IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Changing Illusion spells, Compiled suggestions
Eyeless Blond
post Mar 25 2005, 01:08 AM
Post #1


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



In a similar vein to my Detection Spells thread, here's a thread for proposed changes to Illusion spells.

First and foremost, (Improved) Insivability and Stealth. I have basically two issues with these spells:
1) They are all-or-nothing: extra successes don't do anything for the spell other than add to the resistance roll.
2) The new FAQ ruling that allows invisability to extend LOS. This is of course in blatant contradiction to the existing rules saying that spells cannot *ever* enhance LOS, none of which are contradicted by the specific spell description and therefore makes the ruling completely invalid, but the very fact that it *could* possibly be interpreted this way is a problem.

So, here is my proposed solution: both invisability and stealth conceal the subject of the spell for their specific sense (Invisability for vision, Stealth for hearing). Each spell adds the spell's Force to the Perception TN to spot the glamoured individual using the specified sense. Extra net successes add to this bonus, up to the Force of the spell (meaning that the maximum bonus is equal to twice the spell's Force.) If the person attempting to see through the illusion is using more than one sense to perceive the subject, then perception TN bonuses are divided by the number of senses used.

Example: say an adept is trying to pierce a mage's web of glamours. The mage has a Force 6 Invisability spell and a Force 4 Stealth spell active, both with two net successes against the adept. However, the adept, in addition to using his vision and hearing to locate the mage, also has the Improved Scent ability and is trying to sniff out the mage. The spells would contribute a net +4 to the Perception TN for the adept to spot the mage: (6+2)/3 = +2 from the Invisability spell, (4+2)/3= +2 from the Stealth spell. The guard viewing the mage from the security camera, however, would have a +8 to perceive the mage, due to only using one sense

How's that sound? It deals with problem 1) mentioned above by providing a staged success for the spell, something that I feel is sorely lacking from Invisability and Stealth. 2) is also dealt with as the spell is quite obviously a glamour, and thus altering the image being presented which makes it inelligable for adding to a mage's LOS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucyfersam
post Mar 25 2005, 01:35 AM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 29-July 03
Member No.: 5,137



For both of these spells I would kind of like to see 2 versions, on that is an Illusion spell and works about how EB just described, and one that is a manipulation spell that's effects are similar to the way they are now (minus the silly faq rulings) by physically changing things, with Stealth actually eliminating the sound not making an illusion the sound is gone, and invisibility. warping the light so as to make the subject physically invisible. The illusion versions of the spell would have no drawbacks to the caster, but the manipulation spells would have the draw backs of rendering the caster deaf or blind. I would probably go with having the manipulation spells replace physical Illusion spells, or I suppose you could leave them under Illusion but have the physical versions work like this. If the spells are mind effecting, they should have a staged effect and be resisted, if they are actual changes to the physical world, they should be absolute but have the logical drawbacks. The physical spells might still be resisted in some way based on how good of a physical modification the caster makes (based on force) having a chance to notice some slight fringing from the light warping of Invisibility or noticing a bit of sound that escaped the casters attention on Stealth. Just my thoughts, and I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me, but I think the spells are much more interesting and less annoying this way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gilthanis
post Mar 25 2005, 09:19 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 19-September 04
From: Charleston, IL
Member No.: 6,676



Quite frankly, I think the Invisibility spell should be replaced entirely with the camoflauge spell. That would eliminate all questions about the physics of bending light. This way, successes have a purpose and so does the force. And, it is easy to describe the visual effect.

every 2 successes adds a +1 to perception test up to a maximum of the force. You could even just say every success adds a +1 up to maximum. Either way, it would make more sense and it wouldn't extend line of sight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brazila
post Mar 25 2005, 02:51 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 19-March 03
From: Central IL
Member No.: 4,278



but if cast on a wall wouldn't still extend LOS?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rev
post Mar 25 2005, 05:37 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 675
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 2,034



Invisibility worked a lot like that (+1 t# per success) in sr2, and it seemed to cause a lot fewer problems. I think it just flowed with the basic game mechanics better.

I also kind of wish that all spells had sucesses limited by force... but if the magic system is being extensively overhauled force 1-2 spells could easily not be the munchkin-fest they are in sr3.

Generally putting more spells into manipulation is adding to a large problem with shadowrun magic: that half of the spells already are in manipulation. If the manipulation category still exists as is anything that can possibly not go into it should not go into it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rev
post Mar 25 2005, 06:08 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 675
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 2,034



Also maybe illusion and detection spells should only have a +1 penalty for sustaining? Ehh, just an idea. Adding a special case though, so probably a pretty sucky rule to add.
So many of them are sustained and they don't really do as much to the world... so maybe they ought to be easier?

Hmm maybe there could be a spell category sustaining focus that had this effect? Any spell of the category up to the force of the focus is sustained at +1 instead of +2?

Oh well. I played for a while with the focused concentration edge and found that it gave me just enough to be able to do all sorts of really cool multiple illusion tricks (was a cat-shamanist, so only illusion spells). Would be fun to see more of that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucyfersam
post Mar 25 2005, 07:44 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 29-July 03
Member No.: 5,137



For some illusion spells a +1 instead of a +2 would be fine, but for spells like Invisibility that would be not ok. I think that would just make things more complicated.

As far as doing Improved Invisibility as per my suggestion still providing line of sight, no it wouldn't. The spell would only be able to be cast on a whole object, and if that object is too big to effect with the spell, it doesn't work. Thus walls could not be made invisible by that method.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 25 2005, 09:06 PM
Post #8


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (Lucyfersam)
Thus walls could not be made invisible by that method.

But doors could, which would be a problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th May 2024 - 07:18 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.