My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Line of Sight |
 Mar 15 2007, 09:58 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 500 Joined: 3-January 07 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 10,517  |
Invisibility doesn't technically affect people or tech several kilometers in either direction. As written, it affects only one person, the target of the spell. That's what the LOS refers to. The person being made invisible must be seen by the caster for the spell to work. It makes more sense with improved invisibility because there's not all that junk about the spell directly affecting the minds of the people seeing them, it just bends light around the person. Edit: Bleh, too slow, others have already said the same thing, more clearly. =P |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 15 2007, 10:54 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
That is why I said it may be semantics
Since anyone who can perceive the subject, has to be, by definition, in LOS, it just adds to the confusion. ;) I think the whole discussion took a semantics detour when it came to determining if a target who can perceive the subject leaves and arrive at a place where the target can again perceive the subject, does that target get a new resistance check? Silly me, I prefer rules to be general and constant. If you go thru a Fire Wall and successfully resist, taking no damage, then go thru that wall again, I believe that you should again have to resist taking damage. Same for leaving and re-entering the range of dection spells. And, once again :P , for Invisibility or Improved Invisibility, within reason. Blinking, looking away, etc.. should not trigger a new resistance check. But, a guard on patrol, who comes around 30 minutes later, I feel, should get another resistance check (well, as long as he is alert and actually looking around, and not just going thru the motions ;) ) |
|
|
|
|
Mar 15 2007, 11:01 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 393 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,754 |
Your reasoning would be correct if invisibility was an area effect spell like fire wall or mass agony. It is not. Therefore, the rules as myself and others are explaining are general and constant. Your houserule, however, is not consistent. What exactly is the difference between the guard who blinks or looks away and the guard who returns 30 minutes later? A time limit? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 16 2007, 10:46 AM
Post
#29
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
I really don't like the fact that because my interpretation is different from yours, that you assume that you are right, that I am wrong, hence whatever I say is a house rule. Any rule needs a bit of common sense. Your interpretation, well, if I push it a bit: cast Improved Invisibility and walk into a dark bar, and have a chance of being perceived by the off duty and drunk as skunk guards. Sustain the spell, have spirits sustain it while I sleep in my apartment across town. And then, 4 days later (and 4 services from a spirit or just a sustaining focus) I can walk right by that same guard crew, who are now fully awake, alert and professionally doing their job? To me, that seems ludicrous, but it also seems to be fully supported by your interpretation of the rules. As for when there should be a new resistance check, once the target is out of perceiving view of the subject? I have already stated that blinking, looking away, turning and talking to a buddy shouldn't cause a new resistance check, as you are still in perceiving range (which happens to be exactly the same range as LOS). But, as with a lot of rules, it boils down to the GMs call, as there are too many variables for a single ruling to cover them all. Personnally, a security guard on patrol, who is half asleep, just going thru the motions, probably wouldn't get a new resistance check either, but, part of the Secret Service guard detail for the President, who is sweeping that area again, I would say that they get a new resistance check. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 16 2007, 11:14 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
When to resist Invisibility is a game balance issue, not a magical rules issue. By logic, resistance tests should occur constantly. That doesn't work out too well, however.
As it is, you might as well ask when a guard gets to make a perception test to see a character who is using infiltration or shadowing. The answer is the same in both cases. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 16 2007, 05:58 PM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 393 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,754 |
The mage who lets the guards fail their resistance check ahead of time is spending a lot of time, effort, and resources (to bind the spirits and to find the guards drunk in a bar) for this trick. The mage can't even be certain these are going to be the same guards on that shift, or if he is he did a lot of legwork first. Because of all the work involved, I see no problem with allowing it. I like it when my players are creative.
Your "interpretation" is too loose. The purpose of game rules is to avoid the cowboys and Indians problem. If the players don't know what to expect from your sporadic ruling of magic, they can't plan ahead. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 16 2007, 07:21 PM
Post
#32
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
I like my rules to work both ways, for PCs and NPCs. I know that most players would be just a tad bit upset if a GM pulled something like that on them, cries of foul, railroading, etc.. Not counting that I think that that interpretation would make certain spells, like Invisibility out of proportionaly powerful. Hmm, and what happens to this sustained spell when one of the targets, after sobering up, goes to astral perception for some reason (or a mage looks at him), will there be a line of magic going back to the cast spell? some way of tracking it astrally? Hyzmarca, I agree, it is a game balance issue, and I believe that the way I do it, is similar, if not the same to your way of when a guard get's a new perception test for infiltration/shadowing, they get a new resistance check. Your description is much neater and shorter than mine ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 17 2007, 01:45 AM
Post
#33
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 393 Joined: 20-June 06 Member No.: 8,754 |
I don't see why you couldn't do the same trick to a PC if the situation were appropriate. It would take just as much work for a NPC. This has nothing to do with railroading. Maybe you should give your players more credit, or just find less whiny ones.
Not really. Grenades still work just fine ;)
Invisibility doesn't extend to the astral, whether or not the resistance roll was passed. If you mean astral signatures, because invisibility is not an area effect, the signature stays on the subject.
Except if someone passes a perception check, they still suffer the -6 penalty in combat. Clearly this isn't the same as constant resistance rolls that completely nerf the spell. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 17 2007, 03:54 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 4-September 06 Member No.: 9,304 |
I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this subject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 10:48 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.