 Invisible Flashlights, Do they emit light? |
  |
 Jun 4 2006, 10:17 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Midnight Toker  Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456  |
The FAQ lets you kill a main battle tank with a derringer firing standard ammo.
Think about that for a second. The FAQ lets you kill a main battle tank with a derringer firing standard ammo. This, friends, is why we ignore the parts of the FAQ we don't like. It isn't canon untill its canonized. The FAQ is not yet available in book form. |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 4 2006, 10:41 PM
Post
#77
|
|||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Woah there, Eyeless blonde. Whilst your criticism may seem valid at first glance, the details kill it. ;) I'll go through your points in a moment, but I need to clear up two things. One, I came up with this explanation from first principles, based solely on the functioning and text of the spell in SR4. I don't care about the FAQ much, I just mentioned it in passing. The second thing that needs to be cleared up is the issue of abuse. You have described the LOS effect as abuse and the flashlight as abuse. I don't see any of this as rules-lawyering and am quite looking forward to the first time a couple of enemy mages turn a steel wall invisible and get blasting at the PCs! When you come at this with a loaded agenda of what you want the results to be, then you colour your arguments. So I don't see it as a problem that the logical consequences of my explanation have these results. All I'm interested in is internal consistency and compatability with the spell description and effect. I think I've achieved that. Now your points. 1/ Compensating for the speed of light. It's true that the victim may have moved fractionally by the time the light reaches him. Let us assume that using high-powered optics, the victim is watching the subject from 10 miles away. I think that's a nice generous distance to support your case. At the speed of light - 186,282 miles per second - it will take 1/18,628 seconds (or 0.00054 seconds) to reach the victim. If your observer is moving fast enough to notice the lag time, then I think he's going to be more concerned with air resistance roasting him to a crisp. 2/ Computational Intelligence There are a couple of counters with this. The first off is the existence of other physical illusion spells. If it takes too much computational intelligence to edit light in different directions, then how much intelligence does it take to create the image of an angry wizword viewable from all directions? The "intelligence" necessary for this spell, assuming that spells work on a computational basis which I'm very far from allowing, is perfectly consistent with the level of computation that would be required for several other spells. Another argument would be that surely editing the light in a particular direction with a field it passes through has to be less complex than editing the firing of neurons in someone's brain to implant images in their brain. 3/ No increase in effort with number of observers. This is a valid but minor point. I offer two options to people who like my explanation and don't want to ditch it for the sake of this. Firstly, are we certain that the difficulty does not increase? SR pg. 57 states that in opposed rolls against groups, larger numbers grant bonus dice for the resisting group. I'm not saying that this has to apply because you might roll for the victims separately, but you could quite easily put this down to lack of granularity in the rules. Maybe it is more effort or complexity, but not sufficiently so for the rules to pick up on it. Secondly, the statistical probability of being spotted by someone does increase with the number of people who are resisting. Each individual has the same chance as if they were alone, but given sufficient numbers, someone is likely to notice and you can attribute that to the mage's talents giving out if you so wish. 4/ Light passing through the mage's retina The retina requires only a very little light striking it to send those nerve impulses to the brain. This nicely illustrates the point I was making earlier about how seemingly academic conversations like this can create interesting fluff for our games. One possibility is that the mage lets through only most of the light that strikes her retina. Perhaps the mage sees the world muted or spectrally whilst invisible, much like Frodo in LotR whilst he is invisible. Or maybe there is a ghostly pale image of the mage's eyes that drifts along not quite invisible but hard to notice. What a freaky effect, but so much more atmospheric when the guard notices than saying "the guard has made his resistance roll and can see you". Anyway, I'm just having fun with these stylish effects. The real consequence of skimming a few photons so you can see would be neglible. 5/ abuse of LOS I've covered this. It's only abuse if the GM has a strong feeling about how this should work. I don't as whatever the PCs use, I'll just throw back at them later on. But if you do have a preference then choose from (a) LOS is possible because it is the same light that has passed through the invisible subject or (b) LOS is not possible because the spell has tampered with the photons in temporarily altering their state. Take your pick as both are entirely compatible with my explanation. 6/ X-rays and Gamma Rays cause cancer etc. Yep - quite possibly they do. This is Shadowrun and the image of a burned out mage in the cancer ward cursing the way he did too much invisibility in his youth amuses me. Again we come back to the point about how I feel this sort of fluff can deeply enhance the reality of the setting for the players. It's not something that's likely to have a consequence in the time scale of a campaign. And I think cancer and other cell damage is curable in the Shadowrun setting, isn't it? Well it's up to the GM anyway. I'd probably just leave this as a potential problem in the background. So anyway. That's my counter-arguments. There is a hole in my theory, but none of your points were it, I'm afraid. If no-one spots it, I'll fess up later. :P |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 4 2006, 10:56 PM
Post
#78
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Oh, so even after doing what knasser claims, then it's gotta go back and fix it all afterward as well? Yikes.
In this case it'd have to move at much *more* than the speed of light. In fact, to be perfectly accurate the spell would actually have to read into the future in order to predict exactly where the observer will be when he is observing the subject. This reading-into-the-future problem would be even worse with the Silence series of spells, as sound travels more slowly and thus there would be an even larger gap between where the observer is "now" and where he wil be when the nullified sound is supposed to reach him. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 4 2006, 11:19 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
must point out that converting all light to gamma radiation would not cause cancer. It would cause complete organ failure within a few hours even with only a few minutes of exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 12:25 AM
Post
#80
|
|||||||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
if you didnt notice by the ;), im slighty tired of seeing the X+1 iteration of a "how does improved invisibility work" thread. and right now we have two of them... funny thing is that i dont see anything remotly similar to this dicussion over on say the wotc forums. ok, so there are some discussion over flaws on the d20 modern/future part (only part i bother with, d&d basicly boils down to making the most powerfull mix of classes, race and whatsnot), but there people just present their fixes and is done with it. here on dumpshock its as if SR is RL, and we need to come up with how magic should play nice with the laws of physics (because, as we all know, the laws of physcis trumps all) in an empirical way. basicly, SR isnt just a game to us. its more on the level of a religion. and this debate, in all its forms, reminds me of the classical "how many angels can dance and the head of a pin". ok, so this time round it was made worse by some editor inserting the words "warps light" into the text. but other then that its exactly the same debate thats been had on atleast 3 versions of this forum, of not more... |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 5 2006, 12:52 AM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Okay then, counterpoints:
1) The argument wasn't so much that the difference is meaningful, but that there is a difference at all. What this does is force the mage to either a) see into the future and know exactly where the target will be, and adjust where the altered rays will be sent accordingly, b) alter the rays in a swath around the observer, albeit a small one, to compensate for possible movement, or c) introduce artifacts into the invisability projection which will be easily discernable to the human eye *or* a well-written analytical program. 2) The computational intelligence point wasn't the actual argument here, though that is an interesting area to explore. The argument here was that it is physically impossible in a great many cases to make M invisible to A without also making him at least partly invisible to B and C, both of whom are supposed to have resisted the spell. To C the mage would be almost completely invisible, and to B he will be partly translucent. In some rare cases where two observers are looking at the mage at the exact same angle even if one of the observers resists the spell the mage will still be invisible, because the spell is busy making M invisible to the failing observer. 3) Point dropped, though page 57 actually has more to do with simulating the effect of several people rolling the same test several times, and not with simulating how much more difficult and in this case mana-intensive it is to affect multiple people at once. 4) So the retina is specifically exempted from the effect of the spell, or the effect is specifically damped by the presence of a retina? I'll buy that, though it's adding even more conditional clauses to the body of the spell. 5) *shrug* Okay. 6) Covered flashlight abuse. Still unanswered. 6b) In fact, this doesn't really answer the OP's question of an invisible flashlight either, does it? Of course, neither does my interpretation. so :oops: 7) Radiation: see hyzmarca's post above. Oh, and your solution also doesn't deal with the shadow problem that I'm still wrestling with in my interpretation either. :) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 01:03 AM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 19-May 06 Member No.: 8,576 |
Why does it need to see into the future exactly? Isn't the Astral the ultimate Unified Field Theories allowing for effective faster than light travel? At least for informational purposes.
As for the D20 boards on WOTC, go look at some of the larger threads. There are debates every bit as vehement as this (often moreso) about things like whether a 'Hulking Hurler' can throw a moon sized piece of adamantine or not, including refering to whether he'd simply sink into the ground or even if that much adamantine would be dense enough and crush itself enough to become a singularity. SR4 for all its fantastical elements is a game far more grounded in reality (No wish spell just for starters) so the arguments about it will tend to be a little bit more gritty (and nitty for that matter). |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 01:52 AM
Post
#83
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Oh indeed it is. Much like PC vs. Mac, boxers vs. briefs, paper vs. plastic, the debate is not meant to have a real answer. Speaking perfectly logically, it's impossible to find the answer, in fact, because there's simply not enough information. The debate itself isn't really meant to result in an actual answer, or at least not one that has any true value. Rather it is the contemplation of the question itself that's important. Like a Buddhist meditating on a koan, it is in the not-finding of an answer that the real value is. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 5 2006, 02:47 AM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 24-March 05 From: On a ledge between Heaven and Hell Member No.: 7,226 |
To Concord Flight attendant; "But, if we are flying faster than the speed of sound how come I can hear you?"
I would say that A flashlight in a invisibility field does emit light. Does the light exit said field? For ease of game mechanics say YES. Now give people extra die to roll vs the spell if they notice the flashlight beam comming from empty air, expecially in fog or smoke. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 02:59 AM
Post
#85
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
But the answer is very important. It influances the flavor of the entire magic system.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 06:29 AM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,073 Joined: 23-August 04 Member No.: 6,587 |
The sr3 FAQ says imp invis establishes LOS????????!!!!!!!!????????
The rules for what magic can and cant do in MITS clearly stated magic can never be used to establish LOS. Knasser. The main advantage of my theory over yours is that I don’t need to know how it works (note that your theory has been torn apart and mine hasn’t). The only thing I disobeyed from the RAW was a small bit of flavor text witch contradicts the need for a resistance roll. It also has it workings linked to other physical illusions. Physical invisibility doesn’t mean it has to physically affect light. It can refer to the fact that it affects physical cameras. Having the spell affect every object (living or not) with the conceptual quality of seeing within LOS of the invisible object (you can’t see it if your not within LOS of it) works at least as well, and means other physical illusions can work in the same way, It also more really explains the relevance of object resistance and the absence of the higher drain true invisibility which doesn’t bother with the energy saving system and thus denies the relevance of OR and resistance rolls. hyzmarca “But the answer is very important. It influances the flavor of the entire magic system” you only need to know what magic dose, not how it dose it, especially in a world where the characters don’t know how it is done and there is a distinct possibility that different casters develop the same spell effect in different ways. Remember that the rules specifically do not say weather totem spirits really exist. Edward Ps. If you want to fix the radiation issue then shunt the light energy in a different direction. Have it translate into ultra low frequency radio. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 04:21 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
I've updated and tried to clarify my views on improved or physical invisibility. In short I view physical immunity as a manipulation of light as it that is reflected off of or generated by an invisible object or person. It does not go around and identify each and every person or device which is looking at the invisible object or person so can it can maipulate the light when it reaches their eyes or viewing devices.
Physical ( or Improved ) Invisibility House Rules ------------------------------------ House Rule #1: --------------------- Physical Invisibility dissapates all spectrums of light ( including visual and thremographic ) being reflected off of or generated by an object or person. The spell cannot tell the difference between thermographic light and the light from a flashlight. Thus an invisible flashlight would not work. In effect when it comes to light generated by the invisible object or target the spell is the visual equivalent to a silence spell. Note: There are limits to what the physical invisibility spell can cover up. For example a low force invisibility spell may not be able to handle stopping the thermographic light from a blowtorch or the effects of an invisible flash grenade. Stronger invisibility spells are obviously able to cover up more. House Rule #2: ----------------------- The second function of Improved Invisibility is that it replicates all light that hits the invisible object or person on the opposite side of the person as if the light had traveled through unimpeded. The light must be allowed to hit the invisible person or he would be rendered quite blind. So any effects from the light hitting the target beyond visual ( such as a damaging laser ) is still felt by the invisible object or person. The laser light would still be replicated on the other side of the target but it would be an illusion equivalent of the original light and carry none of the effects beyond visual of the original light. Note: All physical illusion spells work by modifying or negating existing light. ( with the obvious exception of illusions of things that generate light. Like on illusion of a fire ) For example, a runner mage is being followed some guards and sneaks into a completely dark room. He casts the illusion of a dragon to startle the guards. When the guards enter the room they can't see the dragon because there is no light. But when one of the guards turns on the lights then the light from the ceiling reaches the illusion spell and is modified to reflect outwards to show the dragon. House Rule #3: ------------------------- Improved Invisibility is a physical illusion and like all physical illusions resisting it does not cause the illusion to "go away". Instead the result would be that resisting individual is able to see that the illusion is fake. They may be able to see an outline or some visual disruption that signfies where the invisible object is. Such nuances are generally beyond the capabilities of most technological devices. However a spectral analyzer or similar device may be able to detect a physically invisible individual. Note : It's generally cheaper for the corp the go for other methods of detecting invisible characters such as ultrasound or ( a personal favorite of mine ) pressure plates on the floor. House Rule #4: ----------------------- Improved Invisibility cannot be used to establish LOS. You cannot establish LOS with an illusion spell. If invisibility is cast on a wall, then you see an illusion image of what is on the other side of the wall. But this is light produced by the invisibility spell and not the original light that was reflected off the whatever was on the other side of the wall. A magician unaware of the invisible object may not be able to immediately ascertain why he or she can't establish LOS. Other Methods of Physical Invisibility ------------------------------- Illusionary environment ------------------------------- It is also possible to pull of a physical illusion of the surrounding environment. For example if a magician "overlays" an empty hallway with the illusion of an empty hallway then any number of runners can travel down the hallway sight unseen. ( And probably unheard too as most physical illusions modify both sight and sound. ) The disadvantage of course is that this sort of illusion isn't that portable and would affect anyone who wandered into that hallway runner or guard. Transparency spell ---------------------------- It is also possible to pull off invisibility with some sort of transparency spell. But that's not even remotely an illusion spell. That's a pure physical manipulation spell. It's an open question to whether an individual would be able to see with transparent eyes. Radar Invisibility -------------------------- Since illusion spells can generate sound as well as light it stands to reason that it should be possible to design a type of sound invisibility that allows for ultrasound or sonar or radar waves to hit the object or person to be deadened when the are reflected and then replicated on the other side of the individual. I imagine the drain for such a spell would be the same as visual invisibility. Furthermore a magician could design a spell that handled both sound and light. But the drain for that spell would be oppressive. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 04:32 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
to truely mess with your minds:
would a mirror created with a illusion be usable for targeting around corners? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 06:44 PM
Post
#89
|
|||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I would rule that an illusionary mirror can only reflect that which the caster is aware of. The physical version at least is generating light in accordance to the mage's will, it isn't an actual physical object with reflective capabilities. A mana version of the spell, perversely, might be able to show a reflection to the onlookers as you might rule that you are instructing them to imagine a mirror. In that case however, I'd not allow it to reflect around a corner that they couldn't themselves see around, even if they thought it was. Eyeless Blonde. Your points in order: 1/ Again, I can only say that I really don't care where your character thinks he's headed in the next 1/10,000th of a second. There will be no difference in what he can see between the two positions. And that time scale was when I generously allowed your observer to watch the mage from 10 miles away with binoculars. Other points you made were good, but this makes no sense at all! 6/ I thought I had solved this one. The flashlight gives off light. Morale of the tale - don't shine a torch around when you're trying to be invisible. 7/ Radiation poisoning. I'm not aware of how quickly this amount of gamma radiation would harm you. However, I now invoke GM fiat and say I really meant downshifting the light energy to make longwave radio waves. Problem solved. 2/ Yep - this is the point I referred to in my last post. I'm surprised it took people so long to notice. I'll have a think about this one, but you win... for now. :-]
Hey now! My theory wasn't torn apart, it was just impaled. You make it sound as if it died under a hail of counter arguments. In fact it only fell to a single fundamental flaw. :P Saying your theory has the advantage of not needing to know how it works is an odd idea. A theory is an explanation after all. Might as well say that you're less likely to lose a fight 'cause you didn't show up. ;) I think Eyeless Blonde put it well enough - we're arguing this not because we need an answer, but because we find the exercise good for us. And I'm 100% with hyzmarca in that this sort of stuff is good for the atmosphere of the game. That's why the answer of "it's magic" has no use to us.
Woah. Booklord! I like the framework that you have established here. You've produced something that only needs a very little more detail to fill out the corners and we have a working theory. It does depend on a key element though, which is that resisting the invisibility spell is not seeing the character, but noticing the flaws in the invisibility. That makes resistance less potent and I'm sure you'd end up with players saying, "yeah he knew someone was there, but he couldn't identify me." We might be almost there, though. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 5 2006, 08:12 PM
Post
#90
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Neutrons are not photons. If you walked through a functioning nuclear reactor, sure, maybe you wouldn't be bothered by the x-rays. But your DNA is going to be doing the neutron dance, and you'll accumulate a lethal dose in a fraction of a turn. (10 years after removal from a reactor and ceasing fission reactions, fuel assemblies still emit about 10,000 rem/hour; lethal dose is about 500 rem. The neutron radiation released by an operating reactor is fearsome.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 5 2006, 08:26 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 21 Joined: 10-May 06 Member No.: 8,546 |
Check out "On The Run" adventure, page 19, under "Detecting Invisibility." It doesn't address some of the "bend light" discussion, but it might help your group come to a decision on handling invis.
Personally, we just suspend our disbelief and say the invis character can see, and can't be seen (though can be found via other senses, leaves trail on dusty floor and so on). We don't much care how this happens any more than how trolls and dragons are around. It just is. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 5 2006, 11:12 PM
Post
#92
|
|||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Bhahahaa! :grinbig: |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jun 6 2006, 01:49 AM
Post
#93
|
|||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Again, not quite getting what I'm saying. The point isn't so much that the image being projected is going to be any different, so much as the image being projected might well miss the intended target, unless either 1) the illusion is "spread out" over some sort of probability cone, or 2) the spell "reads ahead" somehow to find out where the target's eye is going to be. Also keep in mind that the movement of light isn't the only process taking place here. You've also got to first detect all the observers in the area, a process which can be done at astral speeds and is therefore fast but not instantaneus (else there would be no limit to astral movement rate, among other things). Then you've got to figure out what points to manipulate the light, actually go about downshifting and upshifting all that light, making exceptions for certain hand-picked photons so the mage can still see, and send them on their way. Are all these things supposed to be instantaneus? If they are, a rather big assumption, only then will the time only be limited by the speed of light. Likely you are asserting that all the processes described above are in fact instantaneus, when there is in fact no reason to suspect they should be, making that as much a waste of space as it is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. My point was that the existence of this probability cone still does exist and makes the problem highlighted in 2) worse.
The covered flashlight problem is different from the invisible flashlight problem. Here the flashlight is perfectly visible; only the cover is invisible. It's actually a specific case of the shadow problem, which I'm struggling with in my own thread. Here's the case: The mage casts invisability on the cover of a flashlight, and is shining it around in a dark room. He casts it at a low force, and willingly fails his save, so the cover is effectively invisible. A) If the flashlight is pointed away from him, does the room light up? B) If the flashlight is pointed toward him, does the room light up? C) If the mage leaves the room entirely (still sustaining the spell), does the room light up? D) Same three questions, but from the perspective of guard D who *does* resist the spell. The more general question would be for shadows: would an observer still be able to locate an invisible mage in a brightly lit room by looking at this shadow on the floor? The intuitive answer in your rule would be yes; just as random rays of light coming from other directions are not altered, the rays of light from the sun overhead would not be altered, because they're going to the non-observing ground instead of directly to the observer's eyes. Or is your spell calculating essentially random diffuse reflections too, and making those ? This would make the answer to above questions A and C No, unless you are adding the extra escape clause I specified, in which case the answers would be Yes, then No respectfully. The answer to B above would be Yes, because the mage is looking directly at the flashlight cover, and thus the spell would be forced to allow light from the flashlight through in order to make the flashlight invisible to the unresisting mage. The answers to D would be similarly No, Yes, No, (or Yes, Yes, No) which is, frankly, really weird. Was this intended?
Heh, all right then. That's better than X-rays at least.
I won't even bug you about violating the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, because I'm pretty sure there are certain tricks using quantum informaiton theory you can use to get the original photon back. That and I only barely understand the theory myself; someone else with a better grasp (and likely a higher degree) would have to evaluate things on those lines. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 6 2006, 05:11 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,266 Joined: 3-June 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,638 |
Woah! This thread is getting long and complicated!
My two pence... Trying to create an invisible source of light is bloody silly, just as a stealth plane or submarine using active sensors (sonar or radar) will reveal its position. For comedy value, consider the mage walking through a dark room shouting "Ping!" and listening for echoes. I would allow invisibility to be cast on an object to permit line of sight for indirect spells, but not direct spells. Of course this does render the mage casting the spell visible to his target. This isn't a problem when it's a mook, but the caster would themselves be vulnerable to indirect spells cast at them. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 6 2006, 05:23 PM
Post
#95
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
Two players are currently playing magicians with Improved Invisibility spells. Two other characters that used to have the spell have since been killed in action. I've had to make a lot of judgements when it comes to this spell. It says right in the book that successfully seeing throught a physical illusion allows you to see that the illuson is fake but does not dispel the illusion. As such I've always thought that the improved invisibility spell disguised your identity even if the observer saw through it. Think of it as the equivalent of the high-tech "stealth" suit. Even if you saw through the suit's "invisibility" you wouldn't be able to make out who it was. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 6 2006, 06:16 PM
Post
#96
|
|||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
:rollin: Werner Heisenberg speeding down the motorway when the police pull him over: "Do you know how fast you were going" asks the officer? "No," replies Heisenberg... "But I know exactly where I'm going!" Actually, I'm okay with violating Heisenberg. I think if we ever really wanted to put together a comprehensive theory of Shadowrun magic, it would be based on manipulating quantum uncertainty somehow. Now on with the dance... :proof: Firstly the magic vs. light in the 100m. We don't need to rule out instantaneous travel time for magic. Since we're on a quantum theme, please recall that quantum information does have an instantaneous speed (witness quantum entanglement or what Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance"). Now if magic were to use such a principle then it might certainly be possible to keep track of another aura instantly and irrespective of distance. And considering the gross violation of classical physics that magic represents, it seems quite reasonable to look for its explanations in post-classical physics. In addition to this, I can make a case for magic using higher dimensions which would also adequately explain the apparent instantaneous action at a distance. It's worth noting that one of the most popular theories of modern physics proposes 11 dimensions in total. As a preliminary, I'll just cover why magic operating in higher dimensions would explain the instantaneous action at a distance, although I expect you will know this. Consider a point (x,y) in two dimensional space. Let's say it's co-ordinates are (2,4). Now it appears that another point (3,5) is actually in a different place and there is no contact between the two. However, if I look at the points in three dimensions, I may find that the points are actually (3,5,9) and (2,4,9). Suddenly it becomes clear that in one of the dimensions, there is a point of contact. To anyone viewing in two dimensions, the points are remote, but this is misleading, because there is actually a correspondence. Now that's a wild hypothesis and may seem a fiddle, but there are other elements that support magic operating in higher dimensions. For example, magic appears to bring energy out of nothing. It doesn't consume matter or energy from anywhere discernable. It doesn't even give off tell-tale radiation that would indicate an atomic process. As far as we can tell, energy comes from nowhere. But classical physics denies that energy can be created or destroyed. We have two options compatible with known physics: a massive adjustment of quantum probability or translation of the energy from elsewhere, i.e. it is drawn from a higher dimension. Another argument is astral space, beings and perception. In each of these cases we have evidence of something being "there" but undetectible to any known scientific techniques. In what sense could this be? The only possibility is that it is in dimensions other than the common three which current scientific instruments can measure. Indeed, the more we consider this model, the more it fits with all the known elements of Shadowrun magic. Now having said all that, it's pretty irrelevant because even if magic is limited to the speed of light, it still doesn't affect our invisibility spell. Here is our illusion (whether presence or absence of light) at the time n. x represents our observer. WIDEMAGE represents our invisible subject from shoulder to shoulder. The little arrows (note the elegant new style) represent the light or absence of light for any given physical illusion spell.
Here are the new positions of both at the time the light reaches the observer,
Do you notice how x who is moving at incredible speed is now 0.5 pixels to the right? No, neither can I because a single pixel on our screen is not small enough to represent the difference. If we assume that x is going at supersonic speeds and is a couple of miles away then x may, just may, witness the small thread ends of of the left sleeve of Wide Mage's t-shirt become visible. Light is that fast. Play with the numbers yourself and see what I mean. We need neither probability cone nor sixth sense. The scenario you are talking about is the bullet hitting a bullet scenario of a single photon hitting a single receptor. This is not the case. We're talking about billions of photons aiming for a target that is, to them, the size of Jupiter's butt. I'm sorry to get excited, but it is. Regarding the issue of shadows, etc. We're partly covered by this because the only shadows we have to worry about are those aiming [i]towards[/]i the observer. But yes, I consider the possibility of shadows being one of those things that an observant victim (i.e. made her resistance roll), could use to detect an invisible being. This is one of those instances where I think all of our theorising has resulted in adding more realism and atmostphere to the game. Admit it, it's pretty creepy when a player makes their roll and the GM tells them they see the faint shadow of a man walking along the floor towards them. Okay, covered flashlight. I see what you mean now. I guarentee that any player that thought that up in my game would earn themself a karma point. That's brilliant. Yes, my theory does result in the room being lit for some people, dark for others and varying according to if you're looking in different directions. It seems that to resolve this with any variation on my theory, we now have to track not the location of targets, but whether or not they discern any environmental difference resulting from the target's presence or absence. I'm really torn on this. In a way, it would be enormous fun to have a combat in a room that was dark for some people and magnificently lit for others. I can just imagine the dialogue. Player to troll: "Aim left, left... No! Your other left!" But the long-term consequences of repeated use of this tactic would spoil things. So I suppose the answer is back to the drawing board. Still it's been fun. I think we have to examine these arguments in the case of booklord's theories. He is our last best hope. Khadeem now gracefully cedes the floor bloody but smiling having done his best to justify the absurd. :) Although... looking back at my dimensions hypotheses... I might have one more idea. Hmmmmm. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 7 2006, 01:28 AM
Post
#97
|
|||||||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Just a few comments:
Good reasoning for most of the above, but this is an incorrect analogy. The addition of a third dimension does not decrease the distance between the two particles in any way. The particles are not in any more contact upon adding the third coordinate than they were when looking at the original two; the fact that they have the same z-coordinate is nothing more than an artifact of the frame of reference you chose for your coordinate system. Rotation of this frame of reference would make the z-coordinates different, but this does not mean that the particles themselves have somehow gained or lost any correspondence they once had, other than the mathematical convenience of being in the same z-plane.
Perhaps it's not clear why this is a problem:
Now, Invisible mage M is standing in front of mook A. A can't see M because he failed to resist the spell, poor bastard, so the left-pointing light rays go through M as you predict. However, the upward-pointing rays aren't going anywhere near A, so they are unmolested. However, since those light rays are coming from a nice bright spotlight, this leaves a nice black shadow S under the mage, which A can clearly see. Or can he? Let's assume the spell can somehow intuit that this shadow would be there and allows the upward light to go through M to compensate. Poor mook B! *He* resisted the spell, but now, because the spell had to make the light move through M to fool A, he gets shafted anyway. See the problem?
I await your new theory, boxing gloves at the ready. :D |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jun 7 2006, 09:50 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Mr. Quote-function Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,317 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Somewhere in Germany Member No.: 1,376 |
First I have to say: ~HAHA~
Second I have to say: ~HAHA~ again. Why? Pretty simple: You guys are now experiencing the same problems that german players and GMs had with SR3 due to a fucked up translation that said that physical indirect illusions physically bend light around its primary target despite the illusionary effect for an observing "target" (Note that in SR3 both the person that was made invisible and any observers were "targets" of the spell). But it wasn't a purely german problem back then, because more than once (even on this board) in the discussions on how the physical version of the invis spell worked the light bending theory came up .. soon to be followed by problems of being blind, potential overheating and a dilemma with spell resistance. The RAW-solution back then still imposed certain LOS issues like the example given with the invisible troll working as shield for another person (the real trouble starting once that second person suddenly steps into vision field of a person that couldn't see her just seconds before). So what's new? Someone in the SR4 staff brought that light bending into the spell description of physical invis ... and the argument starts once more. And currently of two solutions one (namely the one where light is bent / warped at / around the observer) pretty much does what the SR3 version did, leaving certain LOS problems and the other solution (affecting the light at the invisible person) still raises the question how that would allow for a resistance test (the described effect being more of a complete physical alteration that a manipulation spell usually imposes). But why the second laughter? Because of the FAQ-reference ... Even before shadowrunfaq took over the job, there were certain rulings in the FAQ that had nothing to do with RAW (and to a certain extend raised the question if Rob Boyle had actually read his own rules, since at some point he did the FAQ himself). Once shadowrunfaq took over we got a dedicated FAQ writer ... who simply created various instances where he went more or less straight against RAW and game concept... The LOS creation through walls by the physical invis spell being one of them, because the illusion of seeing through a wall (even if you decide to actually show what truely is behind that wall) doesn't generate what is required for casting spells: actually seeing a target with either physical or astral sight. And that FAQ answer still ignores the debate whether or not in SR3 an invis spell can actually be cast on a single non-living object. So what's my solution? I'll stick with what I've played in SR3 and that's the solution where light is altered at / within a perceivers "eye" to create the false image of "there's nothing there" and where even the person under invis spell has to resist the spell in order to see him / herself. Both leading to the following when it comes to flash lights: The light of carried flash light will be "invisible" to anyone who failed to resist the spell ... And since somebody brought up the "magic isn't intelligent" issue: Magic clearly is "intelligent" despite what stood in MitS (or even prior rulebooks), since it's capable of fulfilling the desired purpose of spells with target restrictions. But magic isn't intelligent enough to make decissions outside that. A spell cannot alter it's purpose or willingly ignore a normally valid target. But it will ignore any target that isn't valid by design. To make an example: You could create invis a physical manipulation where light actually is bent around a target (let's just ignore the fact that this person would be blind during that time and let's also ignore the potential heat problem *that IIRC would only arise after quite a while*) => Such a spell could not be resisted by any observer since the target of the spell is just the light that's being bent. Now let's assume that our invisible person is holding a flash light and turns it on (doesn't matter that she can't even see the light) ... In this case the light (or better its reflections) of the flash light could be perfectly seen by any observer and only that part that actually travels back to the invisible person would be subject to the light beinding effect of the spell. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 7 2006, 12:36 PM
Post
#99
|
|||||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
See? My idea isn't so radical after all. :)
Well, I argue that's not so much intelligence as it is limitation on the part of the targets. Dog whistles, for instance, affects dogs but not humans not because the sound itself is selectively choosing whom to affect so much as humans are simply incapable of perceiving high-frequency sound. I always kinda thought of mana invisability as similar; it affects living targets only, not because technological targets are being specifically excluded, but because the nature of the mana spell only affects living targets. The whole idea of magic "consciously" selecting targets based off of a conditional criteria was why knasser's idea was originally so distasteful, and why I kept referring to "computational complexity" while discussing it. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 7 2006, 01:09 PM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Now that's just silly. Quantum physics =! metaphysics. Attempts to equte them in the real world are little more the pseudoscientific quackery that makes adherents look very foolish. Likewise, if you want a reaonable and realistic scientific foundation for magic in SR attempting to use Quantum physics to justify magical effects is a mistake. In fact, there already exists a stable foundation upon which a player or GM can build metaphysical theory in the form of Earthdawn. The nature of magic and metaphysics is far better devolped in Earthdawn than it is in Shadowrun simply because magic in Shadowrun is very new. Metaphysics was the primary science of the Fourth World and it was well understood then. In Earthdawn, everything has a metaphysical Pattern. Patterns are essentially similar to Plato's concpt of Forms. Generic objects have a generic Pattern while unique objects and sentient beings have a unique True Pattern but the principal is the same for both. An object's Pattern is what dtermines its nature and its properties. Magic is able to connect, manpulate,create, and alter these Patterns. Now, most of these magical manipulations are temporary. A fireball or an acid wave will quickly vanish. Long-lasting spells usually have to be sustained. However, it is possible to make permenant alterations to a Pattern or create a permenant True Pattern. The fact that these Patterns determine the physical properties of an object becomes very obvious when you look at the Wyrm Wood/Blood Wood. The change to its pattern caused massive changes throughout the forest. Now, since magic is all about manipulating metaphysical energies and metaphysical patterns it seems obvious that the explination for any spell would be metaphysical. LOS is fundamental to spellcasting. We might ask outselves why this is. Perhaps sight isn't just about interpertating reflected photons. Perhaps, sight has a metaphysical component. Perhaps, seeing something creates a temperory link from the Pattern of the viewed to the Pattern of the one that is seen. In this case, we can assert that Invisibility prevents this link from forming. This provides a great explination of mana invisibility. Cameras have Patterns just like anything else so we can assume form the same type of metaphysical link when they see but because they are not alive mana spells cannot do anything to them. Improved invisibility is simply prevents inanimate objects from forming this type of metaphysical link. With this theory, the question of wether or not you can see behins an invisible object is not answered. It could go either way. However, it is obvious that you cannot form LOS using invisibility if this is the case. Personally, I would assume that you can see behind invisible objects, with all forms of invisibility. As for the invisible flashlights, according to my theory an invisible flashlight can still illuminate objects but you cannot see the light it you look directly at it. As for the invisible flashlight cover, you can see th elight if you look directly at it but it will not illuminate any object. This theory also accounts for magical vision enhancements which are resisted. Instead of directly improving a sense it creates an artificial metaphysical connection between the target and the subject. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th July 2025 - 12:59 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.