Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Question

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 21 2006, 01:54 AM

The way my GM reads the description of this spell (in 3rd Ed.) confuses me. He seems to think they work like binoculars and a shotgun mike (basically just a Zoom to anything within your LOS as range of the spell). I think they should work more like Supermans X-Ray vision, allowing you to see (or hear) anything (but not everything) within range of the spell regardless of obstructions. Anyone know for sure?

Posted by: eidolon Jul 21 2006, 02:17 AM

Firstly, your GM is the person you should discuss this with if you have an issue with his ruling. Nothing we say is really all that valid in his game. We're not running it.

That said, you are correct. If you'll look right there on page 192, it gives modifiers for the target of the spell being out of sight. If you couldn't use it on something you couldn't see, it wouldn't bother. Assuming you make your roll against the higher target number as modified by being out of sight of the caster, it works out to the normal range for detection spells.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 21 2006, 02:39 AM

Your GM is correct. You need LOS to cast the spell. Eidolon's reference only applies for area-effect spells, which this is not.

~J

Posted by: eidolon Jul 21 2006, 03:14 AM

Kage, you're off. All detection spells are "area" spells. Surely you don't think that you have to be looking at a gun to cast "Detect Gun"? Reread the opening paragraph under "Detection Spells".

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 21 2006, 03:16 AM

Well, I see that the spells TN is 6, not based on the table on p. 192. But I still don't understand the value of this spell then, why not just buy binoculars? What new "sense" has been gained? And if it only works on line of sight, why specify that magic cannot be cast using this sense, if it only allows you a better view of what is already under line of sight?

Posted by: eidolon Jul 21 2006, 03:20 AM

I don't want to get into an argument, because Kage can run it however he likes, but by the rules, it's not tied at all to what you can physically see. It works the way you thought in your first post. The 6 TN comes from the fact that the spell assumes that if you could see/hear whatever it was normally, you wouldn't be using the spell, so the target is "out of sight, TN 6".

Look right there in clairvoyance. It tells you that you can use cyber mods in conjunction. If you could physically see something, you would be able to see it with only your cyber mods (ostensibly). The point in including that in the text is to make it clear that while looking somewhere else with the spell, you can use cyber modes (etc.) on top of the spell.

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 21 2006, 03:33 AM

Well, granted that anyone can run their games as they please without the rules ninjas descending upon them. However, I can't understand any use for this spell, it seems like terrible overkill to duplicate binoculars/shotgun mike. OTOH, I do think Kage is correct about the TN, nearly everything else that uses the chart on p. 192 says "See Chart" in the TN number. Clairaudience/voyance are the odd men out there, making them Even more strange.

Posted by: eidolon Jul 21 2006, 03:43 AM

The "area" being the distance from you that the "new sense" emanates, for further clarification.

And the reason you can't see any use for it would be that you're now using an incorrect interpretation of it to judge its usefulness.

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 21 2006, 03:47 AM

I should have said "I see no value in this spell they way my friend and Kage have described it." This is part of the reason I feel that interpertation is supect.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 21 2006, 04:13 AM

QUOTE (Deamon_Knight @ Jul 20 2006, 10:47 PM)

I should have said "I see no value in this spell they way my friend and Kage have described it." This is part of the reason I feel that interpertation is supect.

I'm not going to get into the argument tonight (though I am, inevitably, correct

) but its use would be twofold: first, it would extend your vision slightly, and second and more importantly, you'd be able to see around corners, etc. It is indeed not terrifically useful, but neither is it entirely useless. The idea is that it gives you vision from the target location.

Clairaudience is more useful, as it allows you to hear things on the far side of barriers you can see through but not normally hear through.

~J

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Jul 21 2006, 05:03 AM

What "spell" would it be that other wizards and I guess psionists be using to see far away things?

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 21 2006, 05:06 AM

I think I see where you are going Kage. You have these spells cast at a target, and the subject of the spell can hear/see the target AFTER the target leaves LOS as long as they remain within range, correct? That makes more sense, but its still awfully limiting.

If this is the case though, I don't understand why they description dosen't mention targeting specifically. It would make more sense if the TN was the targets Will, rather then 6 and then observed targets rolling Will against Force.

Also, MitS has the range as Touch (Directional), and the spell description speaks of the ability to see distant "scenes" rather than "Targets".

Edited for clearity and rulebook.

Posted by: eidolon Jul 21 2006, 05:08 AM

Dude, run it how you like. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind. You're correct for your game.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jul 21 2006, 05:13 AM

QUOTE (Deamon_Knight)

No no, you target a point in space that you have LOS to with TN 6. Once you've cast it, you can see as if you were a floating eyeball at that point in space. Replace with "hear" and "ear" for clairaudience.

Eidolon: maybe I'm not going to convince you, but there is a canon answer and this is it.

~J

Posted by: SirKodiak Jul 21 2006, 05:17 AM

QUOTE (Deamon_Knight @ Jul 21 2006, 12:06 AM)

I think I see where you are going Kage. You have these spells cast at a target, and the subject of the spell can hear/see the target AFTER the target leaves LOS as long as they remain within range, correct? That makes more sense, but its still awfully limiting.

If this is the case though, I don't understand why they description dosen't mention targeting specifically. It would make more sense if the TN was the Targets will, rather then 6, and observed targets rolling Will against Force.

I don't believe that's what Kage is talking about. I'll give an example of what I think he's talking about:

From the chair at my computer, I can see down the hallway which has a door on it into my bedroom, but I can't see into my bedroom. Using this spell, I could make the target of the spell be the spot in the hall in front of the door to my bedroom. I can see that spot from my chair, so it's within my line-of-sight. Now that I've cast clairvoyance, I can see into my bedroom using the spell, as my bedroom is visible from the location I used as the target of my spell.

Now, I disagree with this interpretation of the spell. I think it's clearly intended to allow viewing locations where there is no place with LOS that has a vantage on what you want to see. That's why the target number for the spell is 6, because that's the target number when the target is out of sight of the caster. That doesn't seem overpowered to me, so that's the version I go with. But, to each his own.

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Eidolon: maybe I'm not going to convince you, but there is a canon answer and this is it.

Do you have evidence for this outside the SR3 core book? Because it's not nearly specific enough to be able to claim that there's no question.

Note that SR4 makes it more clear that eidolon's interpretation is correct. That doesn't mean that the SR3 version of the spell has to be the same as the SR4, but I interpret it more as a clarification in the SR4 version than a totally different spell.

Posted by: eidolon Jul 22 2006, 04:42 PM

I agree that there is enough ambiguity in the SR3 spell that it could be taken to mean what Kage is suggesting, but it's the overall interpretation from the section when taken as a whole that's important in this one, and SirKodiak has hit the reasoning nail squarely on its head.

- The target number is the same as for something that is out of sight.
- The detection spells are described as emanating from you as a new sense. Not an expansion of an existing sense, but a new one.
- Other spells from the category grant new sensory abilities specific to the spell's intent (such as Detect Gun, etc.), so why would this spell be different?
- Take the generic meaning of the words clairvoyant (and its cousin clairaudient) in normal life and connotation into account. They are generally used to indicate that you are viewing or hearing remotely something that you would normally not have access to.

When you pile them up, I can see no reason you would restrict this spell to being merely an augmentation of your existing senses, especially in a game that provides so many other mechanics for such a thing already.

Posted by: Bodak Jul 23 2006, 08:04 PM

This spell has been such a topic of debate here on the Dumpshock fora. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=7547&hl=clair and http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=6122&hl=clair and http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=3138&hl=clair and on the old site... personally I use Kage's view: you choose a subject to receive the sense, you pick a point in space to be the target (which must be within Force x Magic metres (or if you use MitS for an Extended Range, then FxMx10m)) and you then gain the sense of vision or audition as if you were an invisible observer at that location. Others have said that you use it like Superman vision and can walk up to a wall and see through it, but can only see FxM metres into the room (so things that move beyond that distance immediately vanish, even though if a real 'eye' or 'ear' were actually in the room it could still sense them (it certainly wouldn't get an abrupt cut-off at a specific range). Just makes better sense to me.

Now we need to start arguing http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=3437&hl=magic+fingers that therefore you cannot use a sustaining focus on Clair<sense>ience because the sustaining focus isn't in contact with <insert object/point in space here>.

Then we need to start arguing about whether living being get to resist being sensed by Clairaudience/Clairvision or not, and whether Shielding counts, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: Deamon_Knight Jul 25 2006, 12:16 AM

I don't know how I missed those, my search fu is weak. However, In the section on detection spells its perfectly clear that any living subject can resist. From SR3 P.192

QUOTE

Anyone who is not voluntarily being detected by a detection spell (whether they are aware of the spell or not) may make a Spell Resistance Test usuing Willpower, reducing teh casters success normally.

So while the supermanvision version of the spell would end abruptly at the extent of its range (ITS MAGIC!), consider one exceptionally strong-willed dwarf speaking to a less spectacularly willful character. The lesser charcater might be observed talking to an empty space, or hear carrying on one end of a discussion. Magic lends itself to odd situations!

Posted by: Bodak Jul 25 2006, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Deamon_Knight)

The lesser charcater might be observed talking to an empty space, or hear carrying on one end of a discussion.

Which is why Detect Clothing can be such a useful spell