I would like a spell that has little overlap with invis/unseen, and does
something distinctly related to minds. It would enable a mind mage (and/or
others) to bypass a discrete and small number of observers very reliably,
but not in combat.

Invis/unseen is already a common effect held in contempt by most characters.


Andrew

-----Original Message-----
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.


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

It should be able to conceal others besides the adept. The implementation
_might_ be something like Target:Self and x entities who stay within y feet
can be hidden as well, or a more normal Target:Entit[y/ies] to be concealed,
or something like how Mind Speech is now written. 

"not be solely a combat spell" (a phrase that someone else used earlier)
covers a range of possibilities, including "stuff all use in actual combat"
as well as "some uses in combat (eg getting into position for a first blow,
sitting back and healing the party), but can be good at other times too".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2002 18:43
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.
> 
> 
> 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 --
>


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

Jim Arona wrote:

> [If] the general tenor is that a Mind Mage should have a concealment spell,
> then the question is what qualities should
> that concealment spell take.

Preferences:

1) Ease of use and administration
1a) The effect is working by default and it is not necessary to check against
each potential observer -- i.e. it works until/unless something breaks it.
1b) Prefer effects to be binary at an observer level -- either it is working on
an individual or it is not.  Once it is not working it cannot be re-established
without more magic being cast.
1c) Breaking the effect for one observer does not break the spell overall.
(Jim's #5)
1d) The test for breaking the effect is simple to administrate.

2) It can be cast on targets other than just Self -- for the reasons stated by
other discussion participants.

So... without getting into rules, I'd prefer to see something along a Walking
Unseen & Unheard style without the Witchsight limitation.
The effect is assumed to work.  The target is unnoticed by all.  If they touch
someone they break the effect for that person.  If they "get in someone's face"
they break the effect for that person.  If they "attack" someone (weapon, magic,
etc, etc.) they break the effect for that person.... etc, etc.

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 --

At 08:59 11/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>The effect is assumed to work.  The target is unnoticed by all.  If they touch
>someone they break the effect for that person.  If they "get in someone's 
>face"
>they break the effect for that person.  If they "attack" someone (weapon, 
>magic,
>etc, etc.) they break the effect for that person.... etc, etc.

Okay...

But what about this....

Mind mage seeks around being indetectable, fires off missile weapon at 
target entity, then ducks behind 100% concealment - a nice solid stone 
pillar for example. Assuming the mind mage has initiative, should the mage 
remain indetectable for that target?

Or...

The same mind mage uses indetectability to get into position, and using 
only telepathy to target an entity, casts mental attack on that entity from 
a position of total concealment (he was behind the arras, milord). Is the 
indetectability broken for that entity?

My gut feeling is that the mind mage remains indetectable, because the 
target can't make any connection between the event and the causal entity.

On the other hand, if the mind mage attacks one person in a group, should 
the rest of that group have a chance to spot him?

Jacqui


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

This is why we need a simpler "rule" or notion. How about something along
the lines of "if you attack anyone (who cares how they know what is an
attack), the spell stops working for you".

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2002 10:35 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


At 08:59 11/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
>The effect is assumed to work.  The target is unnoticed by all.  If they
touch
>someone they break the effect for that person.  If they "get in someone's 
>face"
>they break the effect for that person.  If they "attack" someone (weapon, 
>magic,
>etc, etc.) they break the effect for that person.... etc, etc.

Okay...

But what about this....

Mind mage seeks around being indetectable, fires off missile weapon at 
target entity, then ducks behind 100% concealment - a nice solid stone 
pillar for example. Assuming the mind mage has initiative, should the mage 
remain indetectable for that target?

Or...

The same mind mage uses indetectability to get into position, and using 
only telepathy to target an entity, casts mental attack on that entity from 
a position of total concealment (he was behind the arras, milord). Is the 
indetectability broken for that entity?

My gut feeling is that the mind mage remains indetectable, because the 
target can't make any connection between the event and the causal entity.

On the other hand, if the mind mage attacks one person in a group, should 
the rest of that group have a chance to spot him?

Jacqui


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

"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:

> I would like a spell that has little overlap with invis/unseen, and does
> something distinctly related to minds. It would enable a mind mage (and/or
> others) to bypass a discrete and small number of observers very reliably,
> but not in combat.

This is a good summary of my opinion too.

Michael.


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

We are trying to get people's opinions on how they think Mind Mage
concealment should work.

Why don't we leave the 'what if' and the 'if x, then y' crap till later.

Those particular procedures will be done later.

A critical analysis at this stage is not useful, seeing as we're just
looking for ideas right now.

Let us stay focused on the task at hand, which is to identify what
properties people think the spell has.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacqui Smith" <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


> At 08:59 11/02/02 +1300, you wrote:
> >The effect is assumed to work.  The target is unnoticed by all.  If they
touch
> >someone they break the effect for that person.  If they "get in someone's
> >face"
> >they break the effect for that person.  If they "attack" someone (weapon,
> >magic,
> >etc, etc.) they break the effect for that person.... etc, etc.
>
> Okay...
>
> But what about this....
>
> Mind mage seeks around being indetectable, fires off missile weapon at
> target entity, then ducks behind 100% concealment - a nice solid stone
> pillar for example. Assuming the mind mage has initiative, should the mage
> remain indetectable for that target?
>
> Or...
>
> The same mind mage uses indetectability to get into position, and using
> only telepathy to target an entity, casts mental attack on that entity
from
> a position of total concealment (he was behind the arras, milord). Is the
> indetectability broken for that entity?
>
> My gut feeling is that the mind mage remains indetectable, because the
> target can't make any connection between the event and the causal entity.
>
> On the other hand, if the mind mage attacks one person in a group, should
> the rest of that group have a chance to spot him?
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Implementation and rules can come later. Just the general idea is all we
need for now.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.


> It should be able to conceal others besides the adept. The implementation
> _might_ be something like Target:Self and x entities who stay within y
feet
> can be hidden as well, or a more normal Target:Entit[y/ies] to be
concealed,
> or something like how Mind Speech is now written.
>
> "not be solely a combat spell" (a phrase that someone else used earlier)
> covers a range of possibilities, including "stuff all use in actual
combat"
> as well as "some uses in combat (eg getting into position for a first
blow,
> sitting back and healing the party), but can be good at other times too".
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2002 18:43
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.
> >
> >
> > 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 --
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

I'm bored of playing this design game strictly according to Jim's rules.
They are probably as good a design rules as anything else, but they seem far
too confrontational, and are restricting input from other people too much.
Maybe I'm just being contrary.

Good luck with the spell. To paraphrase a DM of my acquaintance : "In the
end, I'll play it my way if it interferes with what I'm doing with my game,
so I don't care what you decide."

Jim, if you want to talk to me about this, please email me directly rather
than via the group.

Andrew


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

The general idea alone was apparently causing some confusion. The general
idea plus possible examples seemed clearer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2002 14:08
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.
> 
> 
> Implementation and rules can come later. Just the general 
> idea is all we
> need for now.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Errol Cavit" <ecavit@tranzrail.co.nz>
> To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be fixed... again.
> 
> 
> > It should be able to conceal others besides the adept. The 
> implementation
> > _might_ be something like Target:Self and x entities who 
> stay within y
> feet
> > can be hidden as well, or a more normal Target:Entit[y/ies] to be
> concealed,
> > or something like how Mind Speech is now written.
> >
> > "not be solely a combat spell" (a phrase that someone else 
> used earlier)
> > covers a range of possibilities, including "stuff all use in actual
> combat"
> > as well as "some uses in combat (eg getting into position 
> for a first
> blow,
> > sitting back and healing the party), but can be good at 
> other times too".
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> > > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2002 18:43
> > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > > Subject: Re: [dq] Invulnerability spell needs to be 
> fixed... again.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 --
> > >
> >
> >
> > -- 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 --

> I'm bored of playing this design game strictly according to Jim's rules.

I like it so far, but I do think it might be time for a recap of all the
idea's so far collected so we can start to move to the next step.

Mandos
/s


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

Okay. List of qualities to date:

Errol Cavit:

1. Undetectability is centered on self, but can be cast on several targets
that are near the caster.

2. That the spell be useful in situations other than combat.

Martin Dickson:

1. Ease of administration for the DM

2. No dice rolling (or other fiddling about) to see who is affected by the
spell. (I paraphrased Martin, but I think this is what he means.)

3. The spell is either working or it is not versus any given observer. If it
fails versus an observer, then the concealment can only be restored by
recasting.

4. Breaking the spell for one observer does not break the spell for all
potential observers.

5. The spell may be cast on others.

6. The concealment will fail if the target is too intrusive, i.e. gets in
the way.

Andrew Withy (and Michael Woodhams)

1. The concealment is of a different nature than existing spells, i.e.
Invisibility or Walking Unseen, etc., and that nature is  something to do
with manipulating minds.

2. It can be cast on other targets.

3. Its effectiveness is limited by the number of observers.

4. It is a more reliable concealment than forms like Invisibility and
Walking Unseen.

5. It is not effective in combat.

Brent Jackson

1. A concealment spell that provides detection at around 1 in 4 to 1 in 5.

2. The concealment does not dissipate when the concealed person casts.

3. The concealment should not be self only.

4. The concealment should be single target.

George Mitchinson & Ian Hasell.

1. The spell is cast on an opponent, who, if they fail to resist the spell,
is unable to detect the Mind Mage for a duration.

2. The spell should not be solely a combat spell.

Jim Arona

I am pretty much with Martin Dickson, and I think he states the position
clearer, so I am cutting and pasting my edition of his comments....With
changes where I don't agree. Those changes are the 3rd, and I have added a
7th.

1. Ease of administration for the DM

2. No dice rolling (or other fiddling about) to see who is affected by the
spell. (I paraphrased Martin, but I think this is what he means.)

3. The spell is either working or it is not versus any given observer. If it
fails versus an observer, then the concealment can only be restored by
breaking the observers line of sight or other detection. Once that has
happened, the concealed person is no longer obvious.

4. Breaking the spell for one observer does not break the spell for all
potential observers.

5. The spell may be cast on others.

6. The concealment will fail if the target is too intrusive, i.e. gets in
the way.

7. That there is some 'magical' means of countering the effect, e.g. Mind
Cloak, perhaps a Mind Special counter spell, or a completely new spell the
purpose of which is simply to penetrate this concealment.


I don't know what Stephen Martin, Michael Parkinson, Mark Simpson or Jacqui
Smith want from concealment, either. They may have posted something, but I
cannot find it if they did.

In the case of Jacqui Smith, I'm aware that you have offered a lot of
different kinds of suggestions, however I am unaware of what it is that you
are looking for in particular.

This is not about a rule to cover concealment, or a spell description. This
is simply a description of what you think a concealment spell should do.

Not everyone gives the same weighting to these qualities. For example, Brent
Jackson wants  the concealment to be foiled between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5
occasions. If that is to be done by a simple die roll, or perhaps a PC roll,
or perhaps a roll against the phase of the moon, he doesn't mind. (I'm being
obviously silly here. I imagine he would object if it was just too stupid).

At this point, all that is required is to offer what you think the
concealment might be like. Not it's base chance, its experience multiple,
its range, etc, etc, etc.

If we can identify the basic way people thinks the spell has an effect on
the game, then we at least know  where to start designing something that has
caused no end of hassle over the years.


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

Non-Combat.  Great for gaining suprise, but once the fight starts it doesn't
help.

Best Invis-type vs people.  It's mind based, should be most effective
against those with minds, ineffective against those without minds, limited
intelligence, etc.

Agree with Martin's points: 1, 2, 5, 6.

Re: 3 & 4 - I think that keeping track of which observers are still affected
and which are not could come to break point 1 - ease of admin.  I prefer to
keep it binary - you are Invis or you are not.

Agree with Andrew's points: 1, 2, 4, 5.

Agree with Jim's point 7.  Some form of counter-ability, not a new spell,
not something too common.

Key things are: Powerful, useful generally/utility, non-combat, has
downsides (not the perfect, undefeatable spell for all occasions).

Hope that makes sense.
Cheers, Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2002 3:26 p.m.


I don't know what Stephen Martin, Michael Parkinson, Mark Simpson or Jacqui
Smith want from concealment, either. They may have posted something, but I
cannot find it if they did.


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

Stephen Martin wrote:

> Agree with Martin's points: 1, 2, 5, 6.
>
> Re: 3 & 4 - I think that keeping track of which observers are still affected
> and which are not could come to break point 1 - ease of admin.  I prefer to
> keep it binary - you are Invis or you are not.

Having it on by default, and then possibly off per observer is not (IMHO) too
onerous a task for the GM.  For one thing it'd allow parties to see each other
(cast spell then touch each party member, for example), and since it'd be on by
default the only list to track is who can see the invisible target, not
additionally who has already tried and cannot.

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 --

Jim Arona wrote:

> 1. Ease of administration for the DM
>
> 2. No dice rolling (or other fiddling about) to see who is affected by the
> spell. (I paraphrased Martin, but I think this is what he means.)
>
> 3. The spell is either working or it is not versus any given observer. If it
> fails versus an observer, then the concealment can only be restored by
> breaking the observers line of sight or other detection. Once that has
> happened, the concealed person is no longer obvious.
>
> 4. Breaking the spell for one observer does not break the spell for all
> potential observers.
>
> 5. The spell may be cast on others.
>
> 6. The concealment will fail if the target is too intrusive, i.e. gets in
> the way.
>
> 7. That there is some 'magical' means of countering the effect, e.g. Mind
> Cloak, perhaps a Mind Special counter spell, or a completely new spell the
> purpose of which is simply to penetrate this concealment.

I'm a bit worried about 3 and the popping up from behind cover,
casting/attacking, then ducking back strategy.

A caveat on 5: what if it is an unwilling/unwitting person? Stun/sleep them,
undetectable them, carry them off. Party member disappears without trace.
(I suppose this can be done right now with invisibility, although as this spell
will be harder to penetrate, this method is nastier.)

I'd like to see it affect a limited number of people (nearest N people, or gets
cast on N would-be-observers instead of N friends) as it is an interesting
limitation, different from other invis, and makes sense in the framework of the
game (can only 'cloud' so many minds.)

If you have N party members and M potential observers, you may need to track
N*M 'who sees who' statuses (depending on details of how the spell works.)

Other than those minor points, this list looks good to me.


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

Here's an update of qualities of undetectability. If I've missed something,
ore misrepresented someone, feel free to comment.

Errol Cavit:

1. Undetectability is centered on self, but can be cast on several targets
that are near the caster.

2. That the spell be useful in situations other than combat.

Martin Dickson:

1. Ease of administration for the DM

2. No dice rolling (or other fiddling about) to see who is affected by the
spell. (I paraphrased Martin, but I think this is what he means.)

3. The spell is either working or it is not versus any given observer. If it
fails versus an observer, then the concealment can only be restored by
recasting.

4. Breaking the spell for one observer does not break the spell for all
potential observers.

5. The spell may be cast on others.

6. The concealment will fail if the target is too intrusive, i.e. gets in
the way.

Andrew Withy (and Michael Woodhams)

1. The concealment is of a different nature than existing spells, i.e.
Invisibility or Walking Unseen, etc., and that nature is  something to do
with manipulating minds.

2. It can be cast on other targets.

3. Its effectiveness is limited by the number of observers.

4. It is a more reliable concealment than forms like Invisibility and
Walking Unseen.

5. It is not effective in combat.

Brent Jackson

1. A concealment spell that provides detection at around 1 in 4 to 1 in 5.

2. The concealment does not dissipate when the concealed person casts.

3. The concealment should not be self only.

4. The concealment should be single target.

George Mitchinson & Ian Hasell.

1. The spell is cast on an opponent, who, if they fail to resist the spell,
is unable to detect the Mind Mage for a duration.

2. The spell should not be solely a combat spell.

Jim Arona

I am pretty much with Martin Dickson, and I think he states the position
clearer, so I am cutting and pasting my edition of his comments....With
changes where I don't agree. Those changes are the 3rd, and I have added a
7th.

1. Ease of administration for the DM

2. No dice rolling (or other fiddling about) to see who is affected by the
spell. (I paraphrased Martin, but I think this is what he means.)

3. The spell is either working or it is not versus any given observer. If it
fails versus an observer, then the concealment can only be restored by
breaking the observers line of sight or other detection. Once that has
happened, the concealed person is no longer obvious.

4. Breaking the spell for one observer does not break the spell for all
potential observers.

5. The spell may be cast on others.

6. The concealment will fail if the target is too intrusive, i.e. gets in
the way.

7. That there is some 'magical' means of countering the effect, e.g. Mind
Cloak, perhaps a Mind Special counter spell, or a completely new spell the
purpose of which is simply to penetrate this concealment.

Stephen Martin

1. The concealment is of no use once combat is engaged, although it can be
used to create surprise conditions.

2. More effective form of concealment vs sentients, less effective or
ineffective against (respectively) low intelligence or non-sentient
creatures.

3. That the spell should be useful, but not focused on combat effectiveness.
It should also have penalties and areas where it is not very useful. Stephen
thinks the spell should be powerful in nature.


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

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag3_etl_EN.asp'>Click Here</a><br></html>


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