage!!!' then I suppose that the rest of
the group would know and the concealment would automatically end.

EXCEPT:

Phantasm makes you think that you're being attacked by your worst fear.
Presumably, this is a constantly changing fear, 'cause with the number of
times the bloody thing gets used on you, whatever that thingie is, it'd be
more likely to bore you than frighten you to death. But, I digress.

The spell creates something that engages your attention by being the thing
that you're most afraid of RIGHT NOW. Which means that you are probably NOT
going to be able to tell the rest of your friends that you're being attacked
by a concealed Mind Mage. An alert and self aware character might be able to
shout out  a warning, though.

Your point is that it's significantly tougher than your suggestion. I agree
that is quite tough. I don't see it as being a problem. I see your
suggestion being less tough, on the other hand, it strikes me as being a
complete pain in the arse to administer.

I wonder how attractive this spell would be if the Mind Mage who cast it had
to make all of the dice rolls, and keep records of who could see whom?

>
> >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.

It has an area of effect and at some level it interacts with people IN that
area of effect, because it forces a MR versus Mind Special.

Sure, the spell could be an exception. I, personally, don't see how anything
as invasive as Telepathy could possibly be so passive that you would not
notice it.
>
> > > 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....

ESP doesn't target players (in the sense that you can't recognise someone by
their ESP signature), and the range in Mind Speech, at least as far as I
have ever had to deal with, is only for the purposes of casting it
initially.

I never had any problems with people casting Telepathy, because I made it
quite clear that, in my game, Telepathy and Mind Speech makes mental
illnesses contagious. Very few Mind Mages or their friends are keen on
picking up the variety of interesting quirks and peccadilloes that NPCs
might have as the plumbed the depths of the Forces of Darkness.

I haven't really noticed players using spells like Mind Speech or Telepathy
to track players, and personally, I don't mind if they do. Those spells seem
designed to serve that kind of purpose, and it seems to me that there are
some natural problems with each of these spells.

A concealment spell does NOT seem to me to serve the same kind of job. If
you want to be able to determine whether or not a party member is within a
particular range, then you have a spell that SPECIFICALLY does that task.

>
> 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.
>

Yes, it IS how I feel, actually, Jacqui. There is nothing more disruptive
than a player without manners. No amount of excellence in a game can make up
for impoliteness in a player, whether they are Mind Mages or Fire Mages or
some other college (assuming they even HAVE a college).

The people who DM this game do it for fun. To have some arrogant arsewipe of
a player make demands of MY time and MY patience (of which I am notorious
for having in very short supply) destroys ANY enjoyment I might have. So,
yes, my first choice will be to say to a player who lacks any manners to
find another game.


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

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

> 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.
> 

Does it fail 
a. for everyone, or 
b. only those who are 'aware' of it.

> 
> 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.
> ...
> Whenever someone is the target of a spell, then the concealment
> automatically fails for them.

(Redundent if the answer above is a.)
Could you please explain how these two work together. Is "the concealment
effect would be ended for the target of the [later 'attack'] spell" not an
example of someone becoming "aware of it"? Does 1 refer specicially to the
spell then, rather than the effect?


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


> > From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Does it fail
> a. for everyone, or
> b. only those who are 'aware' of it.

Clearly, it fails for someone who is (or some people who are) aware of it.
If you (singular or plural) are aware that someone is concealed then the
concealment spells fails.
>
> >
> > 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.
> > ...
> > Whenever someone is the target of a spell, then the concealment
> > automatically fails for them.
>
> (Redundent if the answer above is a.)
> Could you please explain how these two work together. Is "the concealment
> effect would be ended for the target of the [later 'attack'] spell" not an
> example of someone becoming "aware of it"? Does 1 refer specicially to the
> spell then, rather than the effect?


If you are concealed, and healing yourself of damage, then because you are
the target of your own spell, then you the concealment effect of the spell
fails for you. In other words, you are suddenly no longer concealed from
yourself.

Not that you ever were, practically speaking.

However, the concealment spell is not ended. It is not going to make other
people aware of you, by itself.

If you had cast a healing spell on one of three people, none of whom were
aware of you, then it would works like this. Assuming the concealed person
was not otherwise inobvious, the target of your healing spell would be
healed, and become aware of you.

His other two friends would not be aware of you, until he pointed you out.
Then, they would automatically be aware of you.

In the case of a number of Mind Mage spells, a lot of this isn't really that
relevant. I believe a Phantasm spell to cause the target's sense of what is
the most immediate concern to supervene, and force them to take what is,
perhaps, a less tactically sensible move, IN GENERAL.

Alert, quick thinking players may notice the Mind Mage and be able to give
warning to the rest of their friends.

The other big attack spell you see with Mind Mages is Mental Attack. At
least with that spell, you get to resist it. So, if I Mind Mage casts it,
then you're either conscious and aware of them, or unconscious (and
effectively unaware of them).

To review:

There is a concealed person in the area.

    Another person is aware that there is a concealed person in the area.

    Therefore, they can see them, if they are able to see them.

    They CANNOT seem if that person is not otherwise visible, e.g. the
concealed person is standing behind  a screen.

     If the concealed person casts a spell on an individual, or on a volume
that the individual is a part of, then that individual is aware of the
concealed person.

    Assumming that a target of a concealment spell was revealed, then the
spell is not ended, the concealment effect is, however. To be able to become
concealed again, the revealed person would have to find someway of
convincing any observers that they had gone somewhere else.

    In other words, it isn't enough to run to a T intersection in a castle
and go left or right. You have to CONVINCE the people who are aware of you
that you went left while in fact, you went right or stayed where you were.


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


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

At the moment, we're gathering information on what people want in terms of
whether or not Mind Mages should have a concealment spell, and it seems
pretty fairly the centre of the business that most people do, with only
George providing a dissenting voice.

If that is indeed the case, and that the general tenor is that a Ming Mage
should have a concealment spell, then the question is what qualities should
that concealment spell take.

Right now, all that is important is identifying the qualities that the spell
should have.

(I suppose I should have said in my previous post that the spell should be
easy for a DM to administer, but, it is the kind of thing that I take for
granted.

In case anyone suspects that I'm not keenly in favour of a spell that is
easy to administer, then I am.)

Right now, the thing we should be doing is saying what we want this Mind
Mage concealment to do. We don't want to know HOW it does it. If you have a
little idea about how to do something, write it down on a piece of paper,
and hold on to it.

It seems to me that people are in danger of talking about how we might
implement a particular kind of effect. Or, they're giving examples of
effects that such a spell might have. Or they're coming up with completely
different types of spells that imitate those effects.

I would prefer that we did not go haring off into the area of what the spell
might look like, until we have decided what we want the spell to do. So,
frankly, I consider, at THIS stage, a projected spell desription to be a
complete waste of time.

Nor do I think that it's really worth working up rules to cover particular
situations, or share ideas on how we might implement the stuff we see
online. For the moment, I think we would get more done if we just canvassed
for what we want the spell to do.

Some people will inevitably say crap like 'it's just the way I think', or 'I
find that I put my ideas together better when I'm writing rules'. I invite
these people to write out their ideas in the formart they're comfortable
with on a piece of paper,and  abstract them into a form where we are JUST
LOOKING AT THEMES.

What we don't need is to work out the details for everything now.

Somethings may be workable, some may only be workable with some work, and
some may never be workable. When we have enough of these themes, then we can
look at collating the list.

What is a waste of time, at the moment, are complete spell descriptions,
etc. Spell descriptions are the way that we tell the game what we want to
achieve. It isn't the way we talk to each other about how we want  things to
work. We are better at addressing each other in terms of our intentions.

This means that, for now, we don't need to know HOW something will work. For
the moment, that is just a waste of time. It's more important to get a
general idea of what most people feel a concealment spell should do, whether
or not it can actually be achieved.

We could sit here for YEARS arguing about the logic of this collection of
themes or whether or not these ideas are particularly nice , etc, etc, etc.
At the moment, that would be a completely valueless enterprise, because all
we really want to see is how people think the spell behaves.

Once we know that, THEN we can work out how it will be implemented.


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

> Right now, all that is important is identifying the qualities
> that the spell should have.

I would like to see the spell target the opponents. SO the mind mage casts
it at the people who will not see the adept if it works.

My reasoning is that resistability is an easy to administer method of
ensuring a spell always has a chance of failure in a combat situation.

That said my second quality is that it should not be solely a combat spell.

Mandos
/s


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

> 
> Right now, all that is important is identifying the qualities 
> that the spell
> should have.
> 

I think it is _desirable_ that the concealment spell should be able to
protect more than just the adept. If it is 'Self only', then the Mind Mage
will have to do the 'sneak into the palace'-type stuff themselves, generally
alone. This limits its usefulness in non-combat situations, and encourages
the Mind Mage to split off by themselves. One of the reasons given for
changing how Mind Speech works was to lose the 'requirement' for the Mind
Mage to go along on the covert ops.

I agree with others' suggestion that it not be solely a combat spell.

Cheers
Errol


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

Are you saying that you want the spell to be:

1.  Not a 'self only' spell
2.  And, that you want it to be spell that it not explicitly a combat spell

?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


>
>
> >
> > Right now, all that is important is identifying the qualities
> > that the spell
> > should have.
> >
>
> I think it is _desirable_ that the concealment spell should be able to
> protect more than just the adept. If it is 'Self only', then the Mind Mage
> will have to do the 'sneak into the palace'-type stuff themselves,
generally
> alone. This limits its usefulness in non-combat situations, and encourages
> the Mind Mage to split off by themselves. One of the reasons given for
> changing how Mind Speech works was to lose the 'requirement' for the Mind
> Mage to go along on the covert ops.
>
> I agree with others' suggestion that it not be solely a combat spell.
>
> Cheers
> Errol
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

(Declaration of interest : I have a mind mage with Undetectibility)

I would like to see a concealment spell that allows the Mind Mage to travel
or move about with less chance of being detected.  (of the order of 1 in 4
or 1 in 5 people notice you).

It should not dissipate on casting a spell.

It should not be self only.

It should only affect 1 target.

Cheers,
	Brent.


At 18:31 10/02/02 +1300, Errol Cavit wrote:
>
>
>> 
>> Right now, all that is important is identifying the qualities 
>> that the spell
>> should have.
>> 
>
>I think it is _desirable_ that the concealment spell should be able to
>protect more than just the adept. If it is 'Self only', then the Mind Mage
>will have to do the 'sneak into the palace'-type stuff themselves, generally
>alone. This limits its usefulness in non-combat situations, and encourages
>the Mind Mage to split off by themselves. One of the reasons given for
>changing how Mind Speech works was to lose the 'requirement' for the Mind
>Mage to go along on the covert ops.
>
>I agree with others' suggestion that it not be solely a combat spell.
>
>Cheers
>Errol
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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