 How to beat a levitating invisible dead horse, Invisible vehicles. |
  |
 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) |
 |
 
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2006, 02:30 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,952 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
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 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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?"
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Edit: And it seems to kinda answer my question, since the OR is actually being used. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 10 2006, 02:56 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,952 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's from the FAQ, which makes it… controversial.
~J |
|
|
|
|
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 |
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 ? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
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 ? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2006, 04:29 AM
Post
#15
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 13-July 04 Member No.: 6,476 |
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. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
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 |
er... why don´t we all pretend that i knew what i was talking about ? :huh: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2006, 11:17 AM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 563 Joined: 23-July 03 From: outside America Member No.: 5,015 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 10 2006, 01:08 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 563 Joined: 23-July 03 From: outside America Member No.: 5,015 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 10 2006, 01:57 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,952 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 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
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." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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.... |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th June 2023 - 12:40 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.