 Invisible Flashlights, Do they emit light? |
  |
 Jun 2 2006, 07:30 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Runner  Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98  |
Imp Invis is listed as affecting thermographic and low-light vision, which means that the effects extend into the infrared spectrum (thermographic is far-spectrum IR, low-light often utilizes near-spectrum IR in addition to visible spectrum). I've house-ruled that it affects the ultraviolet range, too.
Beyond IR - visible - UV, Imp Invis doesn't do much for you. That's why millimeter-wave radar (read: cyberwear scanners) are useful for detecting invisible folks walking through doors. |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:33 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,754 Joined: 9-July 04 From: Modesto, CA Member No.: 6,465 |
Good point, it's not a game breaker like it used to be at times. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:35 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
That works for the bulk of breakage. It doesn't, however, address the blindness issue. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:41 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
It doesn't have to. The light, in the process of bending in really twisted and mystical patterns on the way to avoiding the invisible character, twists through his eyeballs so he can see around him. The faint amount of light that is lost when some of the photons strike the back of your eyeball is spread out over the entirety of the "bend," so that you don't end up with two eye-shaped dark spots.
Nowhere does it say that it's a SIMPLE bend... :P |
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:45 PM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 753 Joined: 31-October 03 Member No.: 5,780 |
...Maybe the improved Invis spell is partly a one way effect? It bends light/whatever in one direction, but not the other, thus allowing you to see or whatever other crap you can come up with.
So a mirror might not 'reflect' while invisible, but anyone that beats the illusion will see that the invisible mirror does still indeed have a reflection? In that case, it's a tree falling, but another tree being in the way of you seeing the other tree fall (doesn't explain the sound of crashing, but I was going for the visual part. Then again, not every game is perfect. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:45 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
My co-worker and I have decided on the "same principle as a one-way mirror" idea from this thread. The spell just allows you to essentially pass light through your body (some, but not all), which would still allow you to see. And fuck what the book says, because the book idea is retarded.
So, here's the new question: What happens when you get hit with an MP laser? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:46 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
You'll note that, with the new wording of Improved Invisibility, we've also seen the disappearance of the MP laser from the game :P
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:48 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
I'll bet you 50Y it shows up in Arsenal. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 2 2006, 07:54 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 681 Joined: 28-February 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,319 |
You know it might just detect the light coming from a given direction, while letting it pass through to eyeballs etc, and project a copy of that light heading in the same direction on the other side of the invis person. I don't need to take the 'bending light' bit literally.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 08:00 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 753 Joined: 31-October 03 Member No.: 5,780 |
No invisibility spell is perfect (contrary to what people may want). Nothing stops you from seeing the rather blatant outline of someone invisible when rain is pouring down like mad on them (whether from a burst water tank above or really bad weather).
Given that invisibility doesn't make you intangible, I would say you'd get a spiffy, if somewhat incriminating, refraction of that laser beam to some extent (or at least to laser sights). Maybe if you're against a wall, the effect could be less obvious, but I would call that a tell-tale sign of intrusion otherwise. If you're getting hit by a full blown laser, even if you refract it a little, the heat/radiation(?) will probably still get you. But I'm not quite as good a physics buff as some are. (and I hope this doesn't lead to another fiasco, heh...) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 08:13 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Sooo... How are all of you going to fit these physical explanations of Improved Invisibility with the fact that it allows someone who succesfully resists the spell to see the target as normal?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 08:20 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 681 Joined: 28-February 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,319 |
Dang. He's got us!
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 08:30 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
You are definitely a Hermetic Mage. If Magic still conforms to the laws of physics then Mages are "magicians" they are "super-physicists!" |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 2 2006, 08:34 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,002 Joined: 22-April 06 From: Canada Member No.: 8,494 |
While the flashlight (or lightsource) is invisible, the light is not. That means the light the second it comes out of the lightsource can be seen by all. Anyone looking at the lightsource will "see" it, or more specificly a point where all the light is comming out of.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 09:59 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
When I tell a joke, should I use more than one :P ? Had I said "You'll note that, with the new wording of Improved Invisibility, we've also seen the disappearance of the MP laser from the game :P :wobble: :rotfl: :silly: :upsidedown: :scatter: :spin:", would it have been clearer? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 2 2006, 10:08 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
No he hasn't! He's actually solved the whole problem I think, though I'd lay 5 :nuyen: he doesn't know it. How can one person see the mage and another not? Clearly the light isn't warping around the mage himself, but warping or editing the light as it approaches each of the witnessing characters, critters & cameras. This solves problems of warping light in such a way that you are invisible from any direction. It solves the problem of emitting infra-red radiation from within the "bubble" or indeed light from the flashlight of the original question. It doesn't solve the problem of the invisible wall, exactly. Drek! He's got us. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 2 2006, 10:17 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,026 Joined: 23-November 05 From: Seattle (Really!) Member No.: 7,996 |
The light warp created by the spell clearly has to overcome the object resistance threshold of the MPIII for the caster to be invisible to the weapon, hence you could have a situation where your MPIII can see and affect the target even if the person holding the gun can't :silly:
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 2 2006, 10:24 PM
Post
#43
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 475 Joined: 13-March 06 From: dusty Mexican borderlands Member No.: 8,372 |
I was aware you were joking. Don't make me come over there. I'LL TURN THIS MESSAGE BOARD RIGHT AROUND AND GO HOME |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 3 2006, 12:10 AM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 753 Joined: 31-October 03 Member No.: 5,780 |
Actually, that might not be wrong either. Let's think on this, if the failure of a spell to work allows you to see the object but others not to (if they fail), then why not the other way around? If you fail the save but they succeed, the wall is invisible to you, and since light or whatever moved 'around' so you couldn't see the wall, what is to say that the light that came from things behind the wall doesn't warrant LOS? True, that's silly and, in a way, senseless, but so is how it works in the first place. The LOS is about seeing, not neccessarily LOE (Line of Effect). If you can actually see behind that wall in some strange, bizarre fashion that doesn't involve cutting off the 'line' to get there (such as from a video feed), then technically you have LOS. You just turned that wall into glass. This is fun, hehe... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 3 2006, 01:11 AM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
That's kinda how I always figured it worked. It basically solves everything, though it leads to some interesting conclusions: 1) No internal overheating. The IR radiation still leaves your body; the photons just get "edited" before getting to that troll's thermographic eyes. 2) An invisible wall would not allow targetting through it. The photons are still bouncing off the wall; they're just being edited before they hit your eyes to make the wall invisible. 2a) This leads to an interesting complication: what would you see instead of the invivible wall? This question has no simple answer. My vote is that you will see whatever it is you expect to see; essentially your brain will "make up" whatever it needs to to render the wall invisible to your vision. See ***NOTE ON VISION*** below before going further. 3) The MP laser leads to an interesting conclusion. Now, obviously the laser would strike the invisible person, and damage him as well. The spell would, however, edit everyone's vision so neither the person nor, naturally, the damage to said person would be seen. 4) Similarly, a person in the rain would still be invisible. The image would be edited so that the rain looked to be falling straight down, even though it was in fact bouncing off the invisible person. Those who argue that you'd see the rain bouncing off the person, and thus see their outline, are totally off-base. Remember that what you're "seeing" does not necessarily need to have anything to do with physical reality, as you are under the effects of an illusion spell which specifically targets your vision. 4a) On the other hand, if you were standing right nest to the person, you would still be able to feel the spray of rain bouncing off of him, and would thus be able to infer something odd's going on if you were paying attention. Remember invisability affects vision only; invisability does not make someone transparent to touch, smell, hearing, or, more importantly, logic. :D 5) The invisible flashlight would still emit light. It wouldn't matter, though, because the light would be edited out of everything that could see it, rendering the flashlight effectively useless. Doesn't that make sense? If the devs would just replace "warping" with "editing" it would solve everything. :) ***NOTE ON VISION***: This whole "seeing what you expect to see" thing actually makes a lot more sense than you may realise. Here's the thing: the brain already "makes up" a surprising amount of what you think you are actually "seeing". Take a look at this site for a demonstration and explainnation of a specific instance of this effect, the blind spot in your eyes that you're likely not aware you even have. There's also the more famous illusions of motion you get from viewing several still pictures Going back to the invisible wall thing, your brain will likely be persuaded to "make up" whatever it needs to to make that wall invisible. pulling from your memories, your other senses, whatever it needs to. If you know what's in the other room through other means (having been there before, etc) then you'll see what you saw there before; otherwise your brain could make up just about anything, so long as the wall remains invisible. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 3 2006, 06:41 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
And just like your Body attribute allows you to reduce the amount of burns you get when you get hit with a magical ball of fire, your Logic (or ?) allows you to edit the EMR in the visual spectrum that's approaching you back into how it's supposed to look?
It'd be lovely to get the old Invisible Wall arguments on this forum as well, though. :) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 07:52 AM
Post
#47
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Hm. That gives me another idea, even more radical than the one above. I call it Advocacy Theory. Here's an example of how it works. Mage casts a Fireball spell. Under this theory the mage's aura is telling the world: "Okay, world, there will be a giant ball of flame appearing right here." Now, the poor mooks in the way don't like this, so they say in response, "No way, buddy. I can't stop you from making your big-ass ball of fire around me, but you're sure as hell not touching me!" He rolls Body and undoes as much as he can of what he sees as the massive universal screw-up that intersected a giant ball of fire with him. Counterspelling is a friendly mage chiming in on his side of the argument. If the mage "wins" the argument the mook gets fried; if the mook wins then everything gets fried around him, but he doesn't because he won his part of the cosmic argument that is the fireball spell. Another example: invisability. Mage tells camera: "You can't see me." Camera says: "The hell you say?" Mage argues with OR. If OR wins the mage shuts up and goes away. Otherwise, the camera loses and is no longer allowed to see the mage. Camera: "Well WTF am I supposed to put in the giant gaping hole there?" Mage: "Not my problem; ask someone else." Camera thinks back and 'remembers' there was a wall and a floor where mage is, and a picture frame on the wall as well, so he shrugs and puts all that in instead, then shrugs, calls it a day and resolves to get wasted later that evening, maybe hook up with that lamp down the hall. So basically magic is the process by which auras bitch at each other. :D Yeah, definately time for bed. :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 3 2006, 08:19 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
Do "Elemental Manipulation" spells like Fireball no longer use Ranged Combat damage resolution like in SR3? If they don't, then that's a brilliant way of dealing with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 09:42 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I haven't read the whole thread so I'll just toss my answer out:
Invisibility "warps light" via some magical process that results in the target being unseen but otherwise unaffected. Thus the character is not blind, light sources still work, and mirrors don't help any. Trying to apply physics to magic is just asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 11:11 AM
Post
#50
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Nope. Indirect spells are still resolved like ranged combat.
In Shadowrun trying to apply physics to physics is just asking for trouble. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th May 2026 - 01:10 AM |
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.