 Invisible Flashlights, Do they emit light? |
  |
 Jun 3 2006, 02:29 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 360 Joined: 18-March 02 From: Plymouth UK. Member No.: 2,408  |
I think the answer is YES it still emits light, but from the wrong end.
The invis spell would "bend" the light that way. |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 04:53 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
That's why we don't do either unless absolutely necessary. If we want hardcore realism we play a different system. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 3 2006, 04:55 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
What do you see when you see a person?
Light from an external light source reflecting off their body. The invisibility spell edits the light coming from a person's body. In the case off thermographic "light" the body is generating it on its own. In order for an invisible flashlight to work the spell would have to be able to distinguish between the light being reflected off the invisible person's body ( or thermographic light being generated by the individual's body heat ) and the light being generated by the flashlight. I don't think it would. It would require the spell to have intelligence. The spell would need to know which light the invisible object wishes to generate and which light it doesn't. Note : The light would have to editted after it reflects off the person's body ( instead of editting it before it reaches the person's body ) As preventing light from reaching the invisible person's body would render them quite blind. Another reason for the invisible flashlight not to work would be as follows: A ray of light is generated by an invisible flashlight. Now the ray of light hits either a person's eye or a hidden security camera or a wall. Under the theory that you'd be able to see the light reflecting off the surroundings but not from the flashlight itself it would have to work as follows: If it hits the wall then the invisibility spell chooses not to edit it. But if it hits the guard's eye or a hidden security camera the invisibility spell does edit it. Once again this results in the invisibility spell gaining "intelligence". The spell is choosing which light to edit based off external information it probably wouldn't know. So my answer is no. The invisible flashlight would not generate light. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 05:42 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
or just have the light be edited when it hits the observers lense or eye.
that way a flashlight can generate light for the holder, but maybe not for the observer ;) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 05:55 PM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
Exactly, my point. The spell would have to be able to tell the difference between a hidden security camera and the every other piece of technology is the room. How would the spell be able to tell the difference? From the spell's vast knowledge of technical data? Personally I don't think the invisibility spell can tell the difference between the lens of a security camera and a toaster. And thus I don't think that the invisibility spell can selectively edit the light it allows to be reflected or generated by the invisible subject. And thus I don't think an invisible flashlight would generate light. Unless your talking about the invisibility only allowing the flashlight to generate'those light rays which are destined to be reflected back to the invisible person's eyes. But that sort of determination makes the entire process of editting the light being reflected off or generated by an invisible person seem trivial in comparison. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 3 2006, 06:03 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
by the very fact that the sensor accepts photons as input :P
the magic just ride the beam of light in and then mess around when it hits something that reacts to light and altering the signal there. basicly, it edits the person out of the image. just like what happend to some people in soviet russia :P to much detail can at times be a bad thing ;) do one have to explain at a quantum physics level why a magical spell is able to damage a person? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 06:16 PM
Post
#57
|
|||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Dumpshock: Shoving square pegs into round holes since 1865.
In the past invisibility and improved invisibility specificly influanced things that see rather than just things that sensed light. It didn't matter exactly what it saw, only that the sense be a type of vision. For example, which Invisibility would effect thermographic vision it would do nothing against a heat sensing organ. Likewise, while Improved Invisibility wouild prevent a camera from registering something it would do nothing to a photometer or a motion detector. It would prevent radiographic imaging but it would not prevent basic radiation sensors from working. All that mattered was the nature of the sense. As for the ability of magic to tell the difference between one technological device and another, the question itself is missing the big picture. Sure, a camera is a complex technological device made from many different processed components. This is why it has an OR. But, the camera as a comcept is very simple. Conceptually, a camera is a thing that sees. Somethimes it records, as well. Sometimes it sends what it sees to another device to record. Either way, the concept is very basic. Shadowrun and Earthdawn metaphics draws heavily from Plato and his concept of Forms. Everything has a Form of its own. Generic items have a generic Form based on a single template. Unique items have their own unique form. A tree has the metaphysical Form of a tree. A camera has the metaphycial form of a device that sees. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 3 2006, 06:17 PM
Post
#58
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
Which requires the invisibility spell to be able to analyze the technology to determine that that is what it is doing.
To the extent that we tell players what they can and can't do with their invisibility spells. Yes. What it comes down to is a very simple split in what we see improved invisibility spells doing. My theory is that the invisibility spell edits the light being reflected off or generated by an invisible person immediately after being reflected or generated. The other theory involves the light being editted when it reaches any person or thing which is capable of seeing or analzying the light. My theory does not allow for invisible flashlights to generate light. The other one does. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 3 2006, 07:02 PM
Post
#59
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Yeppers. Sometimes that's the only way to make a game ssytem "make sense." Things get changed for simplicity's sake in games and realism suffers. You either shoehorn major changes, accept the problems, or debate about them endlessly on dumpshock without ever changing anyone else's mind. That last one isn't exclusive, you can combine it with either of the others, and most people do. :) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 3 2006, 07:12 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
I take it this sort of thing counts as shoehorning major changes?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 08:06 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 27-May 04 Member No.: 6,361 |
Meh. I think it was a slight mistake for them to write down that it bends light... on the other hand... perhaps part of the spell is a minor clairvoyance effect... or some crap like that. XD
Its a game with magic... therefore it never has to make total sense... only mimic it. :grinbig: |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2006, 08:29 PM
Post
#62
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
they say it warps light. ok so warping is a kind of bending, but it does not have to say it warps it around the subject. it may well be the writers way of saying that it mess up the light somhow else. "a warped interpetation of reality" :silly:
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 09:42 AM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Okey-dokey. I think I have it, or very nearly. The spell says that it "warps" light. Light is a wave (yes, yes, and a particle too, shut up Heisenberg), and warping it could mean not simply refracting the light (re-directing it) but increasing or decreasing its wavelength. Suppose I have some visible light just floating along when suddenly the light hits this mysterious field (the spell) and goes "Woah! I feel like really excited, I'm being charged with super mana energy and I'm vibrating so fast I'm an X-Raaaaay!!!" In it's super hgh-energy state it quite naturally passes through the character, wall, whatever but as it leaves the field (spell) it's energy drops back to where it was before ("Man, that was a buzz, but now I'm blue again"). Voilá - invisibility. Now how can we resolve this in terms of different people seeing different things? Okay, here goes! In the below, M equals our invisible Mage and A and B are observers. My dinky little ascii arrows are the paths of light going through the mage.
First thing to notice is that there is a ray of light that is colliding with M that doesn't go through her (this is the one coming from NW). Why should the mage bother altering this light wave? There's no person C standing to the NW of her that would notice this light reflecting back. She's safe to let it go. Okay, admittedly, it would be nice if she let that one through as well and if she cast the spell as high enough force, lets say she does, but it takes energy to turn on all those little light beams and make them go through you so the default is that she's only "warping" those light beams that she has to in order to make herself invisible to each observer. Yes there may be little give away shadows on the other side of her and other odd lighting effects, but that is why low force is low force and high force isn't. Now light coming from the directions of A and B is encouraged to go straight through M thus no light reflects back to them to make the mage visible. How does the mage know which light beams to warp? Well the illusion magic "reads" this information in some sense from the victims minds or auras. We can come up with any number of plausible explanations for this, e.g. the spell locks onto the subjects' auras to keep light from their directions excited. You could use a different interpretation, it's not important. All that matters is that somehow a victim is able to resist this "tracking" somehow. Perhaps with a metaphysical shake, B's aura goes "rah - get offa me!" and *wham* - B vanishes from the invisibility spell's awareness or power and light from B's direction begins reflecting back again. This interpretation satisfies the following criteria: 1/ Light from one side of the subject is able to appear on the other side of the subject in the same manner as if the subject had not been there; avoiding any of the numerous visible problems with our "bubble" model of light-bending or gravitational lensing. 2/ The mage is able to make subjects invisible where light would not be able to find a path around the subject, e.g our wall or closed door. 3/ Different subjects can be affected differently according to their resistance to the spell. 4/ There is a metaphysical conservation of energy in which the mage only does what she has to do to accomplish the magic. This even leads onto a natural explanation of the difference between low and high force castings of the spell, in terms of both effort and effect. 5/ It meshes reasonably well with accepted science. If you're worried about the mage's lead-lined knickers remaining visible due to their blocking X-Rays, bump the energy level up to Gama rays as I seem to recall you need very thick shielding to block these, and it's not likely to come up in a game. You can always ditch the scientific side of this if you like and just teleport the light waves if you must. 6/ It's really neat and Khadeem is really pleased with himself, thankyouverymuch. :D The only thing that I can see is missing from this is the infra-red radiation given off by characters. I suppose it's not much of a hack to say that emitted light in tracked directions is also shielded. This would mean that a flashlight was invisible in the exact direction of the witnesses but the lighting effect elsewhere would be visible. Essentially, you can see the light, but not quite where it's coming from. So how did I do? :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 03:13 PM
Post
#64
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
your theory dose not allow for a resistance roll or object resistance (the light was altered long before it got to a conceptual seeing device), the RAW calls for a resistance roll, thus your explanation is not in keeping with the raw. My personal interpretation is that the spell creates an illusion of the invisible objects absence. Thus all observers that fail to resist the spell see things as if the invisible object did not exist. All observers that resist the spell see the invisible object. How this is achieved is irrelevant to the game rules. I chose it because it was simple to implement and in keeping with the raw (with the exception of the fluff about bending light) Further I would add The position of an invisible object (or person) may be inferred buy an observer that did not resist the spell buy its affects on other objects (eg footprints). Only sensors designed to mimic the image gathering ability of a metahuman eye will fail to detect the target of a physical invisibility spell (IR motion detectors and laser tripwires are still a problem for you. I believe these are inferred buy the raw, at least they do not contradict it (with the exception of the fluff about bending light, but that created problems with the requirement for resistance rolls and varied ORs) If you want to know how this works for in character reasons your character will quickly become aware of a large and complex debate on how physical illusions work, and weather it is manna or photons that cross specific regions of space, illusions casting shadows, unaffected observers seeing shadows, the futility of illusionary sun shades. You will also realize that the debate is achieving nothing other beyond the amusement and bemusement of the academics involved (much like this one) knasser Your theory also works. I however find the level of complication unnecessary. I would go so far as to say that under my theory academics are proposing your theory |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 03:50 PM
Post
#65
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
But there are two problems with this. The first is that it is not in keeping with the flavour of the spell description in which normal invisibility affects the mind but improved invisibility is strongly suggested to work on a physical principle. The second and more technical problem is that it does not allow for cases where the victim is unaware of what exists behind the invisible character. For example, Mandy the Mischevious turns the wall to the men's shower room invisible revealing everything to her giggling schoolfriends. If it were an illusion of the mind, then they wouldn't be able to tell you who was in there. Further example. Seamus the dwarf turns Angus the troll invisible (-1 die penalty for the kilt). When Angus walks across the hotel lobby unseen the minds of the observers imagine the floral wallpaper behind him. But now Seamus, walking on the other side of his big friend goes for free. (Enabling the notorious couple to skip out on yet another enormous room bill).
??? I was feeling all smug about how elegantly simple it was. :( |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 05:08 PM
Post
#66
|
|||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 19-May 06 Member No.: 8,576 |
I gotta go with Knasser's theory I think. Convinced me to even change my own previous house ruling on it. An elegant theory and yet it could easily be put forth within the game world as Thaumaphysics. Speaking of which I'm sure there's a run or two in here with rival Thaumaphysics proponants trying to trash (or steal) each others research (Not all scientists use good science all the time). |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 07:22 PM
Post
#67
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
The first problem isn't exactly a problem. In SR3 I always assumed that the physical nature of Improved Invisibility meant that it altered the observer in a physical way as opposed to the mana illusion that caused no actual physical changes in the observer. In a camera or a human this could mean altering the electrical impulses produced when light strikes the photoreceptors. The second problem is only a problem when it comes to establishing LOS. Sense-editing magic can allow people to see things that they normally wouldn't b eable to see. Usually, such spells are called detection spells but illusions are also sense-editing; they simply edit senses for a different purpose. The problem only shows up when it trying to establish LOS. Sense editing magic cannot establish LOS. On the other hand, physical redirection of light can. Establishing Improved Invisibility as a spell that physically edits the target's senses so that it appears that the subject is not there prevents this rather large potential abuse. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 07:47 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
invisibility and similar have allways been presented as a kind of indirect illusion. rather then aiming right at someone that should directly experience the illusion, you aim at something that will appear alterd based on the spell.
in many ways its similar to the armor spell. it puts a layer of magic over the target of the spell, and this layer helps stop anything harmfull at the size of a bullet or larger. if one was to follow the extension of the LOS requirement that some try to use on the invisibility spell, then the caster would have to see each and every bullet fired at the person coverd by the armor spell. if the caster didnt see a bullet then the armor spell didnt work on said bullet. so the LOS requirement for the invisibility spell is only for the initial casting. the caster have to see where he wants to target the spell. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:17 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. If you were responding to my LOS abuse arguments I was refering to making an object inviible for the pupose of casting through it, such as: "I make the Ares corporate headquarters invisible so I can manabolt Damien Knight." and "I cast invisibility on the planet Earth so I can manabolt Sum Yun Guy in China." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:28 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
This needn't be listened to, and certainly isn't needed for the explanation I outlined, but the FanPro FAQ states that improved invisibility can be used to establish LOS. I don't know how much people consider that official, but it's there in black and white pixels. Just thought I'd mention it. Anyway, the description of the spell does say "warps light" so I'd go with LOS allowed if only for that. If you can cast a spell round a corner with fibre-optic goggles, then quite frankly warping light by magic is good enough for me. Anyway, if the players don't think of this tactic, then I'm certainly going to surprise them with an NPC using it. :D |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 08:56 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
where is this faq posted?
if its in german i dont care about it... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 09:24 PM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/resources/faq.shtml No german. You're safe. ;) The invisibility stuff is about a third of the way down. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 09:41 PM
Post
#73
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
err, thats for SR3 not SR4. so its hardly applyable in this case...
and even then is a year old :P btw, having the spell require a force higher then half the OR of the item target is flat out wrong. its the observer that need to resist the spell, not the object or person coverd by the spell... |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 09:49 PM
Post
#74
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Yeah, well, to be frank most of us here consider the FAQ to be a piece of junk. The writers don't even pretend that their answers have anything to do with the actual rules; much of what's in there directly contradicts what's written in the books, but without claiming to be errata so it's impossible to figure out whether to follow the actual rules or their "FAQ". knasser's idea, while interesting, is a logistical nightmare. Let's look back at this diagram, and expand it a little so we can name points on M's body:
Now, assume that A does not resist the spell cast on M. So, the process begins as such: M's spell reaches into A's "mind", and tracks into the future where he is going to be at some time when photons from M are going to reach his eyes, which we name A'. Remember that people aren't going to stand still, so in order to avoid weird tracking issues the spell is going to have to read, not where the observer is now, but where he will be in the fraction of a second it takes to figure out where he will be, and to alter the photons accordingly. So M's spell then tracks back to the exact points on M's body that A would see--M'--and tracks *through* M's body to points exactly opposite the subject--M''. It is these photons that are bumped up to higher energy levels in order to "pass through" the mage, incidentally causing all the problems associated with high-energy radiation damage along the way. 1) Okay, so far so good. Seems to me that we're granting a little more computational intelligence to the spell than I've seen in any other spell, but let's set that aside for now. The problem is that M'' is not the only place that photons need to be altered to make M invisible. You also have to alter everything striking M', because otherwise the light striking M' will scatter into A'-s eyes, resulting in a ghostly, translucent M walking around. *Every* photon striking M' has to be altered to prevent A' from seeing M, which exponentially increases the number of photons that need to be altered for every point on a target, to the point where roughly 30-50% of the photons striking the target have to be altered, just to make M transparent to a single observer. 2) Now let's look at B, who does resist the spell. Specifically, look at the diagonal "sight ray" going through M'. Since A' does not resist the spell, the diagonal photon striking at M' must be excited through M's body, in order to make M invisible to A'. But doing this would make M partly insivible to B' as well, which is a problem because he resisted the spell and thus shouldn't be affected by it. The problem is even worse with C, who also resisted the spell but is looking over A'-s shoulder. 3) The amount of work the spell must do increases with each observer, but neither the Force nor the drain does. This seems a contradiction. 4) In this interpretation, if someone ever looks into M's eyes, then M still goes blind, so it doesn't really solve that problem either. 5) It does solve the problem of LOS, but in a weird way. Since photons are actually being altered to smash through a person't body instead of being bent around him, they are no longer elligable for providing LOS. So if you were trying to make the silly FAQ valid it's still a failure. 6) However you have allowed the covered flashlight abuse, the one where a low-force unresisted Invisability cast on the cover of a flashlight will light a room but the guards who resisted the spell are left in the dark. Also it lets you peep through walls (and shoot through them) without letting the guards see back at you. 7) Radiation poisoning. Gamma rays, being ionizing radiation, are not at all healthy to have running through you all the time. I consider it a problem when other people not resisting my spells causes me to vomit blood. :P Conclusion: meh. On the surface it seems to work, but the details kill it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 09:54 PM
Post
#75
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
heh, thats why its magic. magic fixes the flaws ;)
i dont know, is there any book that talks about magic moving at anything less then the speed of light? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th July 2025 - 04:58 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.