[<a href='16546.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='16544.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='16548.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='16541.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 16545 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Tue Mar 21 18:47:48 GMT 2000 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> jhenders@bogon.com <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [eqbards] Clouding vs. Undead <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-735180581">On Tue, Mar 21/00, <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:firehawk@...">firehawk@...</a> wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; From: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:firehawk@...">firehawk@...</a><br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Actually I could go back and get my e-mail from the last great clouding debate where I did exactly that test the con and the result with invis on and invis off.  What I tend to think people forget is the possibilty of see invis being part of some of these creatures.  <br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>It really seems to be semantics at this point. Ultimately, if you can<br/>
run to the ghoul lord room unmolested with the cleric/enchanter invis to<br/>
undead, but not with the bard song, then clouding is not really invis to<br/>
undead. <br/>
<br/>
-- <br/>
  Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.<br/>
            GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v<br/>
                 b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*</div>