Topic: Misfeels, Feels, Presence, Unfeel, Unpresence... confused yet?

[Marc R]

Presence is free, and the logic is already skewed in favor of the detection / information spells. Even in RMC you need to beat your RR by 50 for one to fail on you. Having these generally much higher level spells work as they do is often a good thing.

Allowing for there to be an absolute answer can lead to danger in terms of story, especially as the game goes up to higher levels.

The potential down side, of high level casters being able to cast spells, and know without uncertainty that they can trust those answers, is the death of mystery and paranoia.

Those are two important flavor elements, IMO, for making a good game work.

The flip side of unstoppable killer sneaks, always seemed possible to use other means control per above. . .and if you have 30th level semi or pure caster assassins out to kill you, you should be worried. The "Killer combo" is not casually possible for low to mid level people.

[pastaav]

I find the Unpresence spells to be so expensive relative to level 1 Presence spells that I don't have a problem letting them win automatically.  After all, you can't keep Unpresence up forever, and the other guy can just spend another 0 PP to ping again.  Personally, I've never had a problem with Unpresence being too powerful.

Are you aware that Unpresence is also a 0 pp spell?

[markc]

 I was wrong in that the Elvin Rings of of power say they double the RR vs the Dark Lords detection powers and I guess we took that to mean that it also extend to the RR we gave vs detection type abilities and un-presence. We did not use MERP by the book but as reference in a highly modified RP game.


MDC

[Kristen Mork]

I find the Unpresence spells to be so expensive relative to level 1 Presence spells that I don't have a problem letting them win automatically.  After all, you can't keep Unpresence up forever, and the other guy can just spend another 0 PP to ping again.  Personally, I've never had a problem with Unpresence being too powerful.

Are you aware that Unpresence is also a 0 pp spell?

In RMSS, Unpresence is only 0 PP on the Mind Mastery list and it requires concentration.  All of the other occurrences require PP.  Moreover, on the Disguise Mastery, Mind's Shadow, Mystical Change, and Mystical Hiding lists, the spell requires concentration.  The scary version is Mind Sense Molding (Illusionist Base) because it can be cast on others and has a 10 min/lvl duration.  Even so, Unpresence is level 13 to 30, whereas Presence is level 1 to 3.  Presence also tends to be instantaneous (except for the Detection Law version), and it too usually requires PP (except on Mind Mastery).  All things considered, the requirements for Unpresence are much worse than those for Presence.  In short, I'm fine with using the spells as written.

[Ynglaur]

On a semi-related note, I've recently taken to Glen Cook's Black Company series to provide a rough feel for how powerful magicians ought to be.  There's a great line in one of the later books where a character is wondering if such-and-such a powerful being has finally been killed after falling some distance into 12' of snow, and being left there for a couple days: paraphrased, "I'd be surprised if he was dead.  You don't get to be a wizard of his power without having contingencies for everything."

I kind of like the idea that even high-level magic-users need be afraid of certain types of attacks.

[Marc R]

And again, when you're talking about 30th level assassins, the bar is quite high. . .if 30th level killers are after you, you should be worried, regardless of their profession.

[Zedul]

On a semi-related note, I've recently taken to Glen Cook's Black Company series to provide a rough feel for how powerful magicians ought to be.  There's a great line in one of the later books where a character is wondering if such-and-such a powerful being has finally been killed after falling some distance into 12' of snow, and being left there for a couple days: paraphrased, "I'd be surprised if he was dead.  You don't get to be a wizard of his power without having contingencies for everything."

I kind of like the idea that even high-level magic-users need be afraid of certain types of attacks.

Love those books, vastly underrated.

[Ynglaur]

Glen Cook is a master.  I'm reading his Dread Empire series now for the first time.  Amazing stuff, especially given when he was writing.

[providence13]

I like almost everything in RM to have an RR.
When my players cast Presence, I say "No" or "Yes". If "Yes", then I give the number present. I use the spell as it reads.. "You feel  presence(s) in the sensing radius."
Just knowing someone is within radius is helpful, but it's not as good as knowing exactly where they are located.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Back when I was playing RM instead of HARP, my response to a cast Presence spell was simply a number, nothing else. However, IIRC the spell description read something like "detects the presence of all sentient creatures within range". Therefore if there was no one but the caster within the radius, the result of casting a Presence spell was, "one". It was up to the caster to figure out that the sentient whose presence was registered was, in fact, him.

I had no qualms about confusing them by counting ALL sentients within range, including the caster, his party members, possibly his familiar, etc.

I stand by an old saying: Anything free is worth what you paid for it.

[pastaav]

I find the Unpresence spells to be so expensive relative to level 1 Presence spells that I don't have a problem letting them win automatically.  After all, you can't keep Unpresence up forever, and the other guy can just spend another 0 PP to ping again.  Personally, I've never had a problem with Unpresence being too powerful.

Are you aware that Unpresence is also a 0 pp spell?

In RMSS, Unpresence is only 0 PP on the Mind Mastery list and it requires concentration.  All of the other occurrences require PP.  Moreover, on the Disguise Mastery, Mind's Shadow, Mystical Change, and Mystical Hiding lists, the spell requires concentration.  The scary version is Mind Sense Molding (Illusionist Base) because it can be cast on others and has a 10 min/lvl duration.  Even so, Unpresence is level 13 to 30, whereas Presence is level 1 to 3.  Presence also tends to be instantaneous (except for the Detection Law version), and it too usually requires PP (except on Mind Mastery).  All things considered, the requirements for Unpresence are much worse than those for Presence.  In short, I'm fine with using the spells as written.

That other professions than the mentalist must spend lots of PP for the spell effect is nothing that I find strange. IMHO the same kind of argument as complaints about the Illusionist Lightning Bolt costing too much at 20pp. It does always cost lots of pp if you tap into an theme-area that really belong to another profession, not a good reason to add a rule exception.

Personally I think that a level 30 assassin that is not consent with the opponent having to beat an RR of lvl 30 effect need to really sit down and understand the spell system before he continue to play, he is missing something fundamental.

Finally I find it strange of this pretty new habit on the forum of people all the time claiming that they are playing the rules as written. What is the point really? It is not like the RM rules are clear and flawless from the start.

I have already commented about there not being any rule passage that say Presence and Unpresence should not be considered conflicting effects or that Unpresence is an Essence like illusion, why then this talk about rules as written. I am totally fine with you having good reasons for doing your rules interpretation, I am very not arguing that you must change something that works in your game. So why then start talking about rules as written when we are just talking about possible ways to run the game?

[yammahoper]

Finally I find it strange of this pretty new habit on the forum of people all the time claiming that they are playing the rules as written. What is the point really? It is not like the RM rules are clear and flawless from the start.

A light in the dark.  Sanity is wonderful to behold in action.

[Marc R]

Often we need to get to the Rule as Written to establish the baseline, which many of us then deviate from.

I definitely don't play pure vanilla myself, but it's handy to establish the pure vanilla when discussing these things.

There's also a difference between "What's the rule" and "How do you run this" questions.

[Zat]

Hmmm...

Invisiblity? Should that have a RR too?
Surely, if I am reading correctly, Unpresence makes Presence useless (including similar spells), just as Invisibility makes sight (next to) useless or the various Quiet/Silence spells make audio detection useless. Isn't presence just another 'sense', albeit a magical one? There are no RRs for those spells, why should (Un)Presence require one?
Yes, I know there are ways around those spells and situations I have mentioned here, but it seems pretty plain that there are ways around Unpresence etc. too (does anyone use Power Perception skill?).

What next, the Archer getting a RR against his opponent's Unaiming spell?

No. In my games the spells do what they say on the tin. There are no RRs for these situations in my games and I am yet to have someone exploit these spells beyond my ability to cope...and 25+ years is a long time.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Invisiblity? Should that have a RR too?

I always put Invisibility down as a flat -100 to the Perception roll. Personally I would have no problem with ruling that Unpresence throws a flat -100 to your Presence spell as well. Granted, it won't increase your chances of failure/fumble, but if Presence could theoretically detect 3 people, but one of them has an Unpresence, I'd have no problem with saying okay, it can detect 2 if the spell works at all... but it has to work awesomely well to detect the third guy.

[Zat]

Dunno exactly where I got this from, but I give a -90 to Perception rolls for Invisibility (hence the 'next to' in my post, above), but this is only due to the perceiver picking up on clues such as the waft of a curtain or bending of grass etc. as the 'invisibility user' passes by. I can't see how I would apply this to Presence other than the 'Unpresence user' being in plain site and making himself obvious. In fact is such situations I would rule that the Unpresence spell would fail.

[Marc R]

I rule something similar, which falls under the "You don't perceive everything by sight alone". . . like if you make a skunk invisible, you'll still know it's around.

Also the "Fringe" issue, where invisibility interacts at the edge with the environment causing some strangeness, ranging from empty footprints to the distortion of the dust hanging in the air.

But really, if you look, the unpresence, etc spells in the books all tend to be much higher level than the spells they nerf.

[providence13]

Dunno exactly where I got this from, but I give a -90 to Perception rolls for Invisibility (hence the 'next to' in my post, above), but this is only due to the perceiver picking up on clues such as the waft of a curtain or bending of grass etc. as the 'invisibility user' passes by. I can't see how I would apply this to Presence other than the 'Unpresence user' being in plain site and making himself obvious. In fact is such situations I would rule that the Unpresence spell would fail.

Your game, your rules.
I don't understand why any physical activity, like "being obvious" would have an effect on Presence/Unpresence. These aren't obvious physical states.
I do like the Invisibility reference.
Lets say a thief gets sprayed by a skunk while burgling. The poor sod is miserable, but all he can do is cast Invisibility, or even strip and cast Unseen.
Now, he tries sneaking out without alerting the guards.
The guards aren't exactly sure where he is, but they can sure as heck smell him!

This is similar to Presence imho.

Next, the thief casts Minor Sense Control on the guard(s). This is similar to Unpresence.
The thief still has to get out, still has to be quiet, but sight and smell are no longer a problem.

[Zedul]

I figured this would be a pretty healthy debate.

This situation is a tough nut to crack.

Say a character is a level 50 Nightblade.  He can kill any king in the world in your campaign, slip in... whack the guy and get out and no one will ever see it coming or know who did it unless said king is followed around by an Archmage loaded with spell triggers, but then of course if your Nightblade is smart he is going to use an anti magic poison or weapon to nix said spell triggers. Also a simple cancel spell will kill the triggers to begin with.  And really, do all the kings in your worlds campaign have a gaggle of high level Archmages to follow them around and protect them with triggers 24/7 ?

Of course this is not even getting into the problem spell triggers create.  Because if you make Spell Triggers all powerful to deter problem A then you just automatically invite problem B.  Your characters will be making Archmages with Spell Triggers and pointing out how "all powerful" spell triggers are and how they can keep them alive and safe from a killing blow in any situation (even the ambush of a level 50 Nightblade )   That is the problem with creating a blanket deterrent out of another spell in the system.

Making any single set of rules all powerful is a dangerous proposition when your players are really crafty and smart and are more than willing to put their heads together and wreak having in your RM world!

[rdanhenry]

Okay, I just checked, and the Nightblade Unpresence is a Concentration spell, so it is fairly restrictive in use.