 Invisible Arms and Armor, Because either way, its broken |
  |
 Sep 23 2007, 05:24 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 67 Joined: 30-May 06 Member No.: 8,621  |
So, an interesting question has come up in my game. Mostly because I brought it up while designing a magical threat.
If you cast invisibility on a container, then place something inside, is the thing inside invisible? Or can you see through the container normally to whatever has been placed inside after the spell was cast. Think about it carefully. If the thing inside is invisible, casting invisibility on a sheet becomes the perfect way to hide a car or something in a car. Just wrap it in the sheet or cover the car in the tarp. If the thing inside is not invisible, we come to the topic of the thread. Invisible arms and armor. reloading might be a bitch, but melee weapons? Full combat armor at all times? It will probably get you in trouble if they mad scan you and find weapons they can't see. Ultrasound and radar get around this as well. There are plenty of ways to GM-screw someone who does this. But the question stands Invisible car, or invisible armor? |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 05:26 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 315 Joined: 12-October 03 From: Germany, Regensburg Member No.: 5,709 |
Aside from the problem, that if the heavy armor is invisible, you're naked (no, you aren't able to wear decent clothing BELOW full combat armor)... Wouldn't it be much easier to simply cast an armor spell on yourself instead? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 05:28 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
Given that Standard Invisibility is more of a "Your mind doesn't see this" effect, I'd allow what ever was covered to be invis, but every on-looker gets a save and cameras see right through the magic.
Improved invis works on cameras as well as people, in effect bending the light. That would be a item becomes transparent effect, but with all on-looker including sensors making a a resist test. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 05:31 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 67 Joined: 30-May 06 Member No.: 8,621 |
You're telling me you cant wear clothes under armor? I find that dubious at best. I've heard many arguments and recall (no book in front of me) rules on layering armor. Unless that full combat armor is attached to your skin (which is not unheard of)
a 8 force armor spell vs a 4 force invisibility spell |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 05:47 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Sustained spells aren't dynamic or intelligent unless they specifically state otherwise (such as with the Chameleon or Phantasm spells).
If you cast Invisibility on a suit of armor, poof, that armor is invisible. If you put the invisible armor, poof, you're wearing invisible armor. But you're not invisible. Instead, you'd probably just look ridiculous as you walk around looking like something is dishelving your clothes and making you move pretty ridiculous. It's even more goofy if it's full combat armor, where you're hovering an inch or so above the ground and walking not too unlike Frankenstein's monster. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 06:49 PM
Post
#6
|
|||||||||
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Here's how it works, IMO:
Yes, unequivocally.
No, that is never the case. Otherwise you run into the problem of "I turn invisible." "Ok lol they shoot at the food u ate 4 breakfast in your stomach! lol!" And other such ridiculousness. Or casting invisibility on a vehicle not turning the occupants inside invisible.
A sheet, however, is not a container. It does not close naturally. It must be tied off to do so, and is generally a pain in the ass. Furthermore, the car is never 'inside' the sheet unless the sheet overs more than 3 planes of it's cubic volume - otherwise it's just interposing between the viewer and the occluded object. I would rule such an object ONLY makes the object within invisible if its volume completely encloses the object, even if the container doesn't close. For a mental example of this, think of a garbage can. If I stick a 10 foot pole in the garbage can, the pole doesn't vanish because it sticks out the top. If I put a kitten in, the kitten vanishes because it's completely within the bounds of the can's volume. Otherwise you run into the problem of "Where does the invisbility stop?" If you hang a sheet up and it does occlude the car, why doesn't it also occlude your vision of everything behind it, including buildings and the planet? Do the runners 'stare into the abyss?'
This is why I don't have a problem with it. Spotting concealed weapons is only partially a matter of seeing the object - most of it involves seeing a bulge under a coat, watching how clothes move, or how the person who's packing is weighed down a little more on one side. It's harder if the object is invisible, sure, but that's why it's a penalty as opposed to "You can't do it." Technically, if I have no Palming and stick a hold-out pistol in a conceal holster and wear a long coat, you can still see if I'm packing - it's just really hard. Same with invisible stuff. What's more, if it's an AR on my back, you'll still be able to see the strap press down over my shoulder, rumple my clothes, et cetera. And it'll still make noise unless I take the time to make sure the buckle doesn't click, the stock doesn't rap against a button, et cetera. If people wanna wear full riot gear and make it invisible, sure. They're gonna look ridiculous, because whatever clothes they're wearing underneath are gonna be visibly depressed and matted by the armor. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 23 2007, 06:54 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
Sure you can cast Invisibility on a weapon or cover it with ruthenium polymer to make it invisible, but MAD scanners and millimeter wave radar scanners are going to spot it instantly anyways. So feel free to blow your resources on Invisibility and ruthenium polymer weapons, it won't get you into a night club or meeting room undetected.
As to casting Invisibility on armor or a cloak (sheet) and then becoming completely invisible when you put the armor/cloak/sheet on, sure why not? It's exactly the same as just casting the spell on the person, so what's the difference game-balance-wise? There is absolutely nothing broken about any of those scenarios. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:08 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Which you should. Noise discipline, you know? ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:17 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
Really stupid question...
Will Physical Mask allow you to do essentially the same thing? That is, put on armor, and then mask yourself so that you look (and feel) like you're just wearing normal clothes? For that matter, won't Physical Mask hide things like chrome, and potentially even weapons (e.g., as long as the gun was slung on your back when the spell was cast, and stays there, you're good)? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:22 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Well, yeah. But it's how you separate out pro runner from punk runner, neh? And yes, Big D. Physical Mask will do all of the things you describe. The only thing it won't do is mask the 'feel' of the armor - it still weighs what it weighs and encumbers you like it did before. It can look a lot nicer, though! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:34 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,246 Joined: 8-June 07 Member No.: 11,869 |
The interpretation of the Physical Mask and Improved Invisiblity spells all comes down to what you think is meant by the term "vision". I think the intention was that it affects normal/low/thermal and even ultrasound "vision" but not radars or magnetic sensors.
Therefore Masked and Invisible equipment and cyber is completely obvious to MAD and millimeter wave radar sensors. Since every night club and office building has those sensors, Mask and Invisibility (even physical versions) don't get you far. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:49 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Bushido Cowgirl Group: Members Posts: 5,782 Joined: 8-July 05 From: On the Double K Ranch a half day's ride out of Phlogiston Flats Member No.: 7,490 |
...NM. Already beat to the punch on this one by Buster.
As to using the armour spell, it's one drawback is that it makes you glow. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:54 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 315 Joined: 12-October 03 From: Germany, Regensburg Member No.: 5,709 |
I think that you can't wear MUCH clothes under armor. Especially if it's something like real combat armor (that will be rather form-fitting, to increase comfort). If your clothes are fitting too loosely, they will crumple under the armor (which makes them really uncomfortable). So you'll have to choose something very tight... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 23 2007, 07:57 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 524 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 8,455 |
"This alters the subject's voice, scent, and other physical characteristics as well."
That line concerns me, although I'd certainly accept a ruling that says that today's magic can't stop radar, period. As for the weight and feel, it would still feel the same to the wearer (thus no max wearable armor cheats), but couldn't it feel like a sweater to somebody else (although, if you tug on it, and it doesn't react like a sweater, you'll know that something's up)? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 08:08 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
IIRC, per previous edition(s), if someone reaches out and touches the subject of the physical mask spell, they feel what's really there. So your bouquet of flowers looks nice, but it still feels like a sawed off shotgun. Likewise, if you reach out and poke an invisible character, you can still do so, because he's still physically there.
Don't ask me where to find that though, I can't recall the specific reference. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 08:15 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Erm, no. You cast Invisibility on someone, and that someone is invisible. You don't cast invisiblity on their skin, or their hair, or their shoes... you cast it on them. A single entity/object. And that single entity/object becomes invisible. That includes vehicles or whatever. In the latter case, anything inside the vehicle at the time of casting is effectively invisible as well. Spells are not intelligent and don't change their effects on a whim. If you then go and pick up a flashlight, that flashlight doesn't become invisible. Even if you try and tuck it in your currently invisible jacket. To say otherwise is to say that the entire universe becomes invisible since, directly or indirectly, you're in contact with every single thing in the universe. The ground beneath your feet, the air touching your skin, the light reflecting off your body... everything. And if you sit back and nitpick all the minutiae, you have to do the same thing with all things magical, which is equally absurd. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 23 2007, 08:16 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I don't recall 2nd or 1st Edition's version of the spell, but in 3rd Edition, Mask was a full-spectrum illusion. Including scent, touch, taste, and sound. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 23 2007, 08:20 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Hmm. Maybe I'm just remembering a house rule from ages ago, then.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 23 2007, 09:31 PM
Post
#19
|
|||||
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
Yes, Dr. Funkenstein. That is exactly what I said in my post. I am assuming in all cases "What happens when you cast invisibility on an object that has other objects inside it." I am not addressing the question of what happens when non-invisible shit interacts with invisible shit. Cuz that's 100% house rule territory. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 24 2007, 12:15 AM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Don't know about Physical Mask, but the Fashion spell would do this quite nicely. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 24 2007, 01:26 AM
Post
#21
|
|||||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 67 Joined: 30-May 06 Member No.: 8,621 |
The question I'm posing is not "if i cast invisibility on a container are its contents invisible" but rather "If i cast invisibility on a container, and then place something visible inside, can it be seen". An invisible weapon will get picked up by MAD, yes, thats not the question. And as ultrasonic is Sound based, I'd argue it pierces invisibility. The problem arises from the invisible katana or gun being used. Well, no, thats not much different from an invisible attacker. The problem is "I want to hide this car in a parking lot. Invisibility Tarp, Go!" I had forgotten about physical mask. Casting it on full combat armor, short the boots then. It was an example used to illustrate a point. It could just as easily be someone in an invisible leather jacket with a teeshirt underneath, or a wifebeater, or spandex. Its not a matter of "will it look silly". Its a mechanic issue. One which, so far, the Doctor seems to have the best, or at least most confident argument for. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 24 2007, 02:00 AM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
The answer you are searching for is "House rule territory."
Personally, if I would allow a pre-existing invisibility spell to render an outside object invisible if the added object was able to be completely contained within the invisible object. That's based purely on an ease-of-play issue that was brought up in one of my games, back in 2nd edition. This is how I reason it: You are invisible. You go stand in a pool up to your neck. The invisibility continues to make you invisible, despite the fact that you are obviously displacing a large amount of water. You continue to be invisible when you get out, despite water being on you. There will be a circumstatial penalty to it being easier to see you for a bit. But you're not gonna be 100% visible (like a total body film of water should be, given that it's pretty recognizable). Case 2: I make my car invisible. It and my 3 friends are invisible. I step into the car, into the driver's seat, and close the door. I should logically be rendered invisible rather than a floating guy in the front, because the alternative is to set an invisibility 'state' upon casting that cannot be deviated from even slightly, and I feel that breaks the theme of magic in the game. In the case of total-body invisibility via an armor suit, sure. Sans the boots? No. Just because I gotta draw the line somewhere, if any part of the interior object sticks out, I figure it's not gonna be rendered invisible. As to Dr. Funk's argument, yes. Funk is very vocal about what he believes. He'll let you know how things are as he sees them. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2007, 02:03 AM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
That doesn't mean he's wrong. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 24 2007, 02:07 AM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566 |
I know. It also means he's not neccessarily right every time he's sure of something, which is all I was pointing out. In this particular case, he has an opinion, as do I: the rules are mute on what exactly happens in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 24 2007, 02:08 AM
Post
#25
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Doesn't mean he's right, either. ;) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 02:44 PM |
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.