At 15:49 19/02/02 +1300, you 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.

You are making an assumption, not mentioned in any of the expectations, 
that the spell be targeted on specific persons other than the adept and 
therefore resistable in the normal way of things. This has produced a 
result which I think will be unacceptable to the majority of players of 
mind mages, and will ultimately result in the loss of the spell from the game.

Personally I don't think we're at the point of spell descriptions yet. For 
one thing I'd like to add to the list of expectations:

8. The spell is targeted on the adept personally, or on the adept and 
companions.

Jacqui


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

> You are making an assumption, not mentioned in any of the expectations,
> that the spell be targeted on specific persons other than the adept and
> therefore resistable in the normal way of things. This has produced a
> result which I think will be unacceptable to the majority of players of
> mind mages, and will ultimately result in the loss of the spell
> from the game.

Those who managed to follow guidelines and took the time and effort to put
there recommendations forward rather than moaning and whinging about
specifics put forward a list of requests and recommendations. I have
tailored a spell to those. If you are only now bothing to put your requests
forward it would be difficult for me to have accomadated those given that I
am not a mind mage myself.

Of note there is a request listed in the list of requested requirements that
the spell not be targetted on the mind mage. This was the opinion of two
people on the list. As there was no opposing request I went with it.

> Personally I don't think we're at the point of spell descriptions
> yet. For one thing I'd like to add to the list of expectations:

I assumed a week was more than enough for most people to make up their
minds.

> 8. The spell is targeted on the adept personally, or on the adept and
> companions.

Is there a reasoning for this particular requirement?

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> Of note there is a request listed in the list of requested requirements that
> the spell not be targetted on the mind mage. This was the opinion of two
> people on the list. As there was no opposing request I went with it.

Hi Mandos,

Just a guess, but there may have been no opposing requirement as we were
discussing attributes/requirements for a concealment spell, and all other
concealment spells in DQ are targeted on the the thing to be concealed.  That
the new spell work on the Adept (or another target of the caster's choosiing)
may have been assumed.

I'd suggest that (using Jim's numbering), the various comments of "The spell may
be cast on others", (my #5, Andrew's #2, Brent's #3, and Jim's #5), all assumed
that the target was the thing concealed.

I know that I assumed it.  :-)

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 --

> Just a guess, but there may have been no opposing requirement as we were
> discussing attributes/requirements for a concealment spell, and all other
> concealment spells in DQ are targeted on the the thing to be
> concealed.  That
> the new spell work on the Adept (or another target of the
> caster's choosiing)
> may have been assumed.
>
> I'd suggest that (using Jim's numbering), the various comments of
> "The spell may
> be cast on others", (my #5, Andrew's #2, Brent's #3, and Jim's
> #5), all assumed
> that the target was the thing concealed.

I made the assumption that we were starting the spell from scratch and took
those coments to indicate that the invis should cover more than one person.

Either way. I am only making a suggestion that fits the recommendations. I
was expecting people to put forward their own spell versions that fit the
recommendations also.

Until we have a number of possible options it is not worth wasting time
arguing over specifics.

Mandos
/s


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

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 007C980ACC256B65_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I've been following the discussion with much interest and it's great to 
see some coherent organisation of ideas. 

I like this concept.  A few comments ...

Targeting
a) If it targeted on the observers then the targeting rules apply, ie. 
line of sight or telepathy.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if 
the adept hasn't got all the guards on telepathy then they need to sneak 
up and cast the spell unnoticed, tricky : - ) 
b) If it targeted on the observers then the adept doesn't know who the 
spell has worked on.  A solution to this might be to make it 'active 
resistance only'.  That gets around the adept not knowing whether the 
observers have resisted.
c) In practice it may be easier to switch the targets and those effected, 
ie
        Target: 2 (+1/5 full ranks)
        The Adept causes one (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) entities to be totally 
unaware of the targets for the duration of
the spell. 

6.)  The 'intruding' bit will need to be defined further as 'makes an 
attack' doesn't cover casting as this is a 'magical pass action'.  I'd 
like to see the spell also fall off if the any of the undetectable people 
cast at one of the defined (un)observers.  Ease of play should govern 
whether it falls off everybody or only the two involved, or only falls off 
if the cast is successful. My pick would be the whole spell fails if any 
of the (un)observers have to make a resistance check.

7.) The spell could be dispelled by an Mind special counter - area counter 
that covers the target/s should make the spell fall off those in the area 
of effect. 
I also like Mind Cloak making the target immune to the effects of the 
spell.


Rosemary





"Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@iconz.net>
Sent by: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz
20/02/2002 04:49
Please respond to dq

 
        To:     dq@dq.sf.org.nz
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dq] Undetectability II - An option.


I thought to get this rolling again I would go back to Andrew's suggestion
and not how many of the requirements it fitted and what changes could be
possible to fit the others. All repeated points have been removed for
brevity.


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.


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

Does not fit. However it could be changed to

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 and 1/5 full ranks companions for the duration of the
spell.

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

This fits.

> Martin Dickson:
>
> 1. Ease of administration for the DM

With a simple resistance (yes/no) it appears to fulfill this requirement.

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

To do this we will need to add these clauses to the spell. As a 
possibility

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. The spell will be 
broken
for a target if they are too intrusive.

> 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.

This is the case with this spell as it is targeted on the people who will
not see the adept due to the adept tampering with their minds.

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

This is indeed the case as the spell has a limited number of targets and
concealee's.

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

I am not sure where it fits in here. Perhaps someone who can think through
the comparrison may want to look at this point.

> 5. It is not effective in combat.

For this point we simply need to define 'too intrusive' from one of the
varients above.

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

For this point we simply need to define 'too intrusive' from one of the
varients above.

> 4. The concealment should be single target.

This point directly contradicts one above so a choice needs to be made.

> Jim Arona

> 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.

Mind Special counter is a good option. Mind cloak I would imagine would 
stop
it being used on a target.

> Stephen Martin

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

A bonus to resistance for non-sentients would easily allow this.



So with all the above options added into one spell. An option would be.

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 and 1 (+1/5 full ranks) companions for the duration 
of
the spell. Any 'Ignored' person who makes an attack against a target of 
this
spell will become visible to all targets. Non sentiant creatures gain a 
+30%
resistance to the effects of this spell.

Note that this is not a final suggestion. It would still require fine
tuning.

Mandos
/s

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



--=_alternative 007C980ACC256B65_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I've been following the discussion with much interest and it's great to see some coherent organisation of ideas. &nbsp;</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I like this concept. &nbsp;A few comments ...</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Targeting</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">a) If it targeted on the observers then the targeting rules apply, ie. line of sight or telepathy. &nbsp;This is not necessarily a bad thing, but if the adept hasn't got all the guards on telepathy then they need to sneak up and cast the spell unnoticed, tricky : - ) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">b) If it targeted on the observers then the adept doesn't know who the spell has worked on. &nbsp;A solution to this might be to make it 'active resistance only'. &nbsp;That gets around the adept not knowing whether the observers have resisted.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">c) In practice it may be easier to switch the targets and those effected, ie</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font><font size=2 face="Courier New">Target: 2 (+1/5 full ranks)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Adept causes one (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) entities to be totally unaware of the targets for the duration of<br>
the spell. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">6.) &nbsp;The 'intruding' bit will need to be defined further as 'makes an attack' doesn't cover casting as this is a 'magical pass action'. &nbsp;I'd like to see the spell also fall off if the any of the undetectable people cast at one of the defined (un)observers. &nbsp;Ease of play should govern whether it falls off everybody or only the two involved, or only falls off if the cast is successful. My pick would be the whole spell fails if any of the (un)observers have to make a resistance check.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">7.) The spell could be dispelled by an Mind special counter - area counter that covers the target/s should make the spell fall off those in the area of effect. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I also like Mind Cloak making the target immune to the effects of the spell.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>&quot;Mandos Mitchinson&quot; &lt;mandos@iconz.net&gt;</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">20/02/2002 04:49</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to dq</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;dq@dq.sf.org.nz</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Re: [dq] Undetectability II - An option.</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">I thought to get this rolling again I would go back to Andrew's suggestion<br>
and not how many of the requirements it fitted and what changes could be<br>
possible to fit the others. All repeated points have been removed for<br>
brevity.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ignore.<br>
Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank<br>
Resist: Passive.<br>
Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally<br>
unaware of the Adept for the duration of the spell.<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; Errol Cavit:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1. Undetectability is centered on self, but can be cast on several targets<br>
&gt; that are near the caster.<br>
<br>
Does not fit. However it could be changed to<br>
<br>
Ignore.<br>
Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank<br>
Resist: Passive.<br>
Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally<br>
unaware of the Adept and 1/5 full ranks companions for the duration of the<br>
spell.<br>
<br>
&gt; 2. That the spell be useful in situations other than combat.<br>
<br>
This fits.<br>
<br>
&gt; Martin Dickson:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1. Ease of administration for the DM<br>
<br>
With a simple resistance (yes/no) it appears to fulfill this requirement.<br>
<br>
&gt; 6. The concealment will fail if the target is too intrusive, i.e. gets in<br>
&gt; the way.<br>
<br>
To do this we will need to add these clauses to the spell. As a possibility<br>
<br>
Ignore.<br>
Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank<br>
Resist: Passive.<br>
Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally<br>
unaware of the Adept for the duration of the spell. The spell will be broken<br>
for a target if they are too intrusive.<br>
<br>
&gt; Andrew Withy (and Michael Woodhams)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 1. The concealment is of a different nature than existing spells, i.e.<br>
&gt; Invisibility or Walking Unseen, etc., and that nature is &nbsp;something to do<br>
&gt; with manipulating minds.<br>
<br>
This is the case with this spell as it is targeted on the people who will<br>
not see the adept due to the adept tampering with their minds.<br>
<br>
&gt; 3. Its effectiveness is limited by the number of observers.<br>
<br>
This is indeed the case as the spell has a limited number of targets and<br>
concealee's.<br>
<br>
&gt; 4. It is a more reliable concealment than forms like Invisibility and<br>
&gt; Walking Unseen.<br>
<br>
I am not sure where it fits in here. Perhaps someone who can think through<br>
the comparrison may want to look at this point.<br>
<br>
&gt; 5. It is not effective in combat.<br>
<br>
For this point we simply need to define 'too intrusive' from one of the<br>
varients above.<br>
<br>
&gt; Brent Jackson<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; 2. The concealment does not dissipate when the concealed person casts.<br>
<br>
For this point we simply need to define 'too intrusive' from one of the<br>
varients above.<br>
<br>
&gt; 4. The concealment should be single target.<br>
<br>
This point directly contradicts one above so a choice needs to be made.<br>
<br>
&gt; Jim Arona<br>
<br>
&gt; 7. That there is some 'magical' means of countering the effect, e.g. Mind<br>
&gt; Cloak, perhaps a Mind Special counter spell, or a completely new spell the<br>
&gt; purpose of which is simply to penetrate this concealment.<br>
<br>
Mind Special counter is a good option. Mind cloak I would imagine would stop<br>
it being used on a target.<br>
<br>
&gt; Stephen Martin<br>
<br>
&gt; 2. More effective form of concealment vs sentients, less effective or<br>
&gt; ineffective against (respectively) low intelligence or non-sentient<br>
&gt; creatures.<br>
<br>
A bonus to resistance for non-sentients would easily allow this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
So with all the above options added into one spell. An option would be.<br>
<br>
Ignore.<br>
Duration: Concentration, max 10 min + 10 / Rank<br>
Resist: Passive.<br>
Effects: The Adept causes one target (+ 1 / 5 full ranks) to be totally<br>
unaware of the Adept and 1 (+1/5 full ranks) companions for the duration of<br>
the spell. Any 'Ignored' person who makes an attack against a target of this<br>
spell will become visible to all targets. Non sentiant creatures gain a +30%<br>
resistance to the effects of this spell.<br>
<br>
Note that this is not a final suggestion. It would still require fine<br>
tuning.<br>
<br>
Mandos<br>
/s<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 007C980ACC256B65_=--


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

>
> > I'd suggest that (using Jim's numbering), the various comments of
> > "The spell may
> > be cast on others", (my #5, Andrew's #2, Brent's #3, and Jim's
> > #5), all assumed
> > that the target was the thing concealed.

I was bearing both possibilities in mind, and I'm not wedded to either.

Jackie - what are your objections to casting on observers instead of the
sneaks? They not be insurmountable.

If the objection is 'you can only get past a few people', I don't think this
is a good objection - it is a suitable limitation on a spell that gives you
invisibility with immunity to witchsight.

I think there is a problem if the mind mage has no idea if anyone resisted.
There might be a problem if a person who resists knows they've resisted
something. It also makes a big difference whether recasts are allowed.

Extreme case 1 (worst for mind mage):
There are 6 observers. Mind mage can affect 6. They cast. 4 succumb, 2 resist.
The resisters realise they've been targeted, DA each other for last spell, act
as if they don't see the mind mage and group approaching, then ambush them.

Extreme case 2 (best for mind mage):
There are 6 observers. Mind mage can affect 4. They cast on 4. 3 are affected,
one resists, and the mind mage knows this. The resister notices nothing. Mage
recasts on the unaffected 3. One still resists. Third cast gets the last
person. Mind mage and party saunter past unmolested.

I agree that extreme case 1 is broken, making the spell of very little use.

To be considered: Can the mage do multiple casts to get people who resisted?
Can they do multiple casts to cover more people than they could with one cast?
If some observers are affected by one cast, some by another, are both spells
broken by a hostile action, or just one? Is the spell broken by hostile action
against someone who is not one of the spell?

Extreme case 3:
Alice, Bob and Carol are adventurers in camp. Evil mind mage Eve casts spell
on Alice and Bob. She wanders up and hacks Carol with her trusty
hand-and-a-half. Alice and Bob wonder why Carol is shouting about being
attacked and has wounds appearing, but can take no effective action. Carol
dies. Eve recasts spell on Alice only, then attacks Bob. The first spell is
broken, but the second is not, so Alice still can't help Bob. Bob dies. Alice
dies. Everybody dies.


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B99E.6E155E30
Content-Type: text/plain

Re: b) - Active resistance does not give you any resistance to the spell, it
reduces the cast chance of the caster.  So active only means that when a
target is aware of you and actively resisting you they screw up your cast
chance but if you get the spell off then they can't resist it.  I don't
think this works.
 
Mind Cloak as a counter is nice but we may want to make it Rank based (i.e.
Requires equal or higher rank Mind Cloak to be immune) as Mind Cloak is a
cheaper and much longer duration spell.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz [mailto:RMansfield@aj.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2002 11:39 a.m.


b) If it targeted on the observers then the adept doesn't know who the spell
has worked on.  A solution to this might be to make it 'active resistance
only'.  That gets around the adept not knowing whether the observers have
resisted. 

I also like Mind Cloak making the target immune to the effects of the spell.



Rosemary 



------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B99E.6E155E30
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493552923-19022002>Re: b) 
- Active resistance does not give you any resistance to the spell, it reduces 
the cast chance of the caster.&nbsp; So active only means that when a target is 
aware of you and actively resisting you they screw up your cast chance but if 
you get the spell off then they&nbsp;can't resist it.&nbsp; I don't think this 
works.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=493552923-19022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=493552923-19022002>Mind 
Cloak as a counter is&nbsp;nice but we may want to make it Rank based (i.e. 
Requires equal or higher rank Mind Cloak to be immune) as Mind Cloak is a 
cheaper and much longer duration spell.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN 
class=493552923-19022002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> RMansfield@aj.co.nz 
  [mailto:RMansfield@aj.co.nz]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 20 February 2002 11:39 
  a.m.<BR></FONT></DIV><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>b) If it targeted on the 
  observers then the adept doesn't know who the spell has worked on. &nbsp;A 
  solution to this might be to make it 'active resistance only'. &nbsp;That gets 
  around the adept not knowing whether the observers have resisted.</FONT> 
  <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>I also like Mind Cloak making the target 
  immune to the effects of the spell.</FONT> <BR><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif 
  size=2>Rosemary</FONT> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1B99E.6E155E30--


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
> 
> I agree that extreme case 1 is broken, making the spell of 
> very little use.
> 

Agreed

> To be considered: Can the mage do multiple casts to get 
> people who resisted?

Not if it is a concentration spell - you can't cast a new concentration
spell if you are already concentrating (unless I misunderstand what
concentration is about - you can only concentrate on one thing at a time,
right?).

It would seem to follow that things won't work in practice if it is a
concentration spell and passively resistible by those who won't be able to
see the concealee (un-observers?).

One aspect of it being a concentration spell that I like is that this limits
the number of instances of the spell running at one time to one per upright
mind mage (assuming Storage:none). Therefore it is much easier to make sure
the number of unobserver-concealee combos remains manageable. (another way
to do this is to having it working or not for everybody, but I don't like
the feel of that.)

Cheers
Errol


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