 Invisibilty |
  |
 Nov 20 2005, 03:47 AM
Post
#1
|
|||
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 14-November 05 Member No.: 7,961  |
Just a question about improved invisiblity Question 1: Do you set a force for this spell? If the opposing character uses intuition + counterspelling to resist against a spellcasting check (magic+spellcasting??) then what good does the 'force' of the spell do? Do you add the 'force' to the overall resistance threshold for that spell? Lets assume this: Magic 5 Spellcasting 5 I cast improved invisilibity at a force of 5 (So im rolling 5+5 dice). I get 4 hits. Is the number to resist 4 or 9?
Thats the part that is confusing me. A spellcasting test is just magic + spellcasting right? Where did force go? Question 2: Does astral perception reveal invisible targets? Question 3: This came up in a game test run. I threw Imp Invisibility on myself and our sneaky guy. Plan was for me to stay in the elevator the entire time while he snuck in and stole the goods, didnt end up that way. Well to cut a long story short I had to levitate down a stairwell shaft being chased by about 7 guards weilding automatic weapons while the sneaky guy was stuck up there fighting with Invisiblity on. I had failed to resist my own spell that I placed on him (can this happen?) so he wasn't "visible". I decided I wanted to throw a fireball up the shaft to take out the guards. Is my 'friend' a valid target? He is invisible, which means he IS NOT visible. Thanks. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Nov 20 2005, 04:09 AM
Post
#2
|
|||||||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
Yes. You set a force for any spell. (See Step 2 of spellcasting)
"The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell's Force." p.174,SR4. (See also the description of Force on the bottom of p.171 and top of p.172)
Yes.
This point was being debated last week, and I don't think any hard conclusions emerged from the discussion.
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nov 20 2005, 04:30 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 14-November 05 Member No.: 7,961 |
@Paul: So is it force + spellcasting test hits(capped by force) to set the threshold for resistance? EA:
Is it 4 or 9? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 20 2005, 04:44 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
Invisibility works on the mind, not the light, unless it's a different invis spell then the standard one, you'd still be invisible to a astrally percieivng character to my knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2005, 04:58 AM
Post
#5
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
But only if an Assensing Test succeed in identifying the presense of the spell, which by my understanding of the Flexible Signiture metamagic, means that a high grade Initiate using Invisibility could fairly easily be fully cloaked from a novice mage even on the astral plane. EDIT: The exact text, from page 201.
Note that the Assensing Threshhold table doesn't mention spells at Threshhold 1 at all. The first is at Threshhold 2 where you gain the knowledge of what kind of spell it is (illusion), though i assume at Threshhold 1 you'd notice the presense of something magical. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 20 2005, 05:42 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
even if you see the illusion on the astral (which you can, just not the person) you still end up with the blind fire rules.
only thing adventagous is things like grenades and ae stuff = ) |
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2005, 06:14 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 5-January 05 From: Wherever this piece of meat rests. Member No.: 6,937 |
To answer question 1. You want to set a decently high force for the spell, because you can only have a number of hits equal to the force of the spell. For example: you have Magic 5 + Spellcasting 5, but only cast the spell at force 3. If you get 5 Hits on the roll, you only count 3 of them, wasting 2 hits. After casting the spell, the person resisting (with their Intuition, as it is Physical, + Counterspelling dice if they have them) must achieve a number of successes that you had on your casting test to resist the illusion. If you set it at Force 4 and get at least 4 hits you pretty much can guarantee most mundanes will be fooled (Average Intuition between 2 and 3).
:nuyen: :nuyen: :nuyen: |
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2005, 08:53 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 14-November 05 Member No.: 7,961 |
Nobody has yet clarified if or if not you add force to the overall threshold of the spell? I know it determines max possible hits.
With combat spells force is the base damage, is force always a base threshold starter for illusions? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2005, 10:34 AM
Post
#9
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
No it doesn't, so in the above example the number to beat is 4.
No, combat spells are somewhat unique in that force does double-duty for them, determining base damage and max hits (thus max staging level). Illusions don't have a base threshold; if you resist the spell then you resist the spell. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 20 2005, 12:49 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 718 Joined: 10-September 05 From: Montevideo, in the elusive shadows of Latin America Member No.: 7,727 |
I concur. (eyeless blonde beat me to it)
the threshold is 4. Cheers, Max the slow typer |
|
|
|
|
Nov 20 2005, 01:25 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
And for detecting intruders. Invis was mainly good as an infiltration spell, but these days it's tough even to get around a normal OR3 camera, something that used to be child's play. Ironically it's far more of a combat protection spell now; most people won't have the intuition to beat a threshold of 2 so casting it for the blindfire penalty is more practical. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 20 2005, 07:49 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 388 Joined: 24-October 05 Member No.: 7,885 |
in sr3 at least there were two invis spells one that works on just people and one that worked on electronics and people....
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2005, 05:35 AM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
As in SR4. Invisibility and Improved Invisibility, respectively. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 21 2005, 07:57 AM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,000 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Halifax, Canada Member No.: 7,975 |
To answer question 1: You set a force of the spell as that's the marker for resisting drain. (I found that interesting that no one mentioned that yet) Your running mate is a valid target if he's in the spell's area of effect. Fireball has is an area of effect spell, targeting all items withing the spells range, visible or not. It's merely your target that needs to be visible. (failing that, you can cast in the vicinity of the target in hopes of hitting it.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 21 2005, 09:29 AM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 934 Joined: 26-August 05 From: Earth - Europe - AGS - Norddeutscher Bund - Hannover Member No.: 7,624 |
What blindfire penalty? If you have no other way to localize your target than vision you are not even allowed to shoot at a target under invisibilty. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 21 2005, 02:29 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Well you'd naturally know something's there because your drone with its OR 4 Sensor package tells you, or the projecting mage/watcher/spirit who sees the spell's aura tells you. The pressure sensors on the floor, the ultrasoind emitters, etc etc. Seeing invivible people with meat eyes is hard, but knowing that an invisible person is there is relatively easy, especially now that OR is so much stronger against indirect illusions than it was in SR3. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 21 2005, 03:28 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 600 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,659 |
If you're seeing through the image link on someones goggles they'd have to beat object resistance on the spell right?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 21 2005, 03:37 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
The Spellcaster would have to had rolled 5 hits (at least i'd likely call the normal sensor-Image Link a Threshhold 4). But if they roll the 5 hits then the person viewing through the Image Link gets no resistance check of their own. Although they might get a Perception check, likely of horrendous Threshhold/penalties depending on conditions, to notice the presense of something via indirect observations. EDIT2: Incidentally if the Image Link displaying Ultrasound sensor info the Ultrasound info would NOT be affected by the spell. You could then attack the target with the appropriate penalites for attacking Ultrasound only. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 21 2005, 11:09 PM
Post
#19
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 282 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 197 |
I'm still gonna say yes, if he's within the area, he's getting burned. The flickering golden god does not care if you can see your friend or not. It will feast on him. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 21 2005, 11:31 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
You sure about that? I thought the only thing still open with Indirect Combat spells was whether the fireball (for example) filled out to the entire radius if it part of the radius was not seen by the mage?** An area seen by the mage is still filled with fire and therefore the an invisible character can still potentially getting fried for roughly the same reason that the caster does not need to overcome OR to use Fireball to a set fire to a puddle of gasoline fuel (instead objects resist with Armor x 2). As for having the caster having to resist their own Improved Invisibility spell, i don't recall the specific discussion on this. You definately don't have to for Invisibility:
However i suspect the caster would for Improved Invisibility, just haven't gone though it to make sure. ** BTW i happen to thing this is bogus, I myself as GM have ruled otherwise, to great benefit of the players in that instance. As i see it the mage would never fry the far side of someone and this would lead to wierdness like different rolls for people in the group (the front protects the back) and people walking around with cardboard cutouts in front of themselves to be protected from fireballs. Well maybe something a bit stronger than cardboard to survive past the first blast. :rotfl: |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 21 2005, 11:45 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 282 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 197 |
Indeed. The easiest and most sensible answer was the blast fills the area regardless of what the mage can see.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2005, 12:06 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
Oh, I agree. Too bad the book never comes right out and says that.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2005, 04:21 AM
Post
#23
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
Eh? Mongo confused? If you roll enough hits to defeat the electronic sensor then why would you need any more? The guy on the other end might get a perception roll to notice something odd like footprints appearing in the mud, but the camera is sending him a false image so why should he get a chance to overcome the spell. If you are wearing a camera on your shoulder pointing a an invisible guy. Your eyes do nto see him but the camera feed shows him plainly. Would you still suffer blind fire penalties? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 22 2005, 01:47 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 600 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,659 |
You can use the camera on your smart link to fire around corners. I'd just close my eyes and use the visual overlay on my contacts to see through my gun. It should work, but would probably give other penalties.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2005, 03:53 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
I'd expect force 4 invisibility to become fairly standard after the first few runs, once characters can get ahold of higher-power sustaining foci.
At chargen I'd expect the best stealth available to a magician character to be sneaking around under the effects of the concealment power. A force 6 spirit subtracts 6 dice from perception tests to see you, practically guaranteeing you won't need to even roll stealth against your average mundane or any drone printed under the SR4 system so far. It also works against ultrasound, which is potentially very common in the 6th world. A force 6 spirit takes on-average 3 succeses to summon and on-average takes 4 successes to resist the drain from. A force 4 casting of Improved Invisibility takes 4 successes to cast properly (usefully) and 3 successes to resist the drain from. 7 successes in each case, but the spirit does not need to be sustained and can conceal the entire group (6 targets concealed with one summoning versus multiple castings of invisibility). Given that the spell gives you a -2 dice penalty to virtually all tests whilst you're sustaining it, using the spell makes you more likely to take drain from subsequent drain tests (including those to cast invisibility on other party members who need it) and makes you less compotent at moving around quietly (people can still hear you, as invisibility doesn't make you any harder to hear) thus more likely to be detected. The best thing is that you can give your spirit buddy (if it's a spirit of man) the innate spell (Invisibility) power and request it to use it on 'us' as a second service. Hey-presto, now you're potentially invisible on the astral too if your observers fail the assensing test, and doubly guarded against being detected by other characters. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th April 2024 - 07:41 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.