Spell question Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Switch to: Standard Linear+

[Sheffield]

Hey everybody,

Newb here with a newb question.

My group has had an ongoing argument about the use of a couple spells and we finally decided it was time to kick it up to a higher court.

The question is about the resistance of spells like Camouflage and Stealth. In the MiTS spell table, these spells are marked to indicate that they either require a willing target or the target may resist the spell. If a character casts Camouflage on him- or herself, they're a willing target and so do not resist.

Here's the question: Do characters looking at the Camouflaged character make a resistance test to see through the camouflage, or do they automatically take the +4 modifier because the spell has already been successful (because the voluntary target did not resist)?

This question becomes more important with Stealth, where there's no modifier given for hearing the Stealth character, but they're just said to be absolutely silent.

The reason I ask this is because if these spells automatically succeed on a willing target, they seem overpowered, as there's no real reason to go over force 1 or 2. But on the other hand, if every character gets to make a resistance test to ignore a Stealth or Camo modifier, the spells become virtually useless even at force 6 or 8, as it ain't that hard to hit a "6" with 4 intelligence dice (and if you hit a "6" odds are huge you hit the "8").

How do you all play this one?

[BitBasher]

The person you cast the spell on is the subject. The people who look at the spell are the targets. The targets definitely get a straight shot to resist the spell.

[cykotek]

The spells are resisted, yes. But the spellcasting successes matter. If you throw down a camo 1, but manage 18 successes on the spell casting, then you need 18 successes to see through the illusion. Not such a trivial problem anymore.

[Edward]

Many opinions on this have been issued.

The official line is that anybody that views a target affected by stealth, invisibility or camouflage must make a resistance test. This will not make the spell useless at reasonable force because although getting 1 or 2 successes against target 6 or even 8 may be easily achieved the caster can without to much trouble secure 4-5 successes. The spell is not resisted unless the person resisting has more successes that the caster of the spell.

There are some nasty implications of this if you start to consider casting invisibility and considering shadows and spying if you want me to explain I will.

It is a common house rule (that we use) that these spells are not resisted. The only affect of force on these spells thus become there resistance to dispelling and wards.

Edward

[Sheffield]

In that case, I've got a follow-up question:

For Stealth and Camo (or other illusions), force really only matters as the initial TN for characters trying to see or hear through the illusion, right? The TN to put either of these spells on someone is 4, unresisted if they're voluntary.

So a dude with Sorcery 4 throws force 2 Stealth on himself, uses 4 spell pool dice for 8 total, hits a predicable 4 successes and doesn't resist. So even though the TN to hear this guy is still 2, perceiving character need 4 successes to hear them? (Or, for Camo, they either suffer the +4 mod or don't?) Which makes it tough on IN 3 chars.

EDIT: Edward, thanks, you preemptively answered some of this, particularly the all-or-nothing question. With your explanation, a force 2 Stealth remains quite good if the caster has high sorcery. But the fact that everyone tests means a lot of dice get thrown and there's a fair chance someone will see through. This means more tests, but makes sense.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Edward]

Remember force 1 is still TN 2 to resist.

Its cheep but that is the way it is.

Edward

[Rev]

[GrinderTheTroll]

Yeah, but beyond being part of the Spell Pool, it did little else to influnce actual casting spells.

SR3 treats spellcasting much like shooting a gun:

Sorcery skill = Weapon skill,
Spell Rating = Weapon Power Rating,
Pool dice <= Skill dice (for both cases).

As you can see in SR2, it was a little off.

[Sheffield]

Thanks for all the assistance. The stalemate of the argument had been that we played with a houserule similar to what Edward mentioned above (with no resistance tests on these sorts of illusions). But the by-the-book resistance test as described makes a lot more sense. I had thought that it would totally gimp low-level illusions, but because of the attribute test, I see how the sheer number of successes can overwhelm average-intelligence observers.

[BitBasher]

And also, low level illusions SHOULD be gimped... They're LOW LEVEL! ;)

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Seidaku]

[Sheffield]

By low-level, I don't mean using a force 1 or 2. I mean like a force 4 instead of a force 8. The way I'd previously misunderstood the rules on illusions, I had thought a single success saw through the camo or heard the stealth, which makes anything under 6 totally useless. A 4 is supposed to be a respectable level (what's the equivalent in skills? Proficient? Expert?), and (as you've clarified the rules above) a 4 will fool some of the people some of the time, as it should.

[Sheffield]

@Seidaku:

In MiTS, all of the indirect illusion spells are marked with an ® under target in the spell table. At the top of the table, the ® is defined to mean that a voluntary subject does not make a resistance test, but an involuntary subject can make a resistance test. So, if you wanted to cast Stealth on a security guard so he couldn't shout for help, the security guard could resist. If you wanted to cast Invisibilty on an unwilling abductee to smuggle them out of a building, they could resist. So indirect illusions can be resisted and can fail outright, on unwilling subjects.

My question was whether this resistance test was the only resistance test, or whether viewers also got to make a test to try and observe the subject. This is to say whether a success casting Camo automatically imposed a +4 on observers, or whether the observers got a resistance chance. (Stealth was my primary area of concern, because the wording in the grimoire seemed to suggest that if the spell was not resisted by the subject, the subject made no sounds for others to hear, hence nothing for observers to hear even if they made a successful perception test.)

This was answered clearly above, with the observer comparing against the successes of the casting mage in order to see through the illusion.

[Seidaku]

[Edward]

The use of the term target and subject in spell casting is unfortunate.

As has already been stated for spells like invisibility the subject is the person becoming invisible. The target is anybody that looks at the subject.

This should probably be worded (or at least explained) better in SR4.

Edward