Talent/Spell of the Week: Reveal/Conceal

[Shostak]

With what I think is the longest description in the list, this IQ 11 Thrown spell offers great utility by giving its user the ability to both occult and descry objects and enchantments, depending on how the spell is used. Used to reveal, the spell can be cast on a hunch into a hex to remove one Conceal spell (if any are present) from that area or to make a mundane object easier to spot by reducing the number of dice rolled by one, at the modest cost of 2 ST per casting. When used to more easily reveal the mundane, the spell lasts 12 turns (one minute).

Conceal works a bit differently, in that it lasts until removed and the cost (2 for the first Conceal) doubles with each successive casting. This makes it unlikely that anyone working alone will be pushing the Rule of Five to the limits (the fourth and fifth spells cost 16 and 32 ST, respectively!). But, given that sorcerers could work in cooperation to occult their work as much as possible, the Rule of Five imposes a mechanistic quality to Reveal/Conceal that rubs me the wrong way; once players understand how the Rule of Five applies to Reveal/Conceal, they will tend to always cast Reveal five times on any object they suspect might be magical, making magic less mysterious than one might like. However, the mechanics of Reveal/Conceal and the Rule of Five are simple, and they works, and there is a lot to be said for that. The person who cast Conceal does not suffer a penalty when trying to find something hidden by the spell--except perhaps in a comedy game.

Reveal/Conceal's description is vague on exactly what can be hidden, saying that the item must either be small and inconspicuous, OR already hidden. Does that mean that one could Conceal a person lying in ambush because they are not small but are already hidden? And how small is small? Is a dagger small? A short sword? An arrow? This is sure to vary from GM to GM.

It would be consistent with Analyze Magic for Reveal to remove the Conceal spell on the lowest-level enchantment first if there are multiple Conceals in the target area, and perhaps revealing mundane objects hidden by Conceal before revealing magic, although the description does not specify this.

The spell description also does not state that a failure on a Reveal casting should give an erroneous reading, but it does in my games. Or perhaps it adds a Conceal spell? A really botched Conceal could make the target obvious to everyone but the caster, for whom it acts as multiple Conceal spells.

Reveal/Conceal has long seen ample use in games I've GMed or run a character in. Its great to hide a coin purse, a set of lock picks, a purloined necklace, your secret book of potion recipes, or that embarrassing tattoo that says "Thorsz's Gourd", and for finding hidden objects and enchantments.

Conversation starters

• How often do players choose Reveal/Conceal for their characters in your games?
• Is an illusion with Conceal on it harder to disbelieve?
• Do you use the RAW version of the spell, or have you house-ruled it in some way?
• What disagreements about how the spell works have come up in your games?
• What exploits have you found for combining Reveal/Conceal with other spells or talents?

[hcobb]

I don't allow any use of Conceal on figures, just objects.

[JimmyPlenty]

I've been waiting for this one, as I never understood the utility of the five levels of conceal.

I mean, I think the idea is to let high level wizards conceal things from a lowly wizard. But it just seems to me, that like you mentioned, if you were looking for something concealed by a wizard, you'd always second guess yourself that you did enough if you just cast it once or twice, even four times!

My thought is as I am writing this, maybe instead of five levels of conceal, you just have a contest of IQ from the reveal caster vs the conceal caster.

Maybe a bonus to each wizard's IQ for the contest depending on how much ST they put into the spell (not too much though).

...or make an option to add extra ST to the spell to force the other caster to roll 4/IQ for the contest.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by JimmyPlenty

I've been waiting for this one, as I never understood the utility of the five levels of conceal.

I mean, I think the idea is to let high level wizards conceal things from a lowly wizard. But it just seems to me, that like you mentioned, if you were looking for something concealed by a wizard, you'd always second guess yourself that you did enough if you just cast it once or twice, even four times!

My thought is as I am writing this, maybe instead of five levels of conceal, you just have a contest of IQ from the reveal caster vs the conceal caster.

Maybe a bonus to each wizard's IQ for the contest depending on how much ST they put into the spell (not too much though).

...or make an option to add extra ST to the spell to force the other caster to roll 4/IQ for the contest.

Over the years, I’ve played around with a few alternative ways to have Reveal/Conceal work. One involved an IQ contest, and another, which I liked better, had Conceal imbuing its target with a random amount of Occultation, which quantified how much concealment the target possessed, and Reveal would strip away a random amount of Occultation. This but provides finer grain and more uncertainty, but involves no more book keeping than RAW,. Discussion of those were in my original draft for the opening post, but I decided it would be better to save that for later.

[phiwum]

How about the following simple fix for the Rule of Five issue?

Whether a reveal spell works or not should be hidden knowledge from the caster. So, just make it a hidden die roll by the GM and charge the caster 2 ST whether it succeeds or fails. Odds are that a typical wizard will fail some times when casting, so they'll want to cast more than five times, but how much more?

They can, of course, play the odds, figure out the expected number of failures and compensate for those. But at least it leaves room for doubts.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

How about the following simple fix for the Rule of Five issue?

Whether a reveal spell works or not should be hidden knowledge from the caster. So, just make it a hidden die roll by the GM and charge the caster 2 ST whether it succeeds or fails. Odds are that a typical wizard will fail some times when casting, so they'll want to cast more than five times, but how much more?

They can, of course, play the odds, figure out the expected number of failures and compensate for those. But at least it leaves room for doubts.

Good suggestion. I also like having each Conceal spell impose a -1 DX penalty to Reveal spells. This makes Conceal both more difficult to put on an object (the cost doubles for each successive application) and to remove. That penalty could combine nicely with a secret roll.

[Bill_in_IN]

From reading this thread, I can tell that I need to gain a better functional grasp on Reveal/Conceal. I've relied upon their occurrence in pre-prepared games but not set them up myself in adventures.

[Chris Rice]

I found Reveal/Conceal an interesting concept but a pain in practice. The fact that you can layer it is actually pretty pointless because if a Wizard suspects Conceal has been used he will just cast Reveal 5 times to make sure the hidden thing is found. As a single layer spell though, it’s fine.

[WFCoyote]

Conceal a Thrown Spell, Remove Thrown Spell, should that not remove all the Conceals, or just one?
the wiz Owl smiles.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by WFCoyote

Conceal a Thrown Spell, Remove Thrown Spell, should that not remove all the Conceals, or just one?
the wiz Owl smiles.

Each Conceal is a separate casting, so Remove Thrown Spell will need to be cast for each one.