Forwarded From: Ian at Dawn's Haven [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]

I have no problem with deleting Undetectability.

That was my prefered option. The original was obviously broken, and we
cannot agree on an alternative that will work.

I would vote to remove it.

As for a replacement, well I feel that should be discussed separately so
that this vote doesn't get distracted from its purpose.

cheers, Ian


----- Original Message -----
From: "Errol Cavit" <errolc@tranzlink.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2003 12:37
Subject: [dq] Gods meeting - Undetectability


> Someone brought up the status of Mind College Undetectability at the Gods
> meeting. The version in the currently issued (probationary) college has
been
> deemed unplayable. I can't find the actual ruling, but never mind.
>
> We tried a few (several?) months back to come to a agreement on what form
of
> sneaking about spell (_if any_) should be included in Mind. This took a
lot
> of time and effort, and didn't get to anything that looked like worthwhile
> putting to a vote.
>
> It is my understanding that most if not all of the current mind mages with
> the spell don't think it is worth the EP they have invested in it for the
> effects they got in practice (anyone should feel free to correct me on
this
> point if it is wrong).
>
> Therefore I propose that the spell Undetectability (S-11) be removed from
> the Mind college, with the time and EP spent by PCs being available to
> re-spend per the Mind Conversion document (remembering that this was a
> collection of guidelines, not rules).
>
> Discussion please (including whether to replace it with anything, I
> suppose).
>
> Cheers
> Errol
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Forwarded From: Ian at Dawn's Haven [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]

hi there,


As I see it there are several options to replace undetectability:

1    do not replace
2    replace with similar capability that will work for the game (miracle
needed here)
3    replace with other spell effect.
4    replace as part of re-alignment of other spells within the college.

I am not in favour of 1

A miracle would be needed for 2 to happen

Let us at least look #3 (see below)

4 is the most problematic, as I would have to convince you that other Mind
spells are broken. Or perhaps not. Anyway, I do not see a groundswell of
support for a complete overhaul of the college, and we are still bedding
down the last clarification...


Alternate spells:

My prefered alternate would be a variation on the theme of Illusion of
Innocence. It has this nice feel to it: others just take the hint to leave
the miserable sod / viscous psychopath / penniless villein alone. It works
in the marketplace against thieves, whores etc, as a chance against guards
and forget it in combat...

>Illusion of Innocence (S-9)
Range: 1 foot + 1 / Rank
Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 250
Base Chance: 30%
Resist: Active
Storage: Investment, Potion
Target: Entity
Effects: This Illusion changes the mien of 1 entity
(+ 1 / 4 full Ranks). This influences the initial reac-tions
of all entities who perceive the target: they will
react as if the target is an innocent (this does not nec-essarily
mean a favourable reaction). The spell does
not force people to act stupidly - if the target does
not act appropriately, their opinion may be revised
rapidly. Extreme behaviour terminates these effects.
For example, should a target prepare a weapon, cast
a passively resistible spell, or attack, the spell will
dissipate<

more to come - an alternative - this is not that I am arguing against
myself, merely suggesting options...

Ian


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

Forwarded From: Ian at Dawn's Haven [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]

following a breif informal discussion at the last gods meeting, I bring
you...

ok, so no one has mentioned recently in this list that hypnotism is broken.
Maybe it isn't but here is the framework of an alternative that also
addresses the above Subject in passing (worry about details later):

I have often thought hypnotism to be a powerful spell for a general
knowledge but stymied by having to speak to the target...which kind of gives
it away, so:

how about we replace hypnotism with the following three aspects:

G    Suggestion: ability to enforce a suggestion on the target(s). spoken
suggestions have more effect than non-verbalised (silent or telepathic - do
you need mind speech up to do this mind-to-mind?).  Suggestions may not be
against the target's known memory.
EG "These are not the golems you are looking for" will work unless the guard
has already decided that these are indeed what he wants.

S    Forget: ability to require the target to forget a specific piece of
information - higher ranks means wider range of amnesia - for a specific
time frame but not in the immediate future (not a combat spell, although
that would be funny "you forget how to cast D-Flames")

R    Remember:    remedies should always be more difficult. You can remember
a particular incident up to blah months ago. Ritual takes longer to go
further back, and/or to widen the scope of recovered memories. The Mind Mage
may, with Suggestion, assist you to 'recover (new) memories'.

These are simple ideas at this point, I have not discussed their
effectiveness, nor ease of play with others. May be I should have formed a
cabal to scurry this through ! Instead I wish simple open dialogue on this
and other options...the better the idea, the (er) better.

I would recommend that the EP already lost in undetectability and hynotism
be able to be spent on these without time or SP cost. Reallocating EP in
Undetectability in other magics, weapons or skills should take normal
training time and SP costs.

cheers,
Ian


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

E&E Invisibility

Describe it as clouding minds or whatever but the EM, BC and game effects are
identical to the E&E spell.

It is a boring solution but we are all familiar with the game effect and it
lets mind mages keep an invis type spell.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

> >Illusion of Innocence (S-9)
> Range: 1 foot + 1 / Rank
> Duration: 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
> Experience Multiple: 250
> Base Chance: 30%
> Resist: Active
> Storage: Investment, Potion
> Target: Entity
> Effects: This Illusion changes the mien of 1 entity
> (+ 1 / 4 full Ranks). This influences the initial reac-tions
> of all entities who perceive the target: they will
> react as if the target is an innocent (this does not nec-essarily
> mean a favourable reaction). The spell does
> not force people to act stupidly - if the target does
> not act appropriately, their opinion may be revised
> rapidly. Extreme behaviour terminates these effects.
> For example, should a target prepare a weapon, cast
> a passively resistible spell, or attack, the spell will
> dissipate<

Only way to truly see how and if something works is to play test it.

However if I read the intent of the above description correctly, it would be
impossible to use the spell to hide someone for ambush purposes, but could be
used to help prevent discovery of a person following a mark.
As long as that person was in a market place or street with other traffic,
your just another person walking though town. It might even work in an back
ally or empty road if the person being followed had no reason to suspect they
were being tailed.

Like wise you could use it to pass guards on watch at a gate without
attracting attention as long as they were letting people though without
checking passes and you appeared not too different from the others passing
though. e.g. slipping in with the hooded robe wearing crowd attending worship
at the Temple of Doom. But you couldn't pass the guards to the Evil Abbots
private quarters.

Or maybe the party could walk though an enemy armies encampment and only those
actually on guard would pay any attention to them as long as they didn't
attack anyone, but you wouldn't be ignored while climbing over the wall to get
in.

It seems to be a one off cast, more general sort of "suggestion" that these
golems are not the ones they are looking for nothing like them at all.
The question is, is this the sort of thing we want to replace the current
spell with ?
Or is there something else.

Helen


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

I have one quick question on this subject.

1. Is there a lack of spells in the Mind collage such that a replacement is
required as an EP sink to assist Mind Mages avoiding TOS?

If Mind is broad enough as it is I think the easiest solution to the problem
is to simply remove the spell with no replacement.

Undetectability is definatly and significantly broken, I feel that if we try
tolook for a replacement or muddy the waters with other changes to the
collage we will still have a broken spell in another two years time.

Mandos
/s


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

At 07:48 4/06/03 +1200, you wrote:
>That was my prefered option. The original was obviously broken, and we
>cannot agree on an alternative that will work.

Specifically what was broken with the original Undectability spell?

Jacqui


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

> >That was my prefered option. The original was obviously broken, and we
> >cannot agree on an alternative that will work.
>
> Specifically what was broken with the original Undectability spell?

To save starting the huge "Is it broken" argument again, it would pay to
review List Email from 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002.

The very fact that Undetectability has ben raised as an issue every single
year (with the exception of 2001 where it was probably under a different
subject) has got to be a damn good sign that it is broken.

If you don't have the archives I can probably forward them to you, but the
discussions over the years consist of 100's of messages.

Mandos
/s


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

Stephen Martin wrote:

>E&E Invisibility
>
>Describe it as clouding minds or whatever but the EM, BC and game effects are
>identical to the E&E spell.
>
One could even go a little further and have the Mind version cover sound 
and smell too.

Musing:  while Stephen may suggest that this is a boring solution, it is 
not necessarily an illogical one.  Sorceries of the Mind may have 
psionic-flavoured spells, but they are still that: spells, hence magic. 
 Allowing Witchsight (and analogous magics) to work against it would a) 
bring it inside the umbrella of other Invis type effects, and b) 
reinforce the fact that, whatever it's flavour of magic might be, it is 
still magic and subject to the same limitations.

-- 

 _/_/  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 12:19 4/06/03 +1200, you wrote:
> > Specifically what was broken with the original Undectability spell?
>
>To save starting the huge "Is it broken" argument again, it would pay to
>review List Email from 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002.
>
>The very fact that Undetectability has ben raised as an issue every single
>year (with the exception of 2001 where it was probably under a different
>subject) has got to be a damn good sign that it is broken.
>
>If you don't have the archives I can probably forward them to you, but the
>discussions over the years consist of 100's of messages.

I'm well aware of the endless debates, and have no real desire to revisit 
them. I'm just curious as to why a spell which worked fine for many years 
prior to the great debate suddenly stopped working. And why anyone now 
suggests casting it, the rest of the players complain so vigorously, even 
in a high PC group.

Is this all a matter of perception?

Were the waters clouded by a small group of very vocal persons?

Jacqui


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

From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martind@peace.com]
> Stephen Martin wrote:
> >E&E Invisibility
> >
> >Describe it as clouding minds or whatever but the EM, BC and 
> game effects are
> >identical to the E&E spell.
> >
> One could even go a little further and have the Mind version 
> cover sound 
> and smell too.
> 
There are (at least) two points for not changing it from the E&E version
1) less temptation to fiddle about with EM BC etc, which takes time, effort,
and enthusiasm.
2) The campaign has counters to E&E Invis already (Witchsight etc, other
senses available to detect) that balance it, and people are comfortable with
(or at least used to) fitting it in with Stealth etc.

IMO adding a new, slightly different from existing, game effect isn't worth
the slight improvement in flavour that "In-senses (3 of)" would be over
"In-vis".

> Musing:  while Stephen may suggest that this is a boring 
> solution, it is 
> not necessarily an illogical one. <snip reasons>

Agreed

Cheers
Errol


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

At 07:48 4/06/03 +1200, you wrote:
>That was my prefered option. The original was obviously broken, and we
>cannot agree on an alternative that will work.

For what it's worth here is an alternative version I wrote a while back. I 
will be the first to admit that it's complex to read through, no doubt 
imperfect, and may be complex to implement, but it was an attempt to 
address the problems with the spell as perceived at the time:

Undetectability
Range: 5 feet + 5 / Rank
Duration: Passive concentration: maximum 10 minutes + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 450
Base Chance: 15%
Resist: May not be resisted
Storage: Potion
Target: Entities
Effect: The targets of this spell may pass undetected by any sensory means, 
magical or mundane, with the exception of touch. Up to 1 target + 1/4 ranks 
or part thereof may be affected. Each target must remain within the range 
of the spell from the caster for the spell to continue to affect that 
target. The targets may all perceive each other normally.
The targets may be detected by an entity who is consciously observing the 
area if one of the targets fails to make their stealth check, and that 
entity succeeds in a 1 x perception roll. Thus a guard who is watching the 
town gate may get a perception check, but the juggler busy entertaining the 
crowd waiting to enter would not.
Should any of the affected entities perform an obtrusive action such as 
talking loudly, spell-casting, firing a missile weapon, or throwing an 
object, this check is raised to 2 x perception for all entities who have 
reason to notice the obtrusion.
Should any of the affected entities physically contact an entity who is not 
under the effect, this check is raised to 3 x perception for that entity.
Should any of the affected entities attempt a melee attack on an entity, 
the effect ceases and the targets are no longer concealed by this spell.
It is possible to detect the passage of the targets of this spell after 
they have left an area by using mundane means. For example, the target of 
this spell will leave footprints in the sand, which will become visible 
when the area is no longer within the range of the spell. The targets may 
be detected by extrasensory magical means such as telepathy, by locate 
spells or similar, but not by witchsight. An undetectable person may 
communicate by extrasensory magical means such as Mind Speech.


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

> Specifically what was broken with the original
> Undectability spell?

The major problem was that few GMs had the guts to allow its
use the way it used to be written, or were confident that
they could keep track of the records properly.  In play the
reason why so many disliked it was that it is extremely
polarising -- guaranteeing that, say, 2/3rds of the party
couldn't see or target the Big-Bad.

Funnily enough, in larger combats, the spell is better used
the other way around.  It an efficient combat spell to
mass-use at low levels, whereas other low-level spells don't
*really* change the plebs chances of attacking or defending
against a medium or better party.

Keep the officers visible [to give direction] & make the
weaker plebs undetectable, especially when fighting in an
open space.  That way the plebs are more manoeuvrable and
have a reasonable chance at gaining surprise (and 50%
defence) vs their particular chosen targets when they do
engage.  Well worth the occasional pleb being knocked over
or accidentally attacked from behind.  Of course your
low-level Mind-mage is going to complain about the chance of
backfire, but given the effect for the EP-cost and
comparatively reasonable BC it's probably the most effective
thing they can do, especially since it can be done *before*
the combat.

Don't mind me: I had hoped to seriously maim my last party,
except they boldly ran away.  Although they fled a few of
the Queen's powered-up Paladins, it was the very much weaker
unit of House-troops, *totally* unmagicked except for
mind-mage undetectability, that was the real secret weapon
and that I expected to really hurt them

HOWEVER, although I liked it as a spell-effect, it *never*
struck me as a true MIND-college spell.


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

Jacqui Smith wrote:

> I'm just curious as to why a spell which worked fine for many years 
> prior to the great debate suddenly stopped working.

Which version of the spell, Jacqui?  :-)

When I started GMing DQ... err... early '86, the "Mind Invis" as it was 
usually called hid the Adept from sight, sound, smell and touch... 
meaning that it was possible to grab someone and have them unable to 
feel that you had grabbed them... but be borne down by their weight.  Or 
the Adept could stab someone who could? couldn't? feel the wound??   
Basically, it was broken then.

Later the touch element was removed, sound was clarified... if a Mind 
Mage banged a drum it would be silent (a possession), but what happened 
if they pulled a bell rope, etc... and the write up got longer and 
harder to use... and as a GM I'd still argue it was pretty scuffed and 
dinged if not outright broken.

That said, your question about perception does have something going for 
it.  There has always been a perception that one of the aspects that 
makes it broken it that some of the crowd of Peasants will see Mind 
Invis, but none would see the much weaker Walking Unseen, i.e. its 
effectiveness is inversely proportional to the number of observers. 
 Whether this is an unplayable defect, or a reasonable limitation of the 
spell may be a matter of perception.

Overall though, I'd tend to say that Mind Invis has been broken as long 
as I have known it; in my opinion it has never "worked fine".

And, as I mused a little earlier, I think one reason for this has been 
that as it was written and re-written it was with a different paradigm 
for the Mind college than other Colleges.  Basically I think people have 
been too focused on the "Mind" and not enough on the "Sorceries".  It's 
completely OK for spells to work in different and varied ways (and it 
would be terribly boring if they did not), but they must adhere to a 
consistent rule framework.  Too much focus on the Mind College as being 
like psionics and not enough on how their magic fits with all the other 
magic, can leave the Mind Mages out on their lonesome.

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 --

> I'm well aware of the endless debates, and have no real desire to revisit
> them. I'm just curious as to why a spell which worked fine for many years
> prior to the great debate suddenly stopped working. And why anyone now
> suggests casting it, the rest of the players complain so vigorously, even
> in a high PC group.

I recall it being bitched about for as long as I have been a member of the
guild. Nothing sudden at all I just don't think anything has ever been
resolved.

I fail to see why there is any rationalisation to keep it, particularly
given that few Mind Mages get to use it since many GM's will not allow it's
use or depower it.

There is enough invis in the game without it.

On the other hand I had thought of another option.

Leave the spell as it is fundementally, change the name to invunerability
and drop its duration to 5 seconds + 5/3 full ranks.

Mandos
/s


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

PS:
> My prefered alternate would be a variation on the
> theme of Illusion of Innocence.

Give the guards a good reason for having standing orders to
punch or kick every unrecognised person entering or leaving.
If they're soft & squishy, that's OK; if they're tougher
than they ought to be (feel free to take several punches to
make up your mind!), then nick 'em, on suspicion of being
suspicious.   This should stop spies from sneaking in and
out of town; and ensure that the locals always have a
*really* good reason for going in or out -- every surviving
tyrant knows that a freely moving populace is just asking
for conspiracies, security breaches, or other disturbances
to the proper order of things.

Of course, then you have trouble with illusionists (Guard#1:
"Fred, baint that th'Abbot of Misery acommin inter town for
the heigth time this mornin?"), but no security system is
perfect.


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

> From: Mandos [mailto:mandos@iconz.net]
> 
> 
> I have one quick question on this subject.
> 
> 1. Is there a lack of spells in the Mind collage such that a 
> replacement is
> required as an EP sink to assist Mind Mages avoiding TOS?
> 
A CRUDE measure of no of spells (from a quick hack of the List of Spells)
gives:
College	GK	SK	Tot
Mind  	7	11	18
Celestial	9	10	19
E&E   	9	12	21
Fire  	8	14	22
Binder	10	13	23
Illusion	9	14	23
Bardic	10	14	24
Ice   	8	17	25
Necro  	11	16	27
Air   	9	19	28
Water  	14	15	29
Earth 	11	19	30
Wicca 	13	19	32
Namer 	30	10	40


> If Mind is broad enough as it is I think the easiest solution 
> to the problem
> is to simply remove the spell with no replacement.
> 

No of spells =/= 'broad' in a practical sense, but the above would suggest
that the college isn't over-broad! BTW If we don't think there is enough
variety in Mind Mages, replacing a unique spell with a common one from a
common college don't seem a good response to this :-)

> Undetectability is definatly and significantly broken, I feel 
> that if we try
> tolook for a replacement or muddy the waters with other changes to the
> collage we will still have a broken spell in another two years time.
> 
I think that everyone should know that it is not in the college, with EP &
time available to re-spend, ASAP (next meeting). As a secondary issue, it is
preferable that any 'replacement' be known at the same time to minimise
stuffing about with training.

Cheers
Errol


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

Martin Dickson wrote:

> >E&E Invisibility
> >
> >Describe it as clouding minds or whatever but the EM, BC and game effects are
> >identical to the E&E spell.
> >
> One could even go a little further and have the Mind version cover sound
> and smell too.

Just a thought but how about instead of witch sight using magic restance to see
past the magic trying to cloud your mind.
Since MR is WP based and WP diiferances affect mind magics it fits sorta, and
means that this type of invis is usuable against elves witches etc.

Not really infavour of or against anything so far proposed just pondering the
options and affects.

Helen


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

Helen saggers wrote:

>Just a thought but how about instead of witch sight using magic restance to see
>past the magic trying to cloud your mind.
>
Personally I'd be more in favour of that (an MR based check vs. Invis) 
than a PC based one as with the old Mind Invis.

On the other hand, the recent-ish changes to Witchsight to remove % 
rolls vs. Invis were (I beleive) in response to people preferring less 
dice rolling for this, so re-intoducing a resistance roll (even if MR 
based) would be heading back towards the dice-fest.  It may still be a 
good plan however.

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 --

argh!  My mistake !! I shouldn't have said it was a replacement, rather a fortuitous occurance...<removes honesty trait>...please do not worry about undetectabilty when discussing new spells for Mind College.

this possible new spell has little in common with undetectability - we have spent many years trying to find a workable, acceptable, playable version of undetectability. 

I wish to offer alternatives (to the other mind spells) for the mages to transfer their old undetectability ep to.


cheers Ian

> However if I read the intent of the above description correctly, it would be
> impossible to use the spell to hide someone for ambush purposes, but could be
> used to help prevent discovery of a person following a mark.



> The question is, is this the sort of thing we want to replace the current
> spell with ?
> Or is there something else.
> 
> Helen
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

please help me to see the game mechanic difference between PCvsUndetect and MRvsInvis. I cannot see them.

I think my objections to undetectability (listed below) will occur in the first week of playtest of this new spell.

For Undetect/Invis to be useful, it has to work against everyone (this is based on experience, where GMs decided that out of 60 ravening orks, those next to me could see through the MindInvis etc).

my principal objections to undetecatability are:
1   too many dice
2   too little certainty
3   too few occasions to make using worthwhile
4   too little reward for ep and time
result - I do not use it.



> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martind@peace.com>
> Date: 2003/06/04 Wed PM 03:08:00 GMT+12:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] replacement for Undetectability #3
> 
> Helen saggers wrote:
> 
> >Just a thought but how about instead of witch sight using magic restance to see
> >past the magic trying to cloud your mind.
> >
> Personally I'd be more in favour of that (an MR based check vs. Invis) 
> than a PC based one as with the old Mind Invis.
> 
> On the other hand, the recent-ish changes to Witchsight to remove % 
> rolls vs. Invis were (I beleive) in response to people preferring less 
> dice rolling for this, so re-intoducing a resistance roll (even if MR 
> based) would be heading back towards the dice-fest.  It may still be a 
> good plan however.
> 
> 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 --
>


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

argh! excuse me whilst i beat myself severely for suggesting an alternative to deleting undetectability <fades out>

<a while later - fades in, with contusions>

What would happen if undetectability suppressed the aura of the target, so that wards, magical traps, DA, divinate etc did not work on them ? but target was still fully conversant, visible etc? Add rank to stealth %?

should be a simple write up. More namer or E&E. Maybe Mind should have it...

There may be a visible / tangible / feeling that the person is not all there, but that would be theatrical...

Ian
<fades out, to sound of head hitting desk, repeatidly>


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

dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:

>please help me to see the game mechanic difference between PCvsUndetect and MRvsInvis. I cannot see them.
>
Nothing major... (and I was referring to Mind Invis), just that within 
the DQ framework the standard method for resisting the effects of magic 
is MR.  PC on the other hand is used for things that are in fact 
perceivable.  Using PC as resistance against a Mind Invis spell that 
makes the subject "undetectable", and to model the effects of 
"resisting" the clouding effect of the magic seems, to me, 
counter-intuitive.  That's all.

>For Undetect/Invis to be useful, it has to work against everyone...
>
...who does not have the appropriate counter effect, e.g. Witchsight vs. 
Invis.  Yes.

>my principal objections to undetecatability are:
>1   too many dice
>
Yes!  And particularly when you have 60 Orc NPCs

>2   too little certainty
>
Invis doesn't offer real certainty either, but it does tend to be more 
predictable.  The peasants and the pleb town guards are not going to see 
you.  The castle guards might, as might some of that bunch of elves. 
 The big bad _will) see you... but then that last is true of Undetect as 
well.  :-)

And if I might tender another reason (with GM hat on)... when it should 
work it can be a plot / game killer... which goes back to what Parky 
said, "few GMs had the guts to allow its use the way it used to be 
written..."   If the Big Bad did fail their 1 x PC roll then it was 
"Good Night Irene"... so what happened?

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: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
> 
> 
> argh! excuse me whilst i beat myself severely for suggesting 
> an alternative to deleting undetectability <fades out>
> 
> <a while later - fades in, with contusions>
> 
If you makes you feel any better, I didn't see any way to avoid suggestions
for 'replacements' being discussed. Trying to squash it by pointing out that
there are obviously plenty of existing alternatives wasn't going to work!

> What would happen if undetectability 

That word is cursed. Hide Aura?

> suppressed the aura of 
> the target, so that wards, DA, 

OK

> magical traps,

Don't these physically trigger stored magics - I don't see why no aura would
stop them going off. [checks examples] I see, Storage: Magical Trap, Target:
Entity. Hmm, trap triggers, spell has no effect?

> divinate etc 

Thinking of a substantial duration were you? 

> did not work on them ? but target was still fully conversant, 
> visible etc? 

Sounds reasonable

> Add rank to stealth %?

Not sure this is worth worrying about
> 
> should be a simple write up. More namer or E&E. Maybe Mind 
> should have it...
> 

Could I just point out that the colleges with the smallest number of
specials are:
Celestial
Namer
Mind
E&E

:-) Ow! Stop that! Ow! Oooow! Sorry

> There may be a visible / tangible / feeling that the person 
> is not all there, but that would be theatrical...
> 
Just enough feeling of "something isn't right here" for the guards to check
your papers again, and search you properly.

> Ian
> <fades out, to sound of head hitting desk, repeatidly>
> 

I think that this suggested spell to add to Mind is worthwhile considering.
I don't think it will cause too many problems that a couple of DAs and
Disjunction/counterspells don't, for instance. I would suggest fairly short
duration (5+5mins?) so that the whole party can't constantly walk around
ignoring wards.

Cheers
Errol


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

It might interest a few of you to know that more Email has been written
about Undetectability than any other topic in the past 5 years of list
archives :-)

At least as far as I can tell :)

Mandos
/s


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

UNDER ?31 Armourer (Ver 1.1)
31.2 Benefits
TO THE PARAGRAPH
	[.] An Armourer
may always make a suit of armour at a lower
effective rank than their true rank.
ADD
For every rank that an Armourer has beyond the effective
rank of the armour, they reduce the time required to make
that armour by 5%

At the end of ?31.2, ADD
<bold>An Armourer may make shields.</bold>

An armourer with the Plate I category can make Tower shields
and may reduce the weight by 1lb per Rank, if they so wish.
An armourer with the Leather category may make all leather &
wood shields and, applying 3 ranks of skill, may reduce the
weight by one-fifth if they so wish; no further weight
reduction is permissible.

The Armourer may only reduce the weight of the shield, no
other factor may be modified.  Any unapplied ranks of skill
may only reduce the time required for manufacture.  An
armourer who is also a weaponsmith may make a shield with
benefits derived from both skills but the total effect may
not exceed their lesser rank in the two skills.


UNDER ?50 Weaponsmith (Ver 1.0)
	50.2 Benefits
ADD
9. Make and maintain shields.


ASIDE #1: no further details re shields are required.  Like
any other weapon the shield may have pluses to hit & to
damage (when shield charging).  There is still the
inconsistency that for a weaponsmith making a shield
requires  "(10 ? (Effective Rank + DM)) hours, with a
minimum of 10 hours."  Whereas for an armourer a set of
leather armour takes Cloth or leather (1 + (Rank / 2)) ? ?
days so presumably the base time for [only] leather & wood
shields cannot take longer than the full armour ??

ASIDE #2: Cost -- needs to be corrected will send a message
about this after I've collated some figures.



Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)
Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian
===============================


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

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
Michael Parkinson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:200306040518.RAA13914@smtp.sig.net.nz">
  <pre wrap="">An armourer with the Plate I category can make Tower shields...</pre>
  </blockquote>
  <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:200306040518.RAA13914@smtp.sig.net.nz">
    <pre wrap="">An armourer with the Leather category may make all leather &amp; wood shields...</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
Hi Michael,<br>
    <br>
Technical query / nit-pick... and DQ rules regarding shield materials notwithstanding...<br>
    <br>
I thought that Tower shields, by which I guess we mean something like Roman
legion shields, were generally made of wood. The orginals would have been
layered and laminated wood (modern reconstructions generally use plywood
at the core), and were then covered with linen. &nbsp;There may be a hand-hold
/ shield Boss of metal, these were usually brass and fairly thin.<br>
    <br>
Conversely most later period shields: kite shields (the archtypical Knight's
shield), round shields (of the Renaissace rather than the Dark Ages), and
many/most/all? bucklers have metal in their construction.<br>
    <br>
Bucklers in particular tend to be solid metal, this 16" diameter, 18 gauge
steel, 3..3 to 4 lb <a href="http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/8-017.JPG">
recreation buckler</a>
 should be similar to the ones in DQ -- the weight at least is about right.
&nbsp;From the same site we can see the 23", 6lb <a href="http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/8-016.JPG">
steel round shield</a>
 that compares well with DQ small round, used from the 15th C on fitting
well with the very rough DQ period (sepcifically they were used by the Spanish
sword &amp; buckler men who broke the Swiis pike blocks and went on to conquer
the New World -- cf. Destinians).<br>
    <br>
Some Viking round shields also had metal rims, though these were not always
favoured as a wooden edge could catch an opponents blade -- the sheilds would
have to be replaced regularly however -- but archaeologicial evidence suggests
large and heavy iron bosses were common. &nbsp;Recreation Viking shields weigh
in around the 10-12 lb mark and are a good fit with the DQ large round.<br>
    <br>
Oh well. &nbsp;:-)<br>
    <br>
Cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com">martin.dickson@peace.com</a>
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401</pre>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>


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