Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Kind of invisible or *really* invisible?
Posted by: Velocity Aug 27 2003, 04:41 PM
Does the Force of an Invisibility or Improved Invisibility spell have any impact on its effectiveness?
Posted by: Clipwing Aug 27 2003, 04:43 PM
It sets the target number for resistance tests against if, if that's what you mean... Or did you have some more specific meaning in mind?
Posted by: Synner Aug 27 2003, 04:58 PM
Low force means more successes in the Resistance Test reducing the chances the spell works at all.
Posted by: Velocity Aug 27 2003, 08:32 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong--which I suspect I may be--but when the spell goes off, aren't you just... invisible? Like, the caster succeeds and that's that: +8 to see/shoot/poke the character?
Posted by: booklord Aug 27 2003, 08:42 PM
If its improved invisibility and its a non-living machine like a drone firing at you then yes, +8 target modifier best of luck.
Us silly living things however have a chance to see past the invisibility spell. We roll intelligence against the FORCE of the spell against the number of successes the caster got when casting the spell. ( The target number for the caster is 4. )
Whether you see the outline of a person, or simply see the person as if they weren't invisible at all is up to the GM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know based off that it might be a good idea to cast improved invisibility at force 1. Minimal drain and you automatically fool the security cameras. Add a cheap level 1 sustaining focus and you're ready to break into a corporate facility. ( and all your teammates can see you except for the troll )
Posted by: Spookymonster Aug 27 2003, 09:04 PM
But if a drone has an OR of 9+ (being a highly processed piece of machinery/electronics), and spells need to be a minimum of 1/2 an object's OR, then anything less than Force 5 should fail to affect it automatically. And that's if you don't add in modifiers for the drone's Body or armor. Note that I say should; I don't play it this way, but the argument could be made for it.
Posted by: Clipwing Aug 27 2003, 09:11 PM
| QUOTE (Spookymonster) |
| But if a drone has an OR of 9+ (being a highly processed piece of machinery/electronics), and spells need to be a minimum of 1/2 an object's OR, then anything less than Force 5 should fail to affect it automatically. And that's if you don't add in modifiers for the drone's Body or armor. Note that I say should; I don't play it this way, but the argument could be made for it. |
That rule really only applies a) to combat spells or other spells that affect OR, and b) when the spell is targeted directly at the drone. This is an indirect illusion, cast around the subject, rather than at the target(s) to be deceived, so OR doesn't factor into it.
Posted by: Spookymonster Aug 27 2003, 09:38 PM
| QUOTE (Clipwing) | ||
That rule really only applies a) to combat spells or other spells that affect OR, and b) when the spell is targeted directly at the drone. This is an indirect illusion, cast around the subject, rather than at the target(s) to be deceived, so OR doesn't factor into it. |
That's your interpretation - not necessarily a bad one, but an interpretation nonetheless. If you re-read the book, you'll see that nothing in that section indicates this applies to Combat spells alone. In fact, the book really doesn't indicate which types of spells this rule does apply to. It's quite vague; but then again, this is Shadowrun we're talking about
. The best you could say is that an inanimate object's OR only plays a role if the spell doesn't have a specific target number. Frankly, I throw this rule out altogether. It's more of a headache than it's worth.
Posted by: BitBasher Aug 27 2003, 09:44 PM
| QUOTE |
| That rule really only applies a) to combat spells or other spells that affect OR, and b) when the spell is targeted directly at the drone. |
Someone once provided a book quote on this forum stating explicitly that the target of invisibility was the viewer of the invisible object or person. In my games I definitely apply that rule for drones. Magicians already get away with murder, theres no way in hell im going to let them get away with that with a force 1 or 2 spell.
Posted by: Matrix Monkey Aug 27 2003, 09:46 PM
Not buying into the whole "improved invis automatically beats all machine sensors" thing, I base resistance tests vs. drones off of the Sensor rating. Security cameras and such get a test based on their ratings.
As I recall, the higher the Sensor rating, the more alternate view-mode gizmos the sensor package includes (infra-red, UV, ultrasound/radar etc.). A drone sporting a rating 6 sensor package should at least have a chance of poking through improved invis.
Posted by: Matrix Monkey Aug 27 2003, 09:50 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| Someone once provided a book quote on this forum stating explicitly that the target of invisibility was the viewer of the invisible object or person. |
That just doesn't fit into spellcasting rules, does it?
Since performing the spell targeting is a test in its own (possibly modified by perception TN+- and such), as I read it this would require you to perform this targeting test for everyone and everything you come across.
Canon or no, I rule it as 'targets voluntary subjects within range', for logic's sake.
Posted by: Clipwing Aug 27 2003, 10:50 PM
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| Someone once provided a book quote on this forum stating explicitly that the target of invisibility was the viewer of the invisible object or person. In my games I definitely apply that rule for drones. Magicians already get away with murder, theres no way in hell im going to let them get away with that with a force 1 or 2 spell. |
Could you provide a book and page number for this? I'd be very interested to see it! It seems to counteract what I've read about Indirect Illusion spells in general... Thanks!
Posted by: Clipwing Aug 27 2003, 10:56 PM
It's probably a good idea to throw this out here while we're on the topic...From the http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/book/faq.shtml:
How does an improved invisibility spell function against a drone's sensors? Is it resisted by the drone or can the drone just not see the character? What if the drone's sensors include thermographic imaging?
Technically, Improved Invisibility requires a Resistance Test, and non-living things don't get to make Spell Resistance Tests. So the simple answer is that the spell automatically fools drones.
If you want to be picky, however, then you can note that Improved Invisibility works against any tech sensors that involve sight: video cameras, laser proximity detectors, rangefinders, thermo. As described on p. 135, SR3, however, vehicle sensors include other components such as ultrasound, radar, listening devices, etc. Theoretically, these sensors could pick up an invisible character. (The same as you might give an NPC a listening Perception Test as an invisible character moved by.)
If you allow a Sensor Test based on those components, you should apply some hefty modifiers, or perhaps only roll half the Sensor dice. Keep in mind that even if the drone detects the invisible character, it still won't be able to "see" him, so it may get confused or otherwise not act the same as if it had actually detected something walking by.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Aug 27 2003, 11:41 PM
| QUOTE | ||||
http://jive.dumpshock.com/default/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=8207&message=544399&q=Invisiblity+Force#544399
|
[edit]http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/book/errata_sr3.shtml if you book does not say it on page 182 or 183[/edit]
Posted by: Kanada Ten Aug 27 2003, 11:43 PM
| QUOTE | ||||||||
http://jive.dumpshock.com/default/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=9031&message=608379&q=Invisiblity+Subject#608379
|
Posted by: Kanada Ten Aug 28 2003, 01:20 AM
| QUOTE |
| http://jive.dumpshock.com/default/thread.jsp?forum=1&thread=8223&message=548035&q=%22Indirect+Illusion%22#548035 Directed Illusions are cast on targets, affecting their mind or seses. Only Physical Directed Illusions will affect technological sensing devices. The base drain level for Directed Illusion spells is based on the sense affected by the illusion and its overal believability. Indirect Iullsions are cast on a subject person or area. Anyone who views that person or area is a target of the spell. The base drain level for Indirect Illusion spells is based on how drastic a change they attempt to make. Illusions cannot cause permanent damage directly to a target, though they may cause a target to act in a way that is damaging. |
MitS overrides SR3.
Posted by: mrgoat Aug 28 2003, 01:35 AM
| QUOTE |
| however, then you can note that Improved Invisibility works against any tech sensors that involve sight: video cameras, laser proximity detectors, rangefinders, thermo. As described on p. 135, SR3, however, vehicle sensors include other components such as ultrasound, radar, listening devices, etc. |
Why radar? It's the same thing as vision and thermo. Electromagnetic radiation. If imp. invisibility affects visible light and thermo frequency ranged stuff, where's the frequency cutoff that makes it ineffective against radar? Is it effective against X-Rays? How about gamma rays? Microwave-range stuff? We've got weapons that use microwave radiation now, would improved invisibility make one immune to the effects of it, or at least impose a -8 tn bonus to the damage resistance test or something? I'm sure the effects of gamma radiation don't come up in game very often, but microwave-based weaponry could easily come up in games.
Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Aug 28 2003, 01:57 AM
Give sensors the vision mods according to what is there. Usually just ultrasound to spot the invisible.
I would allow improved invisibilty to count as full armor against laser weapons. So that redline laser pistol, minus your force 6 improved invisibility spell, would do 6M+successes.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Aug 28 2003, 03:38 AM
Remember this it is the 'appearance of invisibility' no actual light is bent or re-directed (that would probably be a transformation spell). So you can still get sun-burned, irradiated, mazered, etc while invisible. A transformation spell (probably similar to Armor) could be developed to give you resistance to the effects of EM radiation...
Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 28 2003, 03:47 AM
again, i lament the fact that they didn't just make this spell a freakin' elemental manip.
Posted by: Crusher Bob Aug 28 2003, 03:54 AM
Because the elemental manipulation would not be resisted 
. But yes you can make an EM re-directing spell as a manipulation, though this has some problems with: talking to the team on the radio (if the spell covers radio) and seeing stuff (how do your eyes get the light, though a good spell would make a copy of the light that your eyes 'would have gotten' if the spell wasn't in effect and send that to you. Notice that this would be magically aided vision, thus you couldn't cast spells w/o astral perception. Also note that if the spell bothers to manipulate what you see, you might as well throw in flare compensation...)
Posted by: Velocity Aug 28 2003, 06:01 PM
[EDIT] Ignore me and look at the monkey. Everyone look at the monkey.
(i.e. just read Sunday-Gamer's post, he explained it better than I did [/EDIT]
Wow everyone, thanks for your... uuhh... fruitful responses. I haven't yet looked up the citation that Kanada Ten quoted (thanks KT!), but I will.
However, after some consultation with the Shaman in my group, I have to ask if this isn't, perhaps, a semantic issue? Does the aforementioned quotation not mean "victims" rather than target? Because if in fact the book does mean target, then why doesn't the caster have to re-roll the casting every time a new observer gets within line of sight?
Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Aug 28 2003, 06:14 PM
Sorry Kanada ol' chum, but I do not agree with you. An improved invisibility spells "target" is whatever was made invisible. I think it was poor wording on their part to mix the terms that way. When someone or something walks into range of an invisible object (person or thing) they roll against the successes of the spell to see through it. No one is making a new roll against each target which seems to me would be what would happen if the spell was meant to target everyone who walked in... do they turn invisible? Course not, the spell is a spell that makes something invisible, not a spell that prevents it's target from perceiving A or B. Therefore it might be more accurate to describe people and things that must contest the invisibility spell as "victims" and not "targets".
On that note, an invisibility spell at force 1 would work great against really basic sensors, but the instant sound or any other sense not covered by sight becomes involved in the detection, then I make a roll at which point the mage may start cursing his force 1 spell.
Obviously the instant something rigged comes along, that force 1 will be a joke for the rigger to see through.
Invisibility spells are manageable, no need to get mental with the rules. The OR vs magic rules goes to show the difficulty of using mana to manipulate highly processed objects. Making a deck invisible is much harder than making a dog invisible. A camera panning over an invisible character is NOT being manipulated by mana, the PERSON's visual appearance is being manipulated, the camera is merely viewing said manipulation, which to me is COMPLETELY different from what was intended with the OR vs magic rules.
Least, that's the way I run it.
Sunday
PS: Why yes, I am the shaman Velocity is speaking of...
Posted by: Synner Aug 28 2003, 07:07 PM
That went well, almost three weeks before the first Invisibility thread.
Sunday - Seems to me you are missing the obvious and Kanada is right.
To begin with Invisibility spells are Illusions which means their target should be the person or system that is affected by the Illusion not the 'subject' of the illusion, furthermore to make this distinction even cleared Invisibility falls within the Indirect Illusion classification.
According to SR3 (page 195), especifically under Indirect Illusions, it says "They must be cast "around" a person or over an area[...]" this is further reinforced by MitS (page 55) "Indirect Illusions are cast on a subject person or area. Anyone who views that person or area is a target of the spell." This confirms Kanada's (and other's) understanding that the spell is cast "indirectly" around a subject and the actual target is anyone who views the "subject".
To put it simply. Invisibility is an Illusion cast on or over something. It affects people and systems viewing that something. That something is not actually made Invisible (which would be a Transformation Manipulation), but rather the magic fools the viewer (human or machine) into "not seeing" what is there (or to put it another way it fools the viewer into seeing what would be "there" if the subject of the Invisibility wasn't there).
In this respect it is exactly the same as it's fellow Indirect Illusions Mask and Phantasm, except that those do the opposite and the magic fools the viewer into thinking something is there, when it isn't.
Now that that's been clarified, back to the actual mechanics Velocity was asking about. Reading the description of Illusions in SR3 page 194-195, we find that all Illusions including Invisibility (different from SR2 Invisibility) are directly Resisted by Intelligence, it is also explained that it is an all or nothing situation for the target. If he Resists the spell does not work. If he does not Resist the spell works.
This means anyone viewing the "subject" of the spell while it is Sustained becomes a potential Target. In practice when someone casts Invisibility he should write down his successes somewhere (target number 4). While Invisibility is Sustained every potential Target which views the subject of the Invisibility gets to Resist individually. He/it rolls his/its Intelligence (SR3 p.195) against the spell's Force, and if he/it gets more successes (SR3 p.195) than the caster's original successes he/it is completely immune to the spell. If he fails to get enough successes, the spell works against that target for the duration. Using low Force Indirect Illusions, especially Invisibility, makes it easier for the "targets" to resist the spell with their Intelligence (since the target number for the Resistance Test is the spell's Force).
As far as I know it hasn't been made clear exactly what electronic viewing systems roll, but I may be wrong.
Posted by: Laughlyn Aug 28 2003, 07:52 PM
Invisibility needs to be completely re-written. As it stands it's a complete hold over from Shadowrun 1st Edition. Rules and all. The only difference is that the writers seem to think that it's completely blocks out thermal and thermal heat traces (not in the aura). On the same hand they seem to think that ultrasound can see invisible targets. Yet you see the ultrasound display, goggles, or the cyberware input to the optical nerve. So they speak in forked rules.
The point is, it's all how it works in your game. The rules are bogus already.
Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Aug 28 2003, 09:47 PM
Synner, I specifically adressed the wording of that phrase, not a plan to quote it back to me in an attempt to convince me otherwise.
The spell us cast on it's target and anyone who sees it is not being targetted by the spell, it's a physical illusion, they are witnessing it's effect.
I stand by my guns that it was poorly phrased.
If anything and everyone who sees an improved invisibility is a target then you should outlaw those spells right away just for the lag they are going to cause in your game.
Player: I cast improved invisibility.
GM: Oh crap, well ok folks don't mind me, I'll be rolling this spell roughly 500 times during the run.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I don't agree with you and I just think they worded it poorly. The target is the thing that goes invisible, anyone who sees it is nothing more than a witness, unless they are being made invisible by the spell, they are not it's target. This is only relevant in so far as the OR rules on OR vs magic are applied, of course.
Sunday
Posted by: Fortune Aug 28 2003, 10:34 PM
Consider Detections spells, for they work in a similar fashion. Detect Enemies is cast on a Subject, in this case the Mage's friend Doug. Doug can now use that spell to detect any enemies that come into range of the spell. When someone that would be considered an enemy (I.E. a Target) enters the area of effect, they get to roll a resistance roll against the spell.
Doug is the Subject.
The enemy is the Target.
This does not differ when talking about the Invisibility spell. If the Mage cast Invisibility on Doug, then anyone that could possibly have a chance of seeing him would roll a resistance roll against the spell.
Doug is the Subject.
Any and all potential viewers are the Targets.
In both cases, the spell roll is only made once, and the number of successes is recorded. Any future resistance rolls are made, and successes are compared to the successes of the caster when he originally cast the spell.
Posted by: Kanada Ten Aug 28 2003, 10:38 PM
[edit]
Tsk. Some one remind me never to do this again, I hate arguing canon, bah.
If this comes off bad/mean/harsh, forgive me, please?
[/edit]
| QUOTE |
| Sunday Gamer Player: I cast improved invisibility. GM: Oh crap, well ok folks don't mind me, I'll be rolling this spell roughly 500 times during the run. |
Every time someone looks at the Invisible character they make a resistance test, that is canon. How else could it be? The subject resists? No because it must be cast around a voluntary subject; you gain no lower drain for that. Look at the Trid Entertainment spell: it requires voluntary targets -those who want to see the illusion can. That is why you are allowed to roll once for all viewers, sort of an average to see how long before someone spots the subject.
| QUOTE |
| Sunday Gamer The spell us cast on it's target and anyone who sees it is not being targetted by the spell, it's a physical illusion, they are witnessing it's effect. |
If this were true then there would be no resistance test by the viewers, would there? It would be a perception test; which it cannot be, because adepts do not add Enhanced Perception dice to resiting illusions, they add True Sight dice. Think about the Armor spell and how it creates a glow. No one can resist seeing the glow, can they?
-
You can disagree on the subject vs target as you like, but by your interpretation the spell's force must then be greater than the subject/target's OR. But you can rule however you like. I almost prefer the second because naked mages are fun.
Indirect Illusions are like a cross between Direct Illusion spells and Elemental Manipulations. They defy the rule of magic requiring LoS which is what makes everyone crazy. But they can do so because the don't actually do anything -it is all an illusion.
It is not just invisibility that has this problem, think about Foreboding or Hot Potato. You cast Foreboding on a subject area. It affects all who enter the area even after the mage leves. Who is the target? Those who enter the area of effect.
Let us suppose you quicken Foreboding to a person, as the center of the area affect as a curse for being a jerk. Everywhere that person goes, people will be afraid and try to flee, because they are being affected by the spell unless they resist it.
You can play however you like, but only a target can resist a spell.
Posted by: Sunday_Gamer Aug 29 2003, 07:30 AM
I realize it was poorly written on my part.
The entire thing was in reference to the OR vs Magic rule, which is meant for when you actively try to cast a spell on an object.
I do not believe that this rule applies for purposes of something walking into an effects and becoming it's "target" because this type of "target" is not the same as when a spell is actually cast ON it's target.
Ergo, I do not believe that a force 1 improved invisibility spell would be unable to fool anything with an OR greater than 2, don't get me wrong, it couldn't target such an object meaning it couldn't make IT invisible, but it would fool a camera just fine.
Sufficed to say, I don't think they considered objects (sensors) coming into contact with illusions spells and therefore becoming their "targets" when they chose their words on the OR vs magic rules.
Hope that clears that up.
Sunday.
Posted by: Synner Aug 29 2003, 08:53 AM
Sunday - That makes even less sense. Since Indirect Illusions are cast "around" a subject (not a target) and not "at" or "against" it, that subject doesn't make a Resistance Test. A subject human "under" Invisibility or Mask doesn't Resist the spell since he is not its target, and a subject drone or camera in the same situation doesn't have OR come into play either.
To me the issue that remains to be adequately resolved is what does a electronic/mechanical target roll in lieu of Intelligence for its Resistance Test, when it becomes the target (not the subject) of such an Indirect Illusion, especially since OR is not typically rolled. Yes, this has been partially answered in the http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/book/faq.shtml but honestly that answer really doesn't work for me.
Posted by: DigitalMage Aug 29 2003, 09:22 AM
This whole problem is due to the way Shadowrun categorises spells. They are grouped by the effect they have, rather how they are created. E.g. if a spell makes someone invisible that makes it an Illusion spell - whether they create that effect by manipulating lightwaves, fooling a person's senses or altering their body to be transparent.
This is one reason I liked Mage: The Ascension - you could have the same effect created in different manners, and how easy or difficult it was would vary e.g. invisibility could be done by bending light (Correspondance and Forces), fooling the mind (Mind), or altering their body to be transparent (Life and Forces).
Posted by: Synner Aug 29 2003, 10:12 AM
| QUOTE (DigitalMage @ Aug 29 2003, 09:22 AM) |
| This whole problem is due to the way Shadowrun categorises spells. They are grouped by the effect they have, rather how they are created. E.g. if a spell makes someone invisible that makes it an Illusion spell - whether they create that effect by manipulating lightwaves, fooling a person's senses or altering their body to be transparent. |
You are only partially correct Digitalmage, spells in Shadowrun are grouped by effect, but also by how they achieve that effect.
Illusion spells according to SR3 (page 195) function by "manipulating the senses of a victim" or according to MitS (page 55) "[...]are cast on targets affecting their minds or senses". This falls clearly within your "fooling a person's senses" alternative. Illusion spells do not do so by "manipulating lightwaves" or "altering their body to be transparent" (either of which would not fool any senses since those would continue to function as normal, the subject being percieve - either the object or the lightwaves reflected of him/it - would trully be invisible).
In fact this is where the difference between subject and target we've been talking about becomes all important. The subject is not affected at all (which would be a Transformation Manipulation), in fact, not even the lightwaves around the subject are affected (another Transformation Manipulation).
The target(s) of the spell are the ones who are affected, not the subject(s), especifically (as explained in SR3 page 195, under Indirect Illusions) those who view the "magical effect" cast "around" the subject .
Furthermore, viewing the spell effect "around" the subject (in the case of a single sense visual Indirect Illusion like Invisibility) "affects their (the targets') minds (Mana version) or senses (Physical version)".
Simply put it's an Illusion which affects the minds or senses of whoever percieves it (ie. its targets). It does nothing to the subject of the spell.
Posted by: Velocity Aug 29 2003, 09:38 PM
Once again, thanks to everyone for the spirited debate; I'm learning a fair bit about how people read and interpret the rules system and that's at least as useful as a straight answer. Also, thanks to everyone who contributed to the distinction between subject and target; I'm a man who likes his semantics clear, lucid and cogent.
| QUOTE |
| Synner wrote: Simply put it's an Illusion which affects the minds or senses of whoever percieves it (ie. its targets). It does nothing to the subject of the spell. |
Okay, I understand this whole idea. My question remains, however: how invisible is the subject of an Invisibility spell? I'm sympathetic to Synner's smooth, succinct synopsis (say that three times fast
), but it left me with a conundrum:| QUOTE |
| Synner wrote: This means anyone viewing the "subject" of the spell while it is Sustained becomes a potential Target. In practice when someone casts Invisibility he should write down his successes somewhere (target number 4). While Invisibility is Sustained every potential Target which views the subject of the Invisibility gets to Resist individually. He/it rolls his/its Intelligence (SR3 p.195) against the spell's Force, and if he/it gets more successes (SR3 p.195) than the caster's original successes he/it is completely immune to the spell. If he fails to get enough successes, the spell works against that target for the duration. Using low Force Indirect Illusions, especially Invisibility, makes it easier for the "targets" to resist the spell with their Intelligence (since the target number for the Resistance Test is the spell's Force). |
What about the +8 TN modifiers to vision, i.e.:
| QUOTE |
| SR3, p.195 says: Attacks against invisible targets suffer the Blind Fire modifier (p. 111) if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise sense the target of the spell. |
Now, this excerpt is using "target" incorrectly--they obviously mean "the individual who is 'wearing' the Invisibility spell--but isn't the implication that those blind fire mods come in to effect somehow? By reading the descriptions of Indirect Illusion Spells (p. 195) and Spell Resistance Test (p. 183) in addition to Synner's helpful post, I think I understand the mechanics. However, what happens to the +8?
Posted by: Fortune Aug 29 2003, 10:06 PM
| QUOTE (Velocity @ Aug 29 2003, 05:38 PM) | ||
Now, this excerpt is using "target" incorrectly--they obviously mean "the individual who is 'wearing' the Invisibility spell--but isn't the implication that those blind fire mods come in to effect somehow? By reading the descriptions of Indirect Illusion Spells (p. 195) and Spell Resistance Test (p. 183) in addition to Synner's helpful post, I think I understand the mechanics. However, what happens to the +8? |
This quote is speaking of the target in regards to the attacker. The person he is trying to attack is his target. It in no way is related to the spell description's use of that word, with the exception that the target in this instance is the person affected by the attack in the same way as the (potential) viewer of an invisible person is affected (I.E. the target) by the spell.
Target should always equate to the being affected by a certain action. While this may occassionally be the same thing as the subject, this is not always the case.
Posted by: Synner Aug 29 2003, 10:59 PM
Fortune is absolutely correct regarding the sense of the quote. The quote you make is regarding the "target" of the attack, not of the spell.
The wording "target of the spell" at the end of the quote is obviously a mistake and should actually read "if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise sense the subject of the spell." The fact that the editor slip at the very end of his explanation does not negate the logic of the remaining sentences in both that section of SR3 and subsequent material in MitS.
Regarding the +8 TN modifier, as I explained before it is an all or nothing situation.
Simply put, if the target of the spell succeeds in his Resistance (Intelligence) Test the spell has no effect whatsoever.
Assuming the target of the spell fails his Resistance (Intelligence) Test against the Spell (see above) he falls under the spell's effect. In this particular case the effect is that the subject of the spell is rendered Invisible to the target of the spell. What this means in game terms is that the target (who failed the Resistance Test) now suffers a +8 TN modifier or in other words "suffers the Blind Fire modifier (p. 111)" in any attacks against the subject of the spell because he cannot see him
Posted by: Velocity Aug 29 2003, 11:43 PM
| QUOTE |
| Synner wrote: Assuming the target of the spell fails his Resistance (Intelligence) Test against the Spell (see above) he falls under the spell's effect. In this particular case the effect is that the subject of the spell is rendered Invisible to the target of the spell. What this means in game terms is that the target (who failed the Resistance Test) now suffers a +8 TN modifier or in other words "suffers the Blind Fire modifier (p. 111)" in any attacks against the subject of the spell because he cannot see him. |
Thanks again for the detailed response, Synner. Just to make sure I understand: if the target of an Invisibility spell rolls more successes on their Intelligence test than the caster did on the casting roll, the subject of the Invisibility spell is, in fact, visible. And risible.
Furthermore, the TN for the target's Intelligence test is the Force of the spell.
Finally, if the target fails to score more successes than the caster, then the subject is invisible.
Am I correct in my appraisal of the rules?
Posted by: Fortune Aug 29 2003, 11:57 PM
| QUOTE (Velocity) |
| if the target of an Invisibility spell rolls more successes on their Intelligence test than the caster did on the casting roll, the subject of the Invisibility spell is, in fact, visible. And risible. |
Yes!
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore, the TN for the target's Intelligence test is the Force of the spell. |
Yes!
| QUOTE |
| Finally, if the target fails to score more successes than the caster, then the subject is invisible. |
Yes!
| QUOTE |
| Am I correct in my appraisal of the rules? |
At least in this instance!
Posted by: Velocity Aug 30 2003, 03:53 AM
| QUOTE |
| Fortune wrote: Yes! Yes! Yes! |
I'll have what he's having...
Thanks for the nod Fortune, nice to know I finally understood what the rules intended.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)