See Secrets spell

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

......but probably only among the GM and players about the way they are playing (and only when it actually happens).

Is discussing it what we're doing here?

I'm just trying to argue that the most limited interpretation of the spell is both the easiest to adjudicate and the most fair way to run it. I can see where edge cases occur, but erring on the side of "no, you actually have to look and put it in your line of vision" prevents more problems than it creates. It also means the other Seek-type spells remain useful even if See Secrets is up and going constantly - hide a key in a book in a library, and I'd say the book doesn't stick out but Seeker is a good way to find it. And you know Seeker, because it's a prereq. Stick the key in a secret compartment on the bottom of the bookcase, and if you look at the bottom of the bookcase and it'll stand right out.

YMMV, but in my experience it's not all that bad of a spell if you are strict about it.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

For instance, the actual player in the OP's game has spoken up and said he'd stop using the spell if it had become Hurting Wrong Fun. That's how actual grown ups solve problems rather than playing semantic games about "hidden".

That's actually a pretty insulting statement, Fred. You might want to think about editing that. I'm not pleased with the implication that I'm not an actual grownup because I disagree with your line of thought.

And if you weren't trying to imply that, than you really wrote that sentence badly.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Is discussing it what we're doing here?

That's actually a pretty insulting statement, Fred. You might want to think about editing that. I'm not pleased with the implication that I'm not an actual grownup because I disagree with your line of thought.

And if you weren't trying to imply that, than you really wrote that sentence badly.

There was no intent to insult you personally or even certain persons I didn't bother to reply to. I respect you personally even when I disagree strongly with your opinions.

However, I msot sincerely believe you and others are attempting to play semantic games. When you put that key into a book to keep someone from finding it you are hiding it and it becomes a hidden item.

If someone tried to evade See Secrets by such means in a game where I was GM I would follow a famous example and (metaphorically) rap them on the knuckles with a 1st ed. DMG. Or at least let there attempted cleverness fail in an embarassing fashion. I really don't think this argument has any validity.

If you deliberately hide something it becomes a hidden item and See Secrets finds it. Perhaps not _absolutely_ automatically. I would make the player rol Vision but with a +10 bonus that becomes too cose too close to automatic under any reasonable circumstances to make a big deal out of..

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

There was no intent to insult you personally or even certain persons I didn't bother to reply to. I respect you personally even when I disagree strongly with your opinions.

Understood. You disagreeing with me is very in-character; insulting people isn't, which is why I tried to be very measured in my answer. So no worries on my part anyway.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If someone tried to evade See Secrets by such means in a game where I was GM I would follow a famous example and (metaphorically) rap them on the knuckles with a 1st ed. DMG.

Technically, you whack them on the head with the spine. That's my DMG rule, for those people who don't argue as many years back as Frederick and I do.

But yeah, we clearly disagree. I'll just end by saying that my method is working pretty well in play, as evidenced by the fact that no one feels it's nerfed (the wizard does keep it up all day, every day) but no one feels like it's doing more than it should. And we haven't had an argument about what it covers, just the occasional question.

[Dammann]

I like the suggestion of simply overwhelming the spell caster from time to time. You can place a trap beneath some plaster, and then embed a bunch of pennies in the plaster all over the walls, so that the caster is just overwhelmed with hidden nonspecific objects.

[Anthony]

The primary reason I prefer a psychometry-based explanation of 'see secrets' is that I can think of no common distinguishing feature of secrets other than the intent of the person hiding it, and I like having an explanation for how abilities work. An ability that simply boosts search rolls would help finding anything that requires a search roll, not just secrets.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The primary reason I prefer a psychometry-based explanation of 'see secrets' is that I can think of no common distinguishing feature of secrets other than the intent of the person hiding it

Intentional hiding tends to draw on a body of hiding techniques that spring from the empirical experience of human sensory failings and disfavor emulation of the more common natural hiding processes, like simple occultation. It's not 100%, but spells aren't 100% either.

[Fred Brackin]

[QUOTE=Toadkiller_Dog;1353691
But yeah, we clearly disagree. I'll just end by saying that my method is working pretty well in play, as evidenced by the fact that no one feels it's nerfed (the wizard does keep it up all day, every day) but no one feels like it's doing more than it should. And we haven't had an argument about what it covers, just the occasional question.[/QUOTE]

My actual intent had been to praise the fellow who said he was the See Secrets player and he'd stop if it had becoem problematic.

<shrug>What my personal experience told me about See Secrets was that there's no problem to begin with. My long World of D'y'r't camapign went through places like the Tomb of Horrors and nobody ever bothered learning See Secrets because the Rogue had it covered.

If the Rogue hadn't been there the group would have _needed_ spells to replace her. Only some of it is Gurps expereince but I have a lot of experience with undersized groups that don't ahve a key niche filled. There is a role for spells that perform Rogue-like functions.

If you'd asked me I would have told you that the potentially abusable spell was Earth Vision which others in this discussion seemed to think was not problematic. I had to use a sometimes unlikely amount of worked stone to avoid Earth Vision beeing a auto-solve to a lot of problems. Mixing it with Earth-to-Air was even worse.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Putting something in a box isn't really "hiding it", is it?

It sure can be. Old clothes in a box are not being hidden, but a magical dagger in the clothes was probably being hidden (and the GM will know this since he's the one who put it there),

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by copeab

It sure can be. Old clothes in a box are not being hidden, but a magical dagger in the clothes was probably being hidden (and the GM will know this since he's the one who put it there),

So what's the range? How many feet of earth down can you detect those hidden corpses?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

So what's the range? How many feet of earth down can you detect those hidden corpses?

To be consistent with how i have handled some other spells, probably a number of yards equal to the level of the spell (so See Secrets-15 would be 15 yards).

(since I don't use miniatures and I find the -1/hex far too wargamish, I use the range - skill level for a lot of spells that aren't touch or have a range specified)