Magical Minutia, Fuzzy on the finer points of Invis... |
Magical Minutia, Fuzzy on the finer points of Invis... |
Aug 14 2007, 03:43 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Haven't completely caught up on all the details of SR4, and still sometimes get the SR3 and SR4 rules twisted, so I'm hoping someone can help me out with these questions:
3. How about when he sets the rat down and walks away? 4. Does it make any difference if the process happens in reverse? (i.e cast invis on target, and then the target picks something up? 5. If I splash an invisible target with paint, do I see the paint, or does it become invisible too? 6. Magus the Mage wants to see into the room without opening the door. Can he cast invisibility on the door to see past it? 7. If he succeeded in making the door invisible, could he then shoot through the door without visibility modifiers? 8. Could he look through the door to obtain physical LOS for casting a spell at someone on the other side? 9. Normally, spells like invisibility are treated as 'friendly' and are not resisted. If you were casting an 'unfriendly' invisibility spell on someone (e.g., so they get shot by friendly fire, or maybe get run over while trying to jaywalk on a busy street), would they have any way to resist the spell and not turn invisible? 10. Sustained spells like this don't usually even require LOS to the target to maintain after casting (which would be difficult anyway on an invisible target). Once the subject was spelled invisible, is there any way they could break the sustainment other than finding and killing/knocking out the mage? 11. Do any of the answers to the previous questions change depending on whether the spell is invisibility or improved invisibility? 12. Does size have any impact on the difficulty involved? In other words, is it any harder to make a blimp invisible than it is to do the same to a motorcycle? 13. The description of Improved Invis speaks about bending light around the object. Why isn't this a Manipulation spell? Also, why would people get a willpower resistance roll to not be fooled by what the photons pinging against their retinas tells them? |
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 04:05 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 04:29 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Thanks, FT!
Looking at your response to #10 re: Background Counts... I was under the impression that background count removed dice from the test, not directly removing successes. (Maybe I was wrong on this?) If I rolled 12 dice and scored 4 successes on a spell, and then my target walked into a background count 3 area,
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 04:48 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
A sustained spell brought into an area with a background count has its Force reduced for as long as it stays in there. Force caps successes, so a Force 4 Invisibility cannot have more than 4 hits active. If you bring it into a Rating 3 Background Count, it'll fall down to a Force 1 spell and it will only count as having 1 hit. If a spell hits Force Zero or less it's disrupted and won't be coming back ever.
Note that a Force 7 Invisibility spell with only 4 hits could be brought into a Rating 3 Background Count and not really notice (it would drop to Force 4, the cap would drop to Force 4, and there were already only 4 hits so nothing important changed). -Frank |
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 05:04 AM
Post
#5
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 410 Joined: 5-April 07 From: Vancouver, BC Member No.: 11,383 |
Hey, how about spells that you spent edge on. Would the force limit the sustained spells hits for the reduced force? |
||
|
|||
Aug 14 2007, 08:16 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,925 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 948 |
13: I normally disagree on this one with SR in general.
Invisibility is an illusion spell that affects the MIND and fools the person no matter what gadgets he has because his mind refuse to aknowledge that person. So, no matter what personal sensors, scanners, ultrasound whizbangs he's still blind to the guy standing right in front of him if he failed the resistance test. Sure, as long as they have a mechanical sensor like say a drone piping information to an imagelink or so then they would see the target, unless it was an improved invisibility spell. |
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 04:12 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
I disagree on 8. He can cast invis on the door, and shoot through it fine. If he wants to cast on the people inside the room, he needs to open the door for LOS. Invisibility & Improved Invisibility can never grant LOS through their effects.
|
|
|
Aug 14 2007, 04:19 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Does response #1 mean if my group's troll picks up the group's dwarf, I can make them both invisible with just one cast, one drain resistance, and a single -2 sustaining penalty? |
||
|
|||
Aug 14 2007, 04:25 PM
Post
#9
|
|||||||
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Yes.
Considering that you can draw LOS through a Window I am totally boggled as to why you think that you can't draw LOS through a wall that you can see through. -Frank |
||||||
|
|||||||
Aug 14 2007, 04:43 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||||
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I'm imagining that Lonestar SWAT teams will have a new pre-assault regime. "Lonnie, Bill, Joe, Mark, Jane, everybody climb on Thumper [the troll] so the mage can 'Invis' you before you go in. Remember to keep in physical contact with one another as you go through the door." They'll be stacked up like a Cirque du Soleil performance. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Aug 14 2007, 04:58 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Until they hit a tripwire and *all* take max damage from that frag grenade... |
||
|
|||
Aug 14 2007, 05:18 PM
Post
#12
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
New uses for Gymnastics - enhancing the mage's abilities! |
||
|
|||
Aug 14 2007, 05:28 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
you know, it's funny... but a limited target (*very* limited target) invisibility spell that only affects the mage casting it would seem like a really popular spell to me... |
||||
|
|||||
Aug 14 2007, 06:52 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,245 Joined: 27-April 07 From: Running the streets of Southeast Virginia Member No.: 11,548 |
Jaid, you have no idea. :evil:
/e whistles innocently and mumbles something about runner opposition... |
|
|
Aug 15 2007, 01:57 AM
Post
#15
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
I'll retract my statement, seems they let magic grant LOS in SR4. Thats something I missed.
I guess the alternate to that is, in order for it to work, the mage must fail to resist his own spell in order to see through the door and be able to cast on those behind it. |
|
|
Aug 15 2007, 02:08 AM
Post
#16
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Magic can't grant LOS in SR4 that I am aware of. Certainly, Clairvoyance and its relatives can't. I don't see why Improved Invisibility would be much different.
But I've oft made known my preference for the invisible jet syndrome as a matter of flavor, so you can take my opinions of the subject with a grain of salt. Invisibility and Improved Invisibility have always been two of the most controversial and contentious spells. Because it is poorly defined it can be implemented many ways. Frank's method is self-consistent, which is a very good thing. Many implementations of invisibility lack self-consistency. But, it isn't an official clarification or a consensus and does not have to be considered definitive. That said, is a good choice to go with. Edit: |
|
|
Aug 15 2007, 02:11 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
It can hyzmarca. The reason is clairvoyance and its relatives specifically say they don't allow it. Invisibility/II doesn't. Thats whats different.
|
|
|
Aug 15 2007, 02:19 AM
Post
#18
|
|||
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Is there a page reference or official quote for that? |
||
|
|||
Aug 15 2007, 05:34 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
The rules are kind of vague. On page 173, it says that technological aids that substitute themselves for the user's own visual senses cannot be used. You could reason that magical aids that do the same thing would face the same restriction - it seems to lean that way when it limits a caster's targetting to "anything she can see directly with her natural vision."
As difficult to grasp as the SR3 rules for physical illusions were, the explanation of "false sensory input" at least explained why invisibility wasn't a manipulation spell while light was, and explained how you could resist improved invisibility. In SR4, it's more vague. So you determine that invisibility is an illusion. So, does that mean you "see" the invisible subject, despite the fact that the spell is bending light waves? Or does it mean that you see, say, a telltale shimmer, but still suffer blind fire penalties (in which case, what's the point of the resistance roll?). Maybe it's the former - a careful reading of the spell reveals that it may not even be total invisibility - it only makes the subject "more difficult to detect by normal visual senses". I swear, the invisibility in Eric the Viking made more sense. :S |
|
|
Aug 15 2007, 01:43 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
p. 198 "Clairvoyance (Passive, Directional) Type: M • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2) –1 Th e subject can see distant scenes as if physically present at a chosen point within the sensory range of the spell. Th e “visual point� may be moved to any other point within range of the spell. Th e subject cannot use normal vision or astral perception while using it. Th is spell does not translate sound, only vision. Any augmented vision possessed by the subject does not function through this spell, nor does astral perception. Magicians cannot use clairvoyance to target others with spells." |
||||
|
|||||
Oct 14 2007, 12:30 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 21-December 06 Member No.: 10,413 |
Yes, with caveats. 1.) It takes a complex action to cast the invisibility spell in the first place. 2.) You need to sustain the invisibility spell while casting the other spell. #1 potentially puts you in a position to lose LOS via target actions ( As your taking a complex action.) , and potentially opening yourself up to a losing surprise round. #2 requires you to take another complex action while sustaining the invisibility spell or the second spell should be an "Area of Effect" blindly fired into the area. LOS isn't being granted by the invisibility spell itself, its just removing a the penalty for a barrier to LOS. ( Different then using clairvoyance to remote "Turn to Goo" someone.) This trick works better in group situations, nothing like sneaking up on a safe house with your gun toting crew and making the door see through for a hail of bullets. |
||
|
|||
Oct 14 2007, 12:48 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,288 Joined: 4-September 06 From: The Scandinavian Federation Member No.: 9,300 |
This is a very informative thread. Nice work FTM :)
|
|
|
Oct 14 2007, 02:27 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Running, running, running Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,220 Joined: 18-October 04 From: North Carolina Member No.: 6,769 |
so heres how i see the newest lonestar strike team working:
Action 1: mage casts invis on door of the druggies hide out. action 2: strike teamers fling 'nades all over the place while everyone is still stunned at the light coming through their front door. then mage drops invis before the nades explode? |
|
|
Oct 14 2007, 02:58 PM
Post
#24
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
invisibility, the sr topic that never goes away :silly:
|
|
|
Oct 14 2007, 04:40 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 241 Joined: 14-December 06 Member No.: 10,360 |
That, and the matrix. Edit: Oh crap, I said the "M" word. |
||
|
|||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:10 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.