Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Trouble with Game Balance

Posted by: Gomez Jun 23 2006, 01:46 PM

I have been running a Shadowrun 4e game for about 5 sessions now. I am about two sessions into the On The Run adventure. I have from 6-7 players playing at any one time with starting 400 point characters.

My problem is they are mowing through all the opposition that I am throwing at them. Now we are are still learning the rules but my players are pretty sharp and have built pretty tough characters. I started out with some easy combats but they were too easy. The PC's hardy broke a sweat. And looking at the bad guys in the On the Run adventure it looks like they will hardy provide any challenge to my players.

I looks like I am going to really have to up the power level of the bad guys because any street level bad guys are hardly a bother. Maybe I was expecting starting characters to not be so tough and I can hardly imagine what they will be like with some karma under their belts.

Has anyone run into this problem.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 01:54 PM

Expecting a street level game and not making sure characters are street level will definitely cause some problems. Talk with your players about your expectations, and be sure to exercise that last step of character creation: GM approval. If you're dead set on street level and they're dead set on maxed out starting characters you should probably find a different GM.

Another problem is the size of the group. I don't know for sure how many characters the FanPro adventures were designed for, but I'm guessing it's 4, not 8. If you've got twice as many characters you'll definitely have to up the ante to keep things challenging.

Posted by: Lebo77 Jun 23 2006, 02:16 PM

QUOTE (Gomez)

I have been running a Shadowrun 4e game for about 5 sessions now. I am about two sessions into the On The Run adventure. I have from 6-7 players playing at any one time with starting 400 point characters.

My problem is they are mowing through all the opposition that I am throwing at them. No we are are still learning the rules but my players are pretty sharp and have built pretty tough characters. I started out with some easy combats but they were too easy. The PC's hardy broke a sweat. And looking at the bad guys in the On the Run adventure it looks like they will hardy provide any challenge to my players.

I looks like I am going to really have to up the power level of the bad guys because any street level bad guys are hardly a bother. Maybe I was expecting starting characters to not be so tough and I can hardly imagine what they will be like with some karma under their belts.

Has anyone run into this problem.

I just finished On the run last night. How far into it are you? (put your answer in a spoiler)

Posted by: booklord Jun 23 2006, 02:55 PM

You think that's bad?!?

[ Spoiler ]

Posted by: Gomez Jun 23 2006, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (Lebo77 @ Jun 23 2006, 09:16 AM)

I just finished On the run last night. How far into it are you? (put your answer in a spoiler)

They..

[ Spoiler ]

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 03:25 PM

booklord, why is that a problem? It seems to me that's what a clockwork run should do.

Posted by: Ankle Biter Jun 23 2006, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (booklord)

...Shaman cast an illusion of an empty hallway....

Wait, what?

I see no spells in SR4 that are AoE invisibility, and trid phantasm can only add stuff not take it away, what gives?

Posted by: Nim Jun 23 2006, 04:10 PM

The SR4 character creation rules really do nothing at all to enforce an equal power level between characters, or to ensure that characters end up at the power level you want for your game. It's possible to build totally useless characters and totally over-the-top characters on roughly the same number of points.

My advice is that as Step 1 of character creation, you have each player come up with a short written description of their concept, before they spend a single BP. A couple sentences should do it...what you really need to know is what role they want to play in the team and what the character's general background is that let them pick up those skills. Make sure they're all at the level you want for your game, and roughly the same level as EACH OTHER. If one guy wants to play a junior reporter from a local screamsheet, and another wants to play a covert op who's gone AWOL from an elite, top-secret UCAS military force...you're going to have some problems. Try to get a set of concepts where the characters are all roughly on par in their competence at their respective professions.

Then just make sure that the stats they come up with actually FIT the background they outlined. If you've already cut the concepts down to something that fits the game you want to run, then you ought to end up with something that more or less works. Don't be afraid to tell players things like 'Sorry, your 17-year-old street-mage, barely eeking out a Low lifestyle by casting Trid Entertainment spells in bars, just doesn't have the education yet to have Spellcasting 6'. Read over the description of what the various skill levels are supposed to represent, and actually stick to them

Not that there's anything wrong with having starting characters who are in the 'best in the world' category at some skill...IF that fits the game you're intending to run. Just apply common sense, and don't let them have it just because they have the BP available.

Then, if you decided you wanted a game where the PCs are starting off with fairly 'elite' concepts, make sure you're sending them into situations that'll appropriately challenge them.

Posted by: Gomez Jun 23 2006, 04:23 PM

Well I don't have a real problem with how the characters are balanced against each other. It's the oposition that I throw up against them that the balance really swings crazily. And I cannot just say to them, "Hey you built your character too well, can you not make them so good?"

I guess I just have to raise the threat level that I through up against them.

Posted by: Aaron Jun 23 2006, 04:50 PM

I'm reading a lot of "make the players conform to your expectations." I'm not sure I can agree with that sort of sentiment. I've always felt that the GM isn't there to be served by the players, but to serve the players. As GM, you are the "fun facilitator" for the group.

In the case of the team that did everything right, cautiously scouted the opposition and nabbed the mark, what's the harm in allowing it? They did everything right, and didn't have to fire off a shot or a spell. Sounds like a good run to me; congrats all around.

In fact, having the opposition get walked all over by the team is a Good Thing. It allows you to rachet up the opposition bit by bit in future runs until it gets to the appropriate level. It's far and away better than approaching that limit from the other direction.

Posted by: Gomez Jun 23 2006, 04:57 PM

QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 23 2006, 11:50 AM)

In fact, having the opposition get walked all over by the team is a Good Thing. It allows you to rachet up the opposition bit by bit in future runs until it gets to the appropriate level. It's far and away better than approaching that limit from the other direction.

Very true. I guess I am just learning what is tough and what isn't when it comes to the bad guys. Or I am learning how bad ass my player's characters really are!

Posted by: Nim Jun 23 2006, 04:59 PM

QUOTE (Gomez)

Sure you can! Now, that doesn't mean you HAVE to.

If you decide you want to run a game where the characters are greenhorn runners, new to the shadows, you can do that on 400 BP...they won't have any many skills spiked high, because you won't LET them (those spiked skills wouldn't make sense for newbie runners), but those points will still end up someplace else. They'll probably have more supporting skills, more contacts, etc etc. They'll be less effective, because going broad is less powerful than going deep. But if you're putting them up against appropriate threats, that's okay.

BP total is really not a good measure of character power.

Now, on the other hand, if you let the players min-max their characters to the best of their ability within those 400 points (say, you're looking to run a game where the PCs are already veteran runners), they'll end up as monsters and blow through quite a bit of opposition unless you scale it to them. Mind you, the way they'll do that is mainly by heavily investing in a fairly narrow set of specialities. So there's always the option, if they become too obnoxious, of splitting them up and putting them in a situation where they can no longer rely on their team members to cover for their deficiencies everywhere BUT their particular focus....

Posted by: stevebugge Jun 23 2006, 05:05 PM

QUOTE (Aaron)

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. The GM should enjoy the game too, not just be there to serve the players. Players need to be flexible enough to fit in to the story so that everyone enjoys it. Everyone needs to get on the same page for this to happen.

Ultimately though I would agree that this isn't a game design problem so much as a group dynamics problem, mostly because every game system has ways to make a munchkinous character, or even stopping short of that there are always varying levels of refinement for characters. Deciding on a level of power and a style of game before character creation is a very good idea, and if done properly it shouldn't be a problem for a GM to say "hey this character needs to be toned down some to fit in to this campaign."

The second part

QUOTE (Aaron)

In the case of the team that did everything right, cautiously scouted the opposition and nabbed the mark, what's the harm in allowing it? They did everything right, and didn't have to fire off a shot or a spell. Sounds like a good run to me; congrats all around.

I agree that there shouldn't be an issue if the team did everything right and were supported by a few lucky breaks of the dice, then congratulations are in order. When you have a team that has a bad plan or no plan at all that still rolls over the opposition with little or no consequence, then it's time to adjust the power level.

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Jun 23 2006, 05:06 PM

I'm preparing to run on the run, and I don't think its supposed to be a very tough adventure. I think its supposed to be fairly easy with a ocuple small challenges for a team of 4-5.

I think it is supposed to be a learning adventure where you get the rules down pat, and be almost a milk run.

So much better than one of the SR3 advenures I got for a first run with a group of frikin tir ghosts setting up an ambush in ruthenium polymer full armor.

Posted by: Nim Jun 23 2006, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (Aaron)

Oh, I think players should have a good amount of lattitude deciding what sort of character they want to play; they need some freedom of choice or they won't have fun. But I don't think there's anything wrong with setting outside boundaries. If you're running a game where the setup is that the PCs are a Doc Wagon 'high-hazard rescue' team, then it's okay to tell the guy who wants to play a Mafia knee-breaker that he needs to save that concept for the next campaign

Posted by: mdynna Jun 23 2006, 06:11 PM

booklord you should have had the Horizon/Shangri-La team jump them when they were leaving with Loomis. Remeber that casting spells sets off an astral "beacon." And considering the corp team had a mage (that was watching Loomis closely) you can easily explain how they spot the team and spring an ambush. Even min-maxed characters can be challenged by an ambush where the opposition all gets 1 free unapposed shot at you.

Posted by: Squinky Jun 23 2006, 06:39 PM

Having not checked out On the Run yet, I can't comment much on that, but as a new Sr4 gm I can comment on overpowered pc's.

I had the same problem last night, My pc's walked through my game hell of easy. I had this happen before, with the team fighting a street gang and security guards, so I made the oppisition a little tougher. The PC's were hired to get revenge on another runner team that had betrayed the Johnson.

My Pc's were an ork Sam, an Elf Shaman, and a human gunslinger adept. I pitted them against 5 of the archtype runners from the book, with gang members that they had hired to be their mooks. It was a total slaughter, It was fun, but I still am trying to find the power level. Only the Gungslinger adept was even hurt, and that was when she fought a Troll adept (Mystic Armor6, Combat Sense 6) and he clocked her on the head once and nearly knocked her out. She shot at him three times (with a predator) and he was so dead he owes me some. The Ork was pretty much walking through suppressive fire from Assault rifles and shrugging it off. Many of the Archtype runners were killed in one shot, it was insane.

Now, thinking back I think I can try this:

1. I didn't apply enough modifiers, I'm new to the gig, and in the future I am going to keep better track of lighting, cover, movement modifiers, stuff like that. I have a feeling that will dramatically change things, but my group knows we are learning as we go.

2. If this trend continues, I am going to have to throw in some opposition that specifically targets a pc's weaknesses, just to bring them down to earth sometimes. The gunslinger isn't so good at unarmed, so I can envision her fighting a person who like to unarm people and fight hand to hand. Basically, find ways to take them from their comfort zone every now and then.

3. Have the enemys fight meaner, more tactically. I'm fine with the gangers being shot to death, but the runners could have been more organized.

Thats all I got, thought I had more...

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 23 2006, 06:41 PM

SR4's character construction results let you put together characters who are the "ultimate build" at doing something right out of the box. Asides from the ever-improving Adept exception, you can put together new characters who throw as many dice as a veteran character in a hyperspecialist role... literally, you can make a character with no room for improvement at what he does.

Keep that in mind when your players make their PCs. This is not SR3. There is nobody cruising around out there with Negotiation 11 or Pistols (Hammerli) 10(12). When you throw down a starting character with a skill at 7, the SR3 equivalent is something like 10.

Discourage hyperspecialization in your group. Encourage the use of a wide variety of skills and having people do things they're not necessarily good at. Take the rankings in the book seriously... when it says that Professionals operate at skill 3, and Veterans operate at skill 4, with Skill 5+ beginning to list things like "Famous people who were this good...," remind your players (and yourself) what going to or past 4 means in terms of balancing against the rest of the world.

I know a lot of people out there are more into the "game" part than the "role" part, or at least they enjoy being able to look at their build and say "yeah, I'm really good at what I do within the constraints of the character generation rules." A big part of the reasoning behind this is that rather than being built to very specifically limit characters, with exceptions having to be made to play more powerful characters, SR4's chargen rules are written to make it so you can play characters at pretty much any power level without diverging from basic character generation in any significant way (it's not hard to tell a group "Y'all got 500 build points"). Playing at a level below "the scariest thing I can make" simply requires the GM and the players to talk about character generation and the GM to look at the characters, ask himself if it's going to work for his game, and give the player feedback until everyone's operating at the desired level.

I realize this is more work than we, as GMs, would like We want the rules to turn out compatible, balanced characters that we can easily match opposition to, won't outshine each other in an unbalanced fashion, and let us run a game without having to think of things like how to get mundane guards to survive force 10 spirits. We want our players to be reasonable people, understand that the fun they get out of building and playing a walking dice pool might detract from everyone else's amusement, and never use the arguement "But the rules say I can do it!" when we try to talk to them about their characters.

That is not how things are

But if you put in the effort, work with your players, and try to get things relatively balanced to start with, you're going to enjoy the next weeks/months/years of playing with those characters a lot more. Figure out the threat level you want to be working with. Draw up some sample NPCs, with the concept of "easily defeated, equally matched, overpowering" levels of difficulty. Then eyeball your PCs, and see if their characters are actually going to be threatened by an "overpowering" NPC, or if an "easily defeated" NPC is going to kill them. Suggest they adjust their characters accordingly.

Try and be a guiding influence on character advancement, too. If your freshly Awakened street ganger PC jumps from Sorcery 2 to Sorcery 6 in the first few sessions of gameplay, he's playing in a different league now. Keep reminding people of what those numbers mean, and asking "is your character really that good?" Specialists are good... people have a role to fill, something they can do well and stand out from the other characters. Hyperspecialists brush aside anything that opposes them in their target field, and simply pass things they're not good at over to the rest of the group. The presence of a hyperspecialist means that unless you take that particular threat area and jack it up to a point where it's completely unreasonably overpowered compared to the rest of the world you're running in, you can no longer provide a threat to the group from that angle. If your game world works fine with players regularly throwing out devastatingly large pools, then go for it. If your game is going to be disrupted by things that can be shot/magicked/hacked/argued with ceasing to be a problem, then you should ask the player to tone it down a little bit and help you run a better game.

Posted by: ShadowDragon Jun 23 2006, 06:47 PM

Count your blessings. My player's team almost got knocked out twice in On the Run, and that was after I dumbed down the second fight. They're a five man team, and I helped them build their characters stronger since they're new, but they suck at tactics and scouting. Hopefully they'll get better.

For your situation...I'm pretty sure On the Run is designed around a 4 man team, not a 7 man team. You shouldn't feel bad about increasing the difficulty of the fights.

Posted by: Shadow Jun 23 2006, 06:50 PM

Start fudging your rolls. Roll behind a DM Screen and fudge teh damage rolls so your PC's take more damage, your NPC's take less. Only the players are bound by the strict letter of the rules. However, if your players are having fun, and they like it the way it is, do nothing. If you think they will have more fun with a tougher oposition, fudge the rolls a little.

Posted by: Nim Jun 23 2006, 06:53 PM

Nicely said, Shrike.

Posted by: Nim Jun 23 2006, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

Try and be a guiding influence on character advancement, too. If your freshly Awakened street ganger PC jumps from Sorcery 2 to Sorcery 6 in the first few sessions of gameplay, he's playing in a different league now. Keep reminding people of what those numbers mean, and asking "is your character really that good?"

I'm toying with some ideas for training times based on Extended Tests, along the same lines as the rules for learning spells - bonus for having an instructor, etc etc. The game doesn't really NEED them (the GM just applying common sense to how long it should take to boost a skill would get you the same effect), mind you, but I think players might enjoy them.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 23 2006, 07:09 PM

We used to use the old training time rules from SR3, and it got to the point where it was annoying as hell.

I really like characters simply becoming "better" at something in exchange for Karma. It's easy, it's "awesome," it's a bit of the edge that shadowrunners who survive have got going for them... the ability to pick up new skills or get better at things they do regularly through raw experience. But the minute you put rules to it, you're introducing constraints to the amount of downtime you can (or have to) allow, you're putting in a framework for players to insist they should be able to do something ("But I've got two months off... that's enough time to train to become Michael Jordan!"), and generally adding something that you as a GM (IMOExp) are not going to get any benefits from compared to the ease and simplicity of talking to a player and asking him to spread things out a little, maybe put karma into something that isn't his primary skill.

A lot of players make uberbuilds because they want to be "good" at what they do. What they fail to understand is the point at which "good" becomes "too good" is the point at which the GM has to start taking a blowtorch to the framework of his game and making it work. Uberbuilds aren't just "good," they're godlike. Unless you want your players playing gods, work with them to prevent the creation of gods. If you've got a player who says "Hey, it says I can play a god, I'm gonna play a god," wish him good luck on his hunt for a GM.

Posted by: Protagonist Jun 23 2006, 08:04 PM

QUOTE (Ankle Biter)

I see no spells in SR4 that are AoE invisibility, and trid phantasm can only add stuff not take it away, what gives?

They don't need to take anything away. With the illusion just create a one-way "wall" that displays an image of the hallway, empty.

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 23 2006, 08:07 PM

Wouldn't that become immediately obvious the minute your perspective changed? It could fool non-scanning cameras, but that's about it.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 23 2006, 08:15 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

Wouldn't that become immediately obvious the minute your perspective changed? It could fool non-scanning cameras, but that's about it.

It would become obvious when you walked through it. Not until then.

(Feel free to rule otherwise, of course.)

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 23 2006, 08:30 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

It would become obvious when you walked through it. Not until then.

(Feel free to rule otherwise, of course.)

It's not a ruling thing. My understanding of what he's doing, based on his description, is essentially hanging a phantasm picture of the hallway over the hallway. If you did this with a real picture of the hallway, it would work as long as you were staring directly down the center of the hallway, but if you moved up against one of the walls, you'd get a distinct perspective shift as you get out of line with the assumed viewing angle of the picture.

If the illusion is being done differently, I didn't get that impression from his description.

Posted by: shadowbod Jun 23 2006, 08:41 PM

QUOTE (Protagonist)

They don't need to take anything away. With the illusion just create a one-way "wall" that displays an image of the hallway, empty.

Also, on top of Shrike's point about the perspective being wrong, the description of the spell says it can be used to create an illusion of anything he/she has seen before. I doubt he's seen a perspective-picture of that empty hallway. Enforcing that part of the rule can be a nice way of controlling the power of illusions (not great, but a little help).

Posted by: Protagonist Jun 23 2006, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (Shrike30)

I didn't get that impression from his description.

I guess it depends on how phantasm works, and what defines a "convincing" illusion. It could probably be done so that as the perspective changed, the illusion changed to meet it.

Also, I have no idea how it was actually done, the "wall" thing was just a guess.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jun 23 2006, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (ShadowDragon)

For your situation...I'm pretty sure On the Run is designed around a 4 man team, not a 7 man team. You shouldn't feel bad about increasing the difficulty of the fights.

...we currently have a team of three 400pt characters, - A Face/Conman, A Blade/Gunslinger Adept, and a Mage with some hacking skill - going through On the Run. Admittedly, with this small a group it definitely is a bit more of a challenge. Everyone got beat up pretty good in the second fight (my character, the Adept, and the Face/Conman were knocked out after taking a couple of the bad guys down) but we survived and are currently hiding out & recovering.

I could see with one or two more characters, the outcome may have been quite different and we may have actually finished the entire module in one sitting.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 09:19 PM

QUOTE

I'm reading a lot of "make the players conform to your expectations." I'm not sure I can agree with that sort of sentiment.

Quite right. Everyone should agree on what they want the game to be like. But once that agreement is made, characters built need to stick to it. If the game is going to be street level and someone makes an elf physad with over 20 pistols dice, it won't work.

QUOTE

I've always felt that the GM isn't there to be served by the players, but to serve the players. As GM, you are the "fun facilitator" for the group.

Speaking as a GM I have to say "Hell No!" I'm there to have fun just as much as the players are. If anything, the GM deserves a bit more respect and/or leeway at the table becuase he (or she) is the one doing the vast majority of the work. One of the fastest ways to an unfun game for everyone is a GM that isn't enjoying himself.

QUOTE

Both directions can work fine. A campaign starting off with the runners seriously outclassed gives them a reason to think hard, plan well, and work to advance themselves. A campaign starting off with the opposition outclassed gives the GM room to ramp up to a typical "start slow, end fast" climax.

Posted by: SL James Jun 24 2006, 12:10 AM

QUOTE (Shrike30 @ Jun 23 2006, 12:41 PM)

Reminds me of something I saw on that rpg.net thread.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2282/levelcaps3na.jpg
(http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=5903416&postcount=2062)

Posted by: Shrike30 Jun 24 2006, 12:16 AM

QUOTE (SL James)

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2282/levelcaps3na.jpg

*shrug* When you hit the maximum ability that a system will represent, what seperates the good from the gods is how they act using those dice. I don't have a huge problem with level caps, personally.

Posted by: SL James Jun 24 2006, 12:17 AM

That makes one of us.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 24 2006, 12:24 AM

I don't know how long it'll take me, but I will make it through all 130+ pages of that!

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jun 24 2006, 12:44 AM

QUOTE (shadowbod)

QUOTE (Protagonist)

They don't need to take anything away. With the illusion just create a one-way "wall" that displays an image of the hallway, empty.

There's also the "cheap" balance method that no illusion can work on any astrally-perceiving or projecting character. That rule means you have to have magic to beat magic, but I guess them's the breaks.

Posted by: booklord Jun 24 2006, 08:58 PM

QUOTE

booklord, why is that a problem? It seems to me that's what a clockwork run should do.

Going from the idea the run wasn't challenging enough...... Some of the fault is mine, I admit. I had beefed up the opposition to give them more of a challenge, but it just never occured to me they might bypass the fight entirely.

QUOTE

I see no spells in SR4 that are AoE invisibility, and trid phantasm can only add stuff not take it away, what gives?

If I create the illusion of a giant rock, and you knowing it was an illusion walked into it you'd disappear from view right? If I create the illusion of a empty hallway what happens when you walk into it? This is not entirely without written precedent in SR3. In Arcology:Shutdown a mage casts an illusion of a closed blast door on one of the Renraku Arcology blast doors. When the door opens noone sees it because the illusion of a closed door is still there.

QUOTE

Wouldn't that become immediately obvious the minute your perspective changed? It could fool non-scanning cameras, but that's about it.

Does the illusion of a dragon become obvious if you walk around it? I agree with the sentiment that the illusion becomes obvious only if the person walks through it. I should also mention in this case the illusion was mana based not physical.

QUOTE

But of course. But in this case the illusion was not for the Horison team but for the gangers inside the bar.

QUOTE

Except the team found the Horizon team without the Horizon team spotting them. The wujen kept the Horison team under constant watch after they found them. There was no ambush to be had. If anything the team would have ambushed the Horizon team. Also remember the spell was cast indoors. Physical walls don't as phyical barriers in astral space but they do act as visual ones. Now I could have had the Horizon mage make take a peek while the team was doing their thing. But if I had it would have been the wujen and quite possibly the shaman as well doing the ambushing and the poor Horizon mage being the ambushee.

Posted by: Abbandon Jun 24 2006, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (booklord)

Physical walls don't as phyical barriers in astral space but they do act as visual ones.

Uhh as in blocking line of sight??

Posted by: booklord Jun 25 2006, 01:17 AM

QUOTE (Abbandon)

QUOTE (booklord @ Jun 24 2006, 02:58 PM)

Physical walls don't as phyical barriers in astral space but they do act as visual ones.

Uhh as in blocking line of sight??

I'm not sure where that one is going but the shaman did have line of sight with the hallway when she cast the spell. It was the wujen who kept an eye on the Horison team. He's better suited for it because he's a grade 1 initiate with masking.

( Yeah I know that two awakened characters on a team of four is a little odd but I just don't feel comfortable telling a player he can't have a magician simply cause another player has one )

Posted by: SL James Jun 25 2006, 01:34 AM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

I don't know how long it'll take me, but I will make it through all 130+ pages of that!

I've read every post in 235 pages. There are some real winners in there.

Posted by: Ankle Biter Jul 3 2006, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (booklord)

QUOTE

I see no spells in SR4 that are AoE invisibility, and trid phantasm can only add stuff not take it away, what gives?

QUOTE

Wouldn't that become immediately obvious the minute your perspective changed? It could fool non-scanning cameras, but that's about it.

Basic point though is a blast door / giant rock is opaque, empty air is not. You would be a head poking out of a rock, for example. To put it another way, if this were not the case, then you could cast "the illusion of a window" on a wall, and be able to see through it. Why? Find a phoen box, cast "the illusion of an empty phone box" on it, fill it with people. According to your picture you can still see right through the phone box now? even if things behind it moved since it filled with people? Now just replace "people" with "bricks" , and have the people already in there when you cast the spell.

A poster of a dragon looks different to a carving of a dragon if you move round both. If you put a poster of an empty hallway in front of a hallway it would take a pretty drunk student to try to walk down it just the same as if you hung it on a wall. Sure you can't see what's going on in the hallway, but you sure enough can see that it's a picture of a hallway, not a hallway. This is also why ruthenium pisses me off.