slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (09/30/85)
How about a question on frp, to get us back to the subject at
hand. (Not that I'm against Falwell-bashing, you understand,
but this group has been a little slim lately.)
I curious how others out there would have ruled as DM in this
situation.
We had three characters in the 4th/5th level range up against a lich.
Two of us failed our saves against fear and ran, leaving the third
alone to face him.
My character was Daedin, a MU/thief. Being clubfooted, Daedin was
rather slow. When we stopped running, I was afraid that we would
get back there too late, so I cast an invisibility on myself, then
read a scroll to teleport back for a backstab.
The question is: Can you read a scroll while invisible?
I would have said no--but figured it was worth a try. I argued
that if you could not see your personal effects, it would make it
difficult to wield a weapon, climb, etc. and you should be at
minuses while invisible--which you are not. Our DM bought that,
and ruled it ok.
As it turned out, I wish she had not--the teleport was low, and
Daedin ended up entombed in solid rock, along with a lot of the
party's magic which he was carrying. It was too bad, he was a
lot of fun--LE sadistic alcoholic that he was.
The other two did finish off the lich. They also spent a lot of
time looking for Daedin. "Wonder where the little jerk went?"
"No idea, he just disappeared--maybe went for a drink?"
--
Sue Brezden
Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
AT&T Information Systems
11900 North Pecos
Westminster, Co. 80234
(303)538-3829
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (10/01/85)
In article <57@drutx.UUCP>, slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: > > My character was Daedin, a MU/thief. > > ... so I cast an invisibility on myself, then read a scroll to teleport back > for a backstab. > > As it turned out, I wish she had not--the teleport was low, and > Daedin ended up entombed in solid rock, ... > > .. [The rest of the party] also spent a lot of time looking for Daedin. > "Wonder where the little jerk went?" "No idea, he just disappeared--maybe > went for a drink?" Would have been easy around here. When two masses try to occupy the same space ... Well, lets just say it's not very pretty. That is, B * O * O * M -- Dr. Bob High Priest, Reformed Church of Smithing the Heretic UUCP ..!{ihnp4,cbosgd,seismo}!plus5!bob The opinions expressed here are only loosely based on the facts.
abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble) (10/02/85)
> > We had three characters in the 4th/5th level range up against a lich. > > The other two did finish off the lich. > Sue Brezden Two 4th/5th level characters beating up on a Lich?!!!! Just what kind of magic was this party carrying? On second thought don't tell me. I don't think I want to know. As for reading the scroll, I would say that you can't read a scroll that is invisible. In your situation though there's an easy solution. Just give the scroll to the other person, cast invisibilty on yourself, then read the scroll while the other charactor holds it. Should work unless there's some obscure rule about having to hold a scroll while you read it. "Looking good Billy-Ray" "Feeling good Louis" -- Bruce Gamble - abgamble@water.UUCP
mab@druca.UUCP (Alan Bland) (10/03/85)
I think it should NOT be possible to read a scroll while it is
invisible. You should also not be able to read your map of the temple,
or see the Emperor's face on the silver coin in your hand.
As for attacking, picking locks, etc., while you are invisible, it
should be possible, but your effectiveness should be reduced. Since you
can't see the dagger in your hand, it's a little more difficult to
properly place the backstab. And your chance to move quietly should be
reduced while invisible, since you might not realize that your sword
scabbard is where it is until it brushes against the wall.
How much should the reduction in ability be? I'm not that familiar with
D&D, so I can't recommend anything specific other than "all abilities
that require you to see what you're doing are reduced by n levels."
Maybe n should be different for different skills, if you want to be
complex and "realistic."
But if you decide that you CAN read a scroll while being invisible,
there should be a lesser chance of the scroll succeeding. If it fails,
the DM can have all sorts of fun deciding what happens!
--
Alan Bland
AT&T Information Systems, Denver CO
{ihnp4|allegra}!druca!mabclif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (10/03/85)
> > How about a question on frp, to get us back to the subject at > hand. (Not that I'm against Falwell-bashing, you understand, > but this group has been a little slim lately.) > > I curious how others out there would have ruled as DM in this > situation. > > We had three characters in the 4th/5th level range up against a lich. > Two of us failed our saves against fear and ran, leaving the third > alone to face him. > > My character was Daedin, a MU/thief. Being clubfooted, Daedin was > rather slow. When we stopped running, I was afraid that we would > get back there too late, so I cast an invisibility on myself, then > read a scroll to teleport back for a backstab. > > The question is: Can you read a scroll while invisible? > > I would have said no--but figured it was worth a try. I argued > that if you could not see your personal effects, it would make it > difficult to wield a weapon, climb, etc. and you should be at > minuses while invisible--which you are not. Our DM bought that, > and ruled it ok. > -- > > Sue Brezden > When you become invisible all of your personal effects become invisible thus trying to read a scroll is impossible. However, if you seperated your scroll or packback from your person before becoming invisible you could read the scroll. Needless to say It would look pretty strange to see a scroll floating through midair and probably would make most monsters very suspicious. I think wielding a sword is a different matter since you become visible as soon as you make a hostile action. Most other actions should be able to be performed while invisible, with perhaps some time penalties. When my mage wants to use a scroll while invisible she casts "Detect Invisibility" on herself. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/16/85)
I'd recomend a followng approach:
have more than 1 type of invisibility.
1) optical invisibility: you are translucent. Penalize speed,
initiative ( where was that dagger?), etc. Any offencive
action will give opponents a clue to where you are.
(this is for game balance, in D&D you just become visible)
Spectrum : Does NOT make you invisible in UV and IR spectrums.
You still posess smells and make sounds. Objects you pick up
are visible.
Cast on : self.
2) Mental invisibility : your opponents don't perceive you within
a particular range. Their brain "edits" out the iformation about
you. An offencife action will reveal you ( where did that dagger
come from?!).
Spectrum : You are invisible in all spectrums and plains.
Objects you pick up dissappear but iff dissapearance
noticed increase a chance for opponents to shake of
the spell
Cast on : opponents.
3) illusion of invisibility: suggest that you are not there! Works
only on intelligent beings of low to very high intelligence.
Dumb things can't understand it, Genius level things can see
through it.
Spectrum: only material plain. All frequencies and smells.
Objects picked up are invisible.
Cast on : area.
--
-----------------------------------+ With deep indifference,
"I disbelieve an army of invisible | Oleg Kiselev.
mind-flayers!" | DISCLAIMER:
"OK. They are *still* not there." | I don't know what I am talking about and
-----------------------------------+ therefore am not responsible for any
damages to people who take me seriously!
...!trwrb!felix!birtch!oleg
...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
Nothing I ever say reflects the views or opinions of my employers.
They knew who they hired though!lori@hp-pcd.UUCP (lori) (10/28/85)
I don't really think it's very workable (in game terms) to actually say that magical invisibility (as opposed to the psionic kind) makes a person transparent to light in the visible spectrum, as this raises all kinds of problems we'd just as soon avoid. For example, if a person drinks a potion of invisibility and then draws their sword and wades into melee, shouldn't they be given some sort of eye/hand coordination penalty for not being able to see exactly where they are swinging their weapon. One can sort of equate this to trying to drive a nail in one swing with your eyes closed (I realize that the invisible person can still see their visible target but there's no real world analogue for this situation). The same sort of argument holds true for picking locks, or any other manual activity where at least minimal periferal visual feedback is required. This being the case, and since AD&D magic can be interpreted to operate any way you want it to, why not think of it like this: my thief is invisible. This invisibility acts like a tight fitting force field which surrounds me and everything I was carrying at the time the spell when off. I appear to myself as a ghostly translucent image but am still visible enough so as not to interfer with any manual operation I may wish to perform. This holds true for all of the things I carried when the spell went off, but not any new things I may pick up in the future, since they are outside the area of effect. If I drop anything, it becomes visible, since it, in effect, leaves the force field. It does not turn invisible again if I pick it up, since the force field cannot be re-entered. This sort of interpretation pretty much solves the scroll problem (yes, it can be read, even though you can slightly see through it) but prevents abuse of the invisibility spell (tie a rope across the cor- ridor and hand it to the invisible thief to make it an invisible trip cord). It seems to work in my game. From the World of Vindarten Mark F. Cook
pdg@ihdev.UUCP (P. D. Guthrie) (10/29/85)
In article <24400012@hp-pcd.UUCP> lori@hp-pcd.UUCP (lori) writes: > I don't really think it's very workable (in game terms) to actually > say that magical invisibility (as opposed to the psionic kind) makes > a person transparent to light in the visible spectrum, as this raises > all kinds of problems we'd just as soon avoid. For example, if a > [... examples ] > This being the case, and since AD&D magic can be interpreted to > operate any way you want it to, why not think of it like this: my > thief is invisible. This invisibility acts like a tight fitting > force field which surrounds me and everything I was carrying at the > time the spell when off. I appear to myself as a ghostly translucent > image but am still visible enough so as not to interfer with any > manual operation I may wish to perform. This holds true for all of > the things I carried when the spell went off, but not any new things > I may pick up in the future, since they are outside the area of effect. > If I drop anything, it becomes visible, since it, in effect, leaves > the force field. It does not turn invisible again if I pick it up, > since the force field cannot be re-entered. > This sort of interpretation pretty much solves the scroll problem > (yes, it can be read, even though you can slightly see through it) but > prevents abuse of the invisibility spell (tie a rope across the cor- > ridor and hand it to the invisible thief to make it an invisible trip > cord). It seems to work in my game. > I personally think that we are trying to get too scientific and objective about magic in general. Magic is the unexplained and does not have to be rationalized in any way, rather mediated by the DM to make sure that it doesn't get out of hand. It should be simple enough to say that invisibility has a 'magical clause' that makes the caster immune to its effects ( a sort of personal detect invisible), as otherwise it would make the spell much less useful. We have to assume that the creators of the spell did not care about the laws of physics, but rather manipulated the spell until it suited their tastes, and I personally would see much less use for an invisibility spell that was almost as much hinderance to the caster. Paul Guthrie ihnp4!ihdev!pdg p.s. are there any games needing players in the Indian Hill area?
ekblaw@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/30/85)
I disagree with Paul Guthrie. Magic has been defined as undiscovered science. Therefore, saying that we shouldn't try to define it in scientific terms is absurd! Furthhermore (and I hate to bring this up. This kind of talk finally disappeared from the net), saying that magic is undefinable and can do anything (therefore making it omnipotent) is blasphemy, and probably one of the reasons the religious people are so down on AD&D. I like peace. If the way to make peace is to compromise, fine. Define magic in scientific terms. It makes most people happy. Too, Paul, I think you have forgotten the theory behind AD&D. It is a game which is a little looser than other games, allowing changes and interpretions by individuals. Some people obviously interpret the game as they wish. If that interpretation includes scientifically defining the magic that occurs, fine! If a person can define all of the spells in that manner, they certainly have a great grasp and under- standing of science, and I respect them for that. Your vehement degrading of that person's PERSONAL interpretation can be defined as egotism and bigotry. Those qualities have no business existing in FRPing, so I would suggest that you either change your ways or quit the game. Quit the net, too, while you are at it. I don't want to listen to pig-headed bigots and swell-headed egotists. Robert A. Ekblaw
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (11/01/85)
Um, ah, I think I agree with R.Ekblaw's point of view, but I don't think I
would express it quite so... forcefully.
The main problem with defining the effects of a spell non-scientifically
is that there are always going to be game situations which aren't covered by
the description. (Sue's example of invisibility and scrolls is a good one.)
The DM is going to have to resort to physics, logic, psychology, or some other
scientific or pseudo-scientific "rules" in order to resolve it, sooner or
later. And the vaguer the rules are, the more arguments there are going to be.
You can define the spells' effects to be as complicated as you want, but
eventually there has to be a grounding in the physical laws that everyone
agrees on. The simpler the descriptions, the less trouble there will be in
interpreting them.
--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews ,
"Viens, voir les musiciens, voir les magiciens, voir les comediens"franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
[Not food] There have been several postings lately which suggested that spells should work in ways that do not crock their wielder, because the mages who created/ researched them would have researched them to be that way. I just want to point out that this is not necessarily a valid argument. Spells have different degrees of difficulty (levels), and it may not be possible to research a spell at the proper level. For example, an invisibility spell where the caster cannot see him/herself while invisible might be second level, while one avoiding the problem might have to be fifth level. The correct answer is, how do you want it to be in the game you run? Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
svirsky@ttidcb.UUCP (William Svirsky) (11/04/85)
In article <9300058@uiucdcs> ekblaw@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > >I disagree with Paul Guthrie. Magic has been defined as undiscovered science. >Therefore, saying that we shouldn't try to define it in scientific terms is >absurd! On the other hand, there is no reason why it has to be defined in scientific terms and there is a good case against trying to define it so. Who's to say that we aren't in the same situation as a bunch of primitives seeing a flashlight, butane lighter, or Polaroid camera, etc. for the first time. They can't understand how it works, its magic. Or maybe FRP games take place in another universe where the laws of physics are different. In any case, as long as its not abused, it makes things much simpler if you don't try to explain everything in terms of todays science. BTW, in terms of science, how does an invisible person see at all? We see because light impinges on the rods and cones in our eyes. But if these rods and cones are transparent to light, then they can't respond to light at all. Thus the invisible person is blind. I've read a number of science fiction stories based on this premise. In one, the invisible person wore goggles to enable them to see in the infra-red. Another point - what about body heat? If a person is only transparent to visible light, then in the dark, they would radiate like a beacon to any person/creature that can see in the infra-red. If the invisibility spell stops body heat also, where does it go? If it stays in the body, that person would quickly cook from their own body heat! Especially if they are exerting themselves. I handled this in one dungeon when I had a sword that made the user invisible by having the sword soak up the heat and release it when it hit another person/ creature. Thus there was damage for the hit and damage due to heat. > Furthhermore (and I hate to bring this up. This kind of talk finally >disappeared from the net), saying that magic is undefinable and can do >anything (therefore making it omnipotent) is blasphemy, and probably one >of the reasons the religious people are so down on AD&D. > I don't remember him saying anything about magic being omnipotent. >I like peace. If the way to make peace is to compromise, fine. Define magic >in scientific terms. It makes most people happy. Too, Paul, I think you have >forgotten the theory behind AD&D. It is a game which is a little looser than >other games, allowing changes and interpretions by individuals. Some people >obviously interpret the game as they wish. If that interpretation includes >scientifically defining the magic that occurs, fine! And if means just saying that magic is magic and lets not try to define it to death, that should be fine too! >Your vehement degrading >that person's PERSONAL interpretation can be defined as egotism and bigotry. >Those qualities have no business existing in FRPing, so I would suggest that >you either change your ways or quit the game. Quit the net, too, while you >are at it. I don't want to listen to pig-headed bigots and swell-headed >egotists. > I thought you said you like peace and compromise. Your vehement attack on Paul's PERSONAL interpretation (to use your own words) doesn't seem to support your position. FRP stands for FANTASY Role Playing. Anything is possible in fantasy, just as it is in cartoons. Live and let live. Bill Svirsky Citicorp/TTI Santa Monica, CA
berosetti@watrose.UUCP (Barry Rosetti) (11/06/85)
<Take this you dirty rat...> In article <759@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >There have been several postings lately which suggested that spells should >work in ways that do not crock their wielder, because the mages who created/ >researched them would have researched them to be that way. I just want to >point out that this is not necessarily a valid argument. Has anyone ever released software with hidden and potentially 'fatal' bugs in it?????? Barry Rosetti watmath!watrose!berosetti ============================ 'When in trouble scream and shout, run in panic jump about' - Robert Heinlein