IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How to beat a levitating invisible dead horse, Invisible vehicles.
will_rj
post Oct 10 2006, 02:22 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12-July 05
From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Member No.: 7,496



I´ve searched a bit before clicking in the New Topic button, but i´ve failed to find that point addressed in some old topic.

Here it is: The group´s mage casted Imp. Invisibility in the Rigger´s van. I didn´t want to break the game´s momentum by starting a rules argument, so i said ok, it can be done, let´s use TN 4, as stated in the spell´s text.
I´ve warned the players that most probably that ruling would be changed in our next session and now i would like to hear some opinions on it.

Should the TN be the vehicle´s OR , or even worse, (B+A)/2 + OR ?

I´ve thought about changing the Invisibility spell and make it work like Levitate, which has TN increases for every 100Kg levitated, what do you ppl think ? Trolls would get the shaft, but it seems more or less reasonable. Perhaps this ruling would only work with Improved Inv, since the other Inv spell is, IIRC, not physical.

And there´s more: If the vehicle is invisible, so are the seats ? What about the golden dice hanging in the mirror ? And the goddamn rigger ? Sound too much for a spell with a relatively low drain. How would an area version of invisibility work ?


Edit: Added missing text. (boldface)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Oct 10 2006, 02:25 AM
Post #2


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



The target of Improved Invisibility is the person or persons viewing (or not in this case) the illusion. Not the subject, which in this case is the van.

In other words, the Object Resistance doesn't come into play at all, as you are not trying to affect the van itself, but merely other people's perceptions of the van.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Oct 10 2006, 02:30 AM
Post #3


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (will_rj)
And there´s more: If the vehicle is invisible, so are the seats ? What about the golden dice hanging in the mirror ? And the goddamn rigger ?

To answer this question would require pinning down exactly how Invisibility works, which is damnably hard. Suffice it to say that there are strong arguments against "it makes things transparent", which is what it would have to be to have the seats, dice, and Rigger matter.

The classical version of this dilemma is "I cast Invisibility on the door. Do I see the room beyond?"

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Oct 10 2006, 02:31 AM
Post #4


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



I would curb this by ruling that the van's invisibility does not make the passengers invisible, they require their own personal invisibility spells unless they are cyberneticly attached to the van and the van has paid for them with essence.

This gives you Wonder Woman's Invisible Jet syndrome. Yes, it is invisible, but people are going to know that you are riding in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Oct 10 2006, 02:41 AM
Post #5


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



Then you'd get the situation that Kage described. The question then would be "Which situation is worse?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
will_rj
post Oct 10 2006, 02:46 AM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12-July 05
From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Member No.: 7,496



QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Oct 9 2006, 11:30 PM)

The classical version of this dilemma is "I cast Invisibility on the door. Do I see the room beyond?"


At least this one is addressed in here

http://www.srrpg.com/resources/faq.shtml#4

QUOTE
If you cast Invisibility on a wall, can you then cast spells at targets on the other side since line of sight is no longer obstructed, while still receiving cover from the wall from bullets?
Yes. If you successfully cast Invisibility on a wall (keep in mind that the Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the wall's Object Resistance), then it no longer blocks LOS and you can cast spells through it (except for elemental manipulations, which will still hit the wall). Likewise, the invisible wall will not provide cover from any ranged attacks (unless the attacker resists the spell's effect), though it will provide an armor bonus, since the bullets must still pass through the wall.



Edit: And it seems to kinda answer my question, since the OR is actually being used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Oct 10 2006, 02:56 AM
Post #7


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



That's from the FAQ, which makes it… controversial.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
will_rj
post Oct 10 2006, 03:02 AM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12-July 05
From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Member No.: 7,496



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
That's from the FAQ, which makes it… controversial.

~J

I´ll prolly stick with my 100Kg ruling, even though i´m not sure that invisibility should be related with the object´s weight, at least i´m sure that it shouldn´t be related with the object´s resistance. Why should a diamond ring be harder to be made invisible than , say, jelly ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ShadowDragon8685
post Oct 10 2006, 03:12 AM
Post #9


Horror
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,322
Joined: 15-June 05
From: BumFuck, New Jersey
Member No.: 7,445



QUOTE (hyzmarca)
I would curb this by ruling that the van's invisibility does not make the passengers invisible, they require their own personal invisibility spells unless they are cyberneticly attached to the van and the van has paid for them with essence.

This is so unbelievably funny. :)


So... How much essence does a minivan get? Do armor plating and weapon installations reduce it? Do aftermark add-ons remain visible unless paid for in essence? :)



Heheh. In all honesty, I would say that the van becomes invisible, and the occupants do not unless also made invisible with seperate spells that must also be sustained.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Oct 10 2006, 03:23 AM
Post #10


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



Normally, vans would not get essence. However, if the van was a flesh form bug spirit using SR4 rules then essence=force.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Oct 10 2006, 03:26 AM
Post #11


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



by using astral perception and a levitated stick...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
will_rj
post Oct 10 2006, 03:29 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12-July 05
From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Member No.: 7,496



QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Normally, vans would not get essence. However, if the van was a flesh form bug spirit using SR4 rules then essence=force.

That said, i would like to add that the invisible van issue happened in a Bug City game. But we´re playing by SR3 rules, so we only have to worry if the van is someone else´s ally spirit. And, of course, if it just happens to be dikoted, then what would be it´s OR ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trax
post Oct 10 2006, 03:30 AM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 470
Joined: 2-January 05
From: Quebec
Member No.: 6,924



I always thought Wonder Woman's invisible jet was lame. How do you pilot something that you can't see!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Oct 10 2006, 04:06 AM
Post #14


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



QUOTE (Trax)
I always thought Wonder Woman's invisible jet was lame. How do you pilot something that you can't see!

Through the magic of BDSM and bisexual polygamy.

Seriously, the husband-wife team that created Wonder Woman modeled her after their live-in lover, with whom they had a revolving BDSM relationship. This goes far to explain why wonder woman became powerless when her bracelets were chained together.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odei
post Oct 10 2006, 04:29 AM
Post #15


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 13-July 04
Member No.: 6,476



QUOTE (will_rj)
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Oct 9 2006, 11:56 PM)
That's from the FAQ, which makes it… controversial.

~J

I´ll prolly stick with my 100Kg ruling, even though i´m not sure that invisibility should be related with the object´s weight, at least i´m sure that it shouldn´t be related with the object´s resistance. Why should a diamond ring be harder to be made invisible than , say, jelly ?

By the same token, why is something that's heavy more difficult than something that's lightweight? The size of a subject would be better, though I think that's what you're getting at.

Also, isn't OR based on how manufactured or processed something is, not its density? So a toxic jelly compound may be very difficult to use magic on, while a diamond is fairly natural. You might be confusing OR with BR.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
will_rj
post Oct 10 2006, 04:36 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12-July 05
From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Member No.: 7,496



QUOTE (odei)
Also, isn't OR based on how manufactured or processed something is, not its density? So a toxic jelly compound may be very difficult to use magic on, while a diamond is fairly natural. You might be confusing OR with BR.

er...

why don´t we all pretend that i knew what i was talking about ? :huh:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fygg Nuuton
post Oct 10 2006, 06:45 AM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 897
Joined: 26-February 02
From: TIME OUT
Member No.: 1,989



Since invisibility doesn't make anything transparant, it CAN be used on the van. Everything within it is also invisible.

However, the truck that rams into them is not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John Campbell
post Oct 10 2006, 07:07 AM
Post #18


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 9-November 02
From: The Republic of Vermont
Member No.: 3,581



That particular FAQ ruling is an enemy to actual written rules, long-established magical principles, sane gameplay, and even internal consistency. I recommend printing out a copy, ritually destroying it with fire, and then forgetting it ever existed.

(Using illusion spells to establish LOS for casting. Shambling Zombie Christ, what were they thinking? What's next, making a Trid Phantasm of somebody and then using it to target spells on them?)

And given that Invisibility affects a subject and their gear (I loaned out my books to someone I'm trying to hook on SR, so I can't quote chapter and verse, but it's something to that effect), I think that the logical conclusion is that it should make the van and all its contents and conceptually associated things (like the spare tire on the back, the "Dunkie For Prez" bumper sticker, and the kayak strapped to the roofrack) invisible, for as long as they're in/attached to the van. Stuff that enters/becomes attached to the van after the casting is trickier, but I lean towards leaving it visible unless the caster is present and takes a moment to adjust the spell to cover it. I'd also disallow making anything invisible that's larger than the caster's area effect radius (with normal modifiers for increasing said radius).

The spell shouldn't have to beat the van's OR, but should have to meet the Force requirements necessary to affect any technological sensors that are trying to detect the van (assuming Improved Invisibility, of course, the other being unable to affect technological sensors at all). That FAQ directly contradicts this, but, again, kill it with fire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bodak
post Oct 10 2006, 11:17 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 573
Joined: 23-July 03
From: outside America
Member No.: 5,015



QUOTE (will_rj)
I´ll prolly stick with my 100Kg ruling, even though i´m not sure that invisibility should be related with the object´s weight, at least i´m sure that it shouldn´t be related with the object´s resistance.

Kilograms are not a scale of weight (a force, measured in Newtons) but a scale of mass (amount of stuff). So if you are trying to affect a 45kg dwarf on the surface of the earth (normal weight), at the bottom of a mine shaft (less weight) or at the top of a mountain (less weight) the TN will remain the same because the dwarf is still made of the same amount of stuff and you're trying to affect it all (such as with levitate for example). Object resistance, say using the Ram/Wreck spells, describes how unnatural an object is and thus how hard it is to affect it with magic. It's easier to cast Levitate on a microchip than a sperm whale because you're affecting less stuff. It's easier to cast Animate on the corpse of a sperm whale than a microchip because it's a more natural object.

But as Fortune says, Improved Invisibility doesn't affect the substance at all - it only affects living eyes' and visual-based technological sensors' ability to detect the object. It just makes a 'blind-spot' which the brain will do its best to fill in and computer algorithms will try to interpolate. If you've ever played around with those cards that have an X and a O on them you'll know what happens when the X enters your visual blind-spot. You don't notice it any more and you 'see' whatever your brain thinks should be there. If the X and O are on white card, you see blank white space where the X was. If it was a green and red checkered card, you see green and red checks where the X used to be. If you cast Imp Invis on a microchip on a table, you see an empty table. If you cast Imp Invis on a sperm whale in the ocean, you see the ocean, with a rather vague area. If there is seaweed floating all over the ocean, there is seaweed floating in that section too. If you cast Imp Invis on a door you don't see the door any more and your brain fills in the blank area with the surroundings... ie you see a continuous wall meeting the carpet. If you cast Imp Invis on a van in the street, someone looking at that part of the street will see generic kerb and generic shopfront. If a man walks behind your invisible van, they will see the man, because they expect to. If he drops the newspaper he is carrying though, they won't see that until they actually see him emerge from the other side of the van sans newspaper, do a double-take, and swear they need more sleep. If similar things keep happening in that bit of space over an extended time (say the time it takes the observer to finish his cup of soycafe while staring across the road) he may realise something odd is going on and go and investigate.

Remember that Imp Invis doesn't defeat radar, ultrasound or pressure pads that could detect invisible cars, trolls, etc. I am not sure how stealth paint and radar jammers make planes and things invisible but I guess it is a similar principle: the waves simply aren't returned to the sensor, as if they're travelling off into space, and so the sensor interprets that 'no reading' to mean 'nothing there'.

Imp Invis is more like the Somebody Else's Problem field than transparency: it's just a means to trick observers into not noticing anything unusual is there. And that, as Slartibartfast would tell you, is a great deal easier than making something actually transparent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
will_rj
post Oct 10 2006, 11:25 AM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 12-July 05
From: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Member No.: 7,496



Your take, albeit being completely reasonable and well founded, goes directly against what seems to be the canon interpretation of it. (and that leads us back to J. Campbell´s fiery statement)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bodak
post Oct 10 2006, 01:08 PM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 573
Joined: 23-July 03
From: outside America
Member No.: 5,015



QUOTE (FAQ)
If you successfully cast Invisibility on a wall (keep in mind that the Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the wall's Object Resistance), then it no longer blocks LOS and you can cast spells through it

I believe it is this that John was objecting to, which I would too.

My view is the opposite of what the FAQ says. Instead of "I make this wall invisible so that now I can cast LoS spells at targets on the other side of it" my ruling is "I make this door 'invisible', so now I don't notice there is a door there at all, and see just a long, opaque wall."

Fygg Nuuton and John talks about things connected with the van being included in its invisibility area, just as my SEP field interpretation would. But that objects observed entering the area remain visible, just as they would in my SEP interpretation. And he says the spell must overcome the rating of sensors viewing the area - irrespective of the OR or mass of the object being hidden, just as I do.

In fact SR3 p195 explicitly says "Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility affects technological sensors as well." It has no effect whatsoever on the object, only on optic devices collecting light from the area around the object. Just as Fortune and I have said.

What in canon disproves my view? That's not a challenge - I just don't see it (sic), and I'm always on the lookout to improve the way I run things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Oct 10 2006, 01:57 PM
Post #22


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



Nothing whatsoever. It's been demonstrated several times that FASA had problems with the whole concept of "illusion" (see, for example, Other Place in Earthdawn).

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lorechaser
post Oct 10 2006, 02:39 PM
Post #23


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 19-August 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9,168



QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Through the magic of BDSM and bisexual polygamy.

Seriously, the husband-wife team that created Wonder Woman modeled her after their live-in lover, with whom they had a revolving BDSM relationship. This goes far to explain why wonder woman became powerless when her bracelets were chained together.


Did you really have to ruin our illusions, hyz?

Although I'll never see Wonder Woman without seeing the Family Guy bit about it.

Superman flies up next to WW in the air.

"So, hey Wonder Woman, flying your invisible jet, eh?"

"Uh, yeah."

"So, how's it goin'?"

"Listen, I'm actually in the invisible bathroom."

"So you mean right now you're....?"

"Yeah."

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Oct 10 2006, 02:50 PM
Post #24


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



I would largely go with John's example with one exception. I personally would not allow the TN of 4 for casting, rather I would enforce the OR (or at minimum, some penalty for the fact that the van is so big). This is more due to balance concerns than anything. Alternatively, I would tie the force of the spell to how large an object it can hide. Force 1 is about troll sized, force 2 is a motorcycle, so on and so forth, so at least if he's casting, he's taking some drain and can't slough off with the force 1 invis like people always do.

Finally, he'll still need to compete with ultrasound sensors, laser crash avoidence devices, radar, etc. that fits into the average or above average car. If he's driving through traffic, cars around him will not crash into him, but they'll begin reporting an anomaly which could possibly come up on the gridguide system (which I imagine has automated road hazard detection systems) and may result in further investigation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lorechaser
post Oct 10 2006, 03:39 PM
Post #25


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,333
Joined: 19-August 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9,168



I think size is a much better choice than weight. Since it's all about perceptions, hiding more area would be harder than hiding less area that weighed more.

You need to be careful with this, though - otherwise you'll have mages doing odd things like setting a physical barrier around the party, then making that invis to hide the entire group, etc....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 01:58 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.