This spell should be used to detect invisible characters, and perhaps hidden objects but no hidden characters. The fact that a 2th level spell would be just enough to detect a level 50 thief, with GMed hide and elite dexterity is just too much.
In a strictily sense the only spell that by core rules have wizards and clerics to detect someone hidding would be discerning the location of a person (magic mirror in FK).
If we strive to have all the current coded classes as an interesting choice to play, each class should have their strengths and weaknesses represented otherwise we might end with several roguish/thugish <primary spellcaster class> (that is an acceptable rp choice) because there is no barely any sense in playing a particular class if you can have all the strengths but none of the weaknesses as long you can use the same rp concept in other superior class that alone can do almost everything.
[SPELL] Detect invisible.
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
On that note, true sight should be tweaked too. True Sight only has the ability to show those who are in a magical form (polymorph, wild shape, ect) or hidden via magical means.
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
I may be out of the loop here, but last I heard detect invisible does not reveal hidden objects nor hidden characters; has that changed?
As far as class balance is concerned, I am very much all for it (and, judging by the poll I set, I was surprised that a large portion of our player base was as well (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8049&hilit=+balance), however I don't believe that the current direction of the MUD will be concerned with this until all features are rolled out in hard code of each class.
As far as class balance is concerned, I am very much all for it (and, judging by the poll I set, I was surprised that a large portion of our player base was as well (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8049&hilit=+balance), however I don't believe that the current direction of the MUD will be concerned with this until all features are rolled out in hard code of each class.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
Detect invis does not detect hidden characters. Nor, since detect hidden is now been revealed that it should not reveal hidden characters, should true sight.
However, one important issue about this change (for I am sure true sight will eventually be changed so it does not reveal hidden characters), is that there will have to be responsibility on the other side. That is, "hide" should not be used as "free invis". When you are hiding, you should not be able to talk, wave, etc, without being seen.
It goes both ways.
But I agree that in this respect, spellcasters should not have the ability to find hidden people.
However, one important issue about this change (for I am sure true sight will eventually be changed so it does not reveal hidden characters), is that there will have to be responsibility on the other side. That is, "hide" should not be used as "free invis". When you are hiding, you should not be able to talk, wave, etc, without being seen.
It goes both ways.
But I agree that in this respect, spellcasters should not have the ability to find hidden people.If you have knowledge, let others light their candles with it.
--Sir Winston Churchill
"This place is boring, I'm gonna go eat whatever I can find laying on the ground"
-- Hoildric
Cacie asks Larethiel 'Did that air just bow to you?
--Sir Winston Churchill
"This place is boring, I'm gonna go eat whatever I can find laying on the ground"
-- Hoildric
Cacie asks Larethiel 'Did that air just bow to you?
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
I for one would welcome as punishment being no able to use the skill hide for all the characters associated to an account if a character was caught abusing this skill, if that would mean that a hidden character from now would only be able to be spotted with "legal" methods.
And the day that spells that shouldn't detect hidden characters no longer do that, we will have interesting characters like Oghman investigators of the city watch to catch those sneaky folk
And the day that spells that shouldn't detect hidden characters no longer do that, we will have interesting characters like Oghman investigators of the city watch to catch those sneaky folk
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
I'm going to go very off-topic here, so please feel free to disregard this particular post:
I'm not trying to dog anyone, but I think most people's ideas of poor RP or code abuse are subjective. More times than not, it is simple nit-picking that really is unnecessary.
To suggest punishment for 'abusing' a skill is almost laughable when you consider what people suggest is 'abusive' for skills.
Consider for a moment that just because you are hidden doesn't mean you can't talk. I, having never been trained in ventriloquism, am able to throw my voice to where a good percentage of the time another will look the wrong way. Consider, also, that is without me being 'hidden' in the sense that would be translated into FK (much less D&D).
Just because a person speaks while hidden does not mean they should be instantly spotted, either. Especially someone who is grand master at hiding. Sure, if you're in an Inn room that's enclosed with no hiding places other than the corners of the walls, it would probably be easy to catch the person, but otherwise there are always possible extenuating circumstances that might play in favor of said 'hidden' person.
I really don't enjoy the black and white views that so many seem to have here on Forgotten Kingdoms.
What I would suggest, regarding the hide skill, is that it _does_ become an effect. One that, using different actions (depending on the amount of people present, the type of room, the amount of weight of objects within the room, and other possible modifiers that may play into the favor of the speaker), a roll is forced at random to see if that duration is decreased or possibly completely expired.
I'm not trying to dog anyone, but I think most people's ideas of poor RP or code abuse are subjective. More times than not, it is simple nit-picking that really is unnecessary.
To suggest punishment for 'abusing' a skill is almost laughable when you consider what people suggest is 'abusive' for skills.
Consider for a moment that just because you are hidden doesn't mean you can't talk. I, having never been trained in ventriloquism, am able to throw my voice to where a good percentage of the time another will look the wrong way. Consider, also, that is without me being 'hidden' in the sense that would be translated into FK (much less D&D).
Just because a person speaks while hidden does not mean they should be instantly spotted, either. Especially someone who is grand master at hiding. Sure, if you're in an Inn room that's enclosed with no hiding places other than the corners of the walls, it would probably be easy to catch the person, but otherwise there are always possible extenuating circumstances that might play in favor of said 'hidden' person.
I really don't enjoy the black and white views that so many seem to have here on Forgotten Kingdoms.
What I would suggest, regarding the hide skill, is that it _does_ become an effect. One that, using different actions (depending on the amount of people present, the type of room, the amount of weight of objects within the room, and other possible modifiers that may play into the favor of the speaker), a roll is forced at random to see if that duration is decreased or possibly completely expired.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
Selveem, I'm not on about well-RPed hiding, here. The sort where the person smotes moving slowly, and actually explains that he's casting his voice around, etc.
The fact remains that I have seen people standing there, arms folded, just having a conversation. "You can't seeee meeee" because it uses the same code (essentially) as invis. I always feel like saying, "Well actually, yes I can, you fool, because you're standing in the middle of a room shouting at me". But I can't say that, because its rude. So instead I just use true sight, and point at them.
If people RP hiding, properly (as almost everyone does), then everything's fine. And its not a black-and-white view, Selveem. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean theirs is a black or white view, it just means its a different shade of grey to yours.
The fact remains that I have seen people standing there, arms folded, just having a conversation. "You can't seeee meeee" because it uses the same code (essentially) as invis. I always feel like saying, "Well actually, yes I can, you fool, because you're standing in the middle of a room shouting at me". But I can't say that, because its rude. So instead I just use true sight, and point at them.
If people RP hiding, properly (as almost everyone does), then everything's fine. And its not a black-and-white view, Selveem. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean theirs is a black or white view, it just means its a different shade of grey to yours.
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles with it.
--Sir Winston Churchill
"This place is boring, I'm gonna go eat whatever I can find laying on the ground"
-- Hoildric
Cacie asks Larethiel 'Did that air just bow to you?
--Sir Winston Churchill
"This place is boring, I'm gonna go eat whatever I can find laying on the ground"
-- Hoildric
Cacie asks Larethiel 'Did that air just bow to you?
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
What's the difference, then?
A few lines of smotes saying they're casting their voice? How is that any different than just using say?
I could understand if they're like.. in the room smacking you or something; that's just completely silly. However, if someone's in the standing position (which hide requires - can't utilize hide while sitting) and utilizing sayto command, who's to say they aren't throwing their voice?
I'm not one who likes to smote out every little thing, personally. That's why I'd rather be fair and have a system, such as I suggested, where I can't completely control everything even if I'm GM.
A few lines of smotes saying they're casting their voice? How is that any different than just using say?
I could understand if they're like.. in the room smacking you or something; that's just completely silly. However, if someone's in the standing position (which hide requires - can't utilize hide while sitting) and utilizing sayto command, who's to say they aren't throwing their voice?
I'm not one who likes to smote out every little thing, personally. That's why I'd rather be fair and have a system, such as I suggested, where I can't completely control everything even if I'm GM.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
That's the problem, Selveem. Who's to say they're throwing their voice? If they don't RP it out, we can't assume they are. Now, if they RP throwing their voice, great! But if not, they can't just use it as an excuse, because no effort has been made to make it seem like they are.
I understand some people don't like smotes. That's perfectly fine, you know. Its just that sometimes, in a very rare few examples, its kinda needed.
Which is better? A long, drawn-out coding process which desperately tries to satisfy everyone and make the skill "hide" completely functional (which should be done admittedly, yes). Or should we instead, just settle for the smotes FOR NOW, until the "hide" skill works completely as it should do.
I'm not talking major smotes, just enough so people know what's going on.
"smote throws his voice so it sounds like he's behind you"... it doesn't take five seconds. And until "hide" is made to work as it really should (weaknesses and strengths combined), its the best compromise we have.
I understand some people don't like smotes. That's perfectly fine, you know.
Its just that sometimes, in a very rare few examples, its kinda needed.Which is better? A long, drawn-out coding process which desperately tries to satisfy everyone and make the skill "hide" completely functional (which should be done admittedly, yes). Or should we instead, just settle for the smotes FOR NOW, until the "hide" skill works completely as it should do.
I'm not talking major smotes, just enough so people know what's going on.
"smote throws his voice so it sounds like he's behind you"... it doesn't take five seconds. And until "hide" is made to work as it really should (weaknesses and strengths combined), its the best compromise we have.
If you have knowledge, let others light their candles with it.
--Sir Winston Churchill
"This place is boring, I'm gonna go eat whatever I can find laying on the ground"
-- Hoildric
Cacie asks Larethiel 'Did that air just bow to you?
--Sir Winston Churchill
"This place is boring, I'm gonna go eat whatever I can find laying on the ground"
-- Hoildric
Cacie asks Larethiel 'Did that air just bow to you?
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
I honestly do not find anything wrong with the smote while hidden system. I have smote/talked many times while hidden and always ended the smote with me stepping from out of the corner of the ally, side of the wall, <insert appropriate scenario here>, etc etc. There have also been times where I have whispered to someone (always a short 4 - 5 word sentence) from the bustle of the crowd in passing which I think is perfectly expectable at GM hide. Now sitting there and having full blown conversations I would never do but I have seen it done before and did notify the person to stop it, but that was a long time ago.
What I do not want is a coded system where the skill is rolled against for every tick or whatever. I believe upon entry to the room should be the only time a spot search can and should be checked against hide. A timed/tick check would just make the skill like disguise which is kind of pointless since anyone and usually everyone sees through the disguise in a matter of minutes no matter how high the skill due to statistics and probability of the rolls. This was how disguise was explained working to me many years ago so if its not the case then I apologize. I am willing to deal and work around the chronic true sighter's(and we ALL know who they are btw, which imo use it so often their retinas should be shredded by now from the constant use of divine power) if it means A) We get a Spot Check System that is true to form and B) it will not be based on any timer or tick system that would make it unreasonable.
What I do not want is a coded system where the skill is rolled against for every tick or whatever. I believe upon entry to the room should be the only time a spot search can and should be checked against hide. A timed/tick check would just make the skill like disguise which is kind of pointless since anyone and usually everyone sees through the disguise in a matter of minutes no matter how high the skill due to statistics and probability of the rolls. This was how disguise was explained working to me many years ago so if its not the case then I apologize. I am willing to deal and work around the chronic true sighter's(and we ALL know who they are btw, which imo use it so often their retinas should be shredded by now from the constant use of divine power) if it means A) We get a Spot Check System that is true to form and B) it will not be based on any timer or tick system that would make it unreasonable.
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
Well... let's be honest..if you washed SO throughly yourself and all you wore <unless you're hiding because you're nekid>, didn't have ANY balls of light or continously lit items on your person, or food stored anywhere on your person, either, or even had a way for your eyes not to reflect any light whatsoever, then yes, perhaps you can hide and no living thing could SEE you. Oh.. you can't wear magical items either.. people can detect that. Oh, wait... what about aura's? Got to be able to hide that as well...hmmm. You could probably hide from just about everything. Maybe. But there will be something out there you won't be able to hide, no matter how hard you try, and someone will find a way to detect it. Just how far are you willing to go to be undectable, and can you pull it off?
Sorry... I shouldn't have read about Pun-Pun first....my bad..never mind.. just felt it had to be said...
Sorry... I shouldn't have read about Pun-Pun first....my bad..never mind.. just felt it had to be said...
What the Mind of a man can conceive, the Will of a man can achieve.
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
Wow Belose was there anything non facetious in that post? We are talking about one of the staple trademarks of an entire class that is gimped by default, due to the way the system just works. And if you read what we are asking for IS a Spot Check System for the tradeoff of fixing True Sight to its original intended form.
Re: [SPELL] Detect invisible.
I would hide under a sheet, behind a box.Belose wrote: Just how far are you willing to go to be undectable, and can you pull it off?
Easy
At Home With the Goldfarbs:
http://i39.tinypic.com/28hin4n.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/28hin4n.jpg
