IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Invisabilaty + Paint
Mr.Platinum
post Dec 18 2003, 08:29 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 751
Joined: 7-June 02
From: Hamilton.LTG.on.ca
Member No.: 2,853



ok I have a feller in my group who says a paint gernade would reveal a person using invisabilaty.
I say once it contacts the person it also become invisibal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Dec 18 2003, 08:43 PM
Post #2


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



The spell Invisibility and Improved Invisibility don't actually make anyone invisible. They just tinker with your mind, making you not see them. Doesn't matter if they get splattered with paint, have a bag of flour dump on their head, are standing in the rain, or anything else. The spell makes you not see them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Joker9125
post Dec 18 2003, 09:00 PM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 606
Joined: 17-December 03
Member No.: 5,909



What about methods of invisibility that dont involve magic? My friend had a character that has a cloak that makes him invisible and no its not magical.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Dec 18 2003, 09:05 PM
Post #4


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



That's a completely different topic. Ruthenium becomes ineffective if you splatter it with paint. It's up to the GM to determine how ineffective it becomes, though. Without looking anything up, I'd probably lower its effectiveness by -1 for every success made on the Throwing Weapons test used to splatter the area... assuming the cloaked individual was within the area of the "blast."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Dec 18 2003, 09:06 PM
Post #5


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



Splash paint on either side of that stuff and two opposite regions will be visible. Where the paint is blocking the shifting colors and where the sheet is showing only the paint because that's all the sensors see.

It's not invisibility, it's very effective camo.

The spells are a more confusing matter entirely that has been debated wildly, but the answer will still be "no" until the rules change.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cray74
post Dec 18 2003, 09:23 PM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,428
Joined: 9-June 02
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (Mr.Platinum)
ok I have a feller in my group who says a paint gernade would reveal a person using invisabilaty.
I say once it contacts the person it also become invisibal.

Note: When you cast invisibility on yourself, it extends to your gear and clothing. If you're wearing camo ninja stealth runner clothing, it's invisible. If you're wearing garish, dayglo hawaiian shirts, it's mercifully invisible.

If you drop paint all over someone, then that's invisible, too.

However, you might notice oddities in the splatter pattern. If you spray paint toward a wall and, gee, there's a man-shaped spot on the wall without paint...and then dripping paint foot prints on the floor...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jpwoo
post Dec 18 2003, 09:42 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 12-September 03
Member No.: 5,613



QUOTE
The spell Invisibility and Improved Invisibility don't actually make anyone invisible. They just tinker with your mind, making you not see them.


I was under the impression that Improved invisibilty didn't just mess with your mind and really made you invisible. That is why it effects cameras and lets you walk through IR beams without setting off alarms.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shadowics
post Dec 18 2003, 10:24 PM
Post #8


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 5,917



Any form of camo like Ruthenium would be ineffective if splattered with paint, since it relies on changing color to keep you hidden, and the paint would negate that.

A mind altering spell would act like an SEP field. Technically people could still see you, but they wouldn't notice you, even if you were covered in paint. Depending on how effective the spell was they might not even notice the 'effects' of you, like paint foot prints on the ground. However, it wouldn't fool anything without a mind, like a security camera or an IR trip wire.

A Physical spell to manipulate the light or bend it around you would let everything see straight through you, people and machines. However, they could notice you by the space you take up, i.e. the lack of paint on a wall because it hit you instead. It would also have the side effect of making the invisible person completely blind to what they were invisible to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Backgammon
post Dec 18 2003, 11:02 PM
Post #9


Ain Soph Aur
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,477
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 600



QUOTE (Jpwoo)
I was under the impression that Improved invisibilty didn't just mess with your mind and really made you invisible. That is why it effects cameras and lets you walk through IR beams without setting off alarms.

Invisibility is an illusion spell, not a manipulation spell. Hence you are not really invisible, it's just an illusion.

In any case, I find it best not to look too closely at the logic of SR magic. It's not meant to be logical.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Dec 18 2003, 11:20 PM
Post #10


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



Any physical ilusion works to an extent that makes people shout "it should be a manipulation," but since any physical spell can be described as a manipulation, these borderline spells are categoried by the mana type spell with a similar result. Otherwise, the elemental balance would be even more messed up than it is now, and there would be no functional reason for having categories of spells.

The effect may be that of a photonic manipulation, but there are already too many manipulation spells compared o the other groupings, so it is an illusion, a very real seeming illusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Dec 18 2003, 11:25 PM
Post #11


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers." 'Nuff said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BumsofTacoma
post Dec 19 2003, 12:44 AM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 142
Joined: 2-December 03
Member No.: 5,871



QUOTE (Backgammon)


In any case, I find it best not to look too closely at the logic of SR magic. It's not meant to be logical.

Exactly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spookymonster
post Dec 19 2003, 01:51 AM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 22-April 02
Member No.: 2,638



SR3, p.195:
QUOTE
Improved Invisibility
Type: P...
...Improved Invisibility affects technological sensors as well.

II is a physical spell, so it affects more than your mind. And since technological sensors don't have a mind per se, that's a good thing. Otherwise, they'd see right through the illusion (like they do with the plain old Invisibility spell).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Dec 19 2003, 01:55 AM
Post #14


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



Here we go again.

Yes, it's Physical because it's affecting Physical objects. In this case, technological sensors (and notice the wording; "as well," meaning "in addition to affecting targets minds"). It in no way actually makes you invisible, it just makes people and things think/record you as being invisible. That's why some people can see through it while others can't. If you were actually invisible, that wouldn't happen; at best, they'd just know someone or something was present and would still suffer the +8 blind fire penalty.

But you know, treat it however you like. I honestly don't care what you do in your games.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
D.Generate
post Dec 19 2003, 02:08 AM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 5-March 03
From: Wouldn't you like to know?
Member No.: 4,203



I say kill said individual execution style to make an example to the group why not to argue with the god-like gm. And then, if need be, I can fill the now open slot on your group roster... I want to play in a game rather than be the gm constantly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spookymonster
post Dec 19 2003, 02:16 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 22-April 02
Member No.: 2,638



QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
It in no way actually makes you invisible...

<sigh> When did I ever say it did?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zazen
post Dec 19 2003, 05:59 PM
Post #17


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,685
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 3,123



I haven't really paid attention to the previous (humongous, heated) threads on invisibility picayunne, but I've just thought of a curious situation: If you shine a laser designator through an improved-invisible person, where does the guided missile go?

I see three possible answers:

-It homes in on the spot originally aimed for, on the other side of the character. This should mean that laser weapons and all other sorts of light actually go through the character, making him truly invisible in the light-bending way.

-It homes in on the character. Lame, IMO. It means that you should be able to illuminate invisible characters with bright lights, which is dumb.

-It nullifies the designator signal since it hits the character and the character is invisible, therefore the signal cannot be seen by the missile. This was my first impulse, but then I realized its implications. This would mean that light which hits the character "disappears", causing the character to leave visible shadows.


I hope this hasn't been brought up before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Dec 19 2003, 07:22 PM
Post #18


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'd say 1 or 3, either is equally valid. Why? Because the invis spell is an SEP field. It's not that you don't see what's invisible, it's that you do see whatever you're expecting to see there. So the person firing the laser designator would see a nice big spot on the other side of the person. You, as the GM, would determine whether or not the missile is 'expecting' to see the laser designator. If it IS expecting to see the laser designator somewhere, the only place it could put it is in the 'shadow' of the invisible person (making the missile less accurate, but since it would be hitting behind the person, the shooter will see what he's expecting to see; dead hit). If it ISN'T, it won't see the laser and will fly unguided until it has such a point of view that it can see around the person or hits something else. Obviously, the problem with this is you have to figure out what a missile expects...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zazen
post Dec 19 2003, 07:41 PM
Post #19


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,685
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 3,123



That leaves the question of shadows somewhat unanswered. Do they leave shadows?

Here's a weird situation:

CODE
|                                   |
|                                  A|
|                                   |______________________
|                                          B          Light
|                                   |
|                                   |


I'm A, and improved-invisible person B is in front of a light source in a hallway. Is there a shadow on the far wall? If yes, do I fail to see it due to the mind-altering component of the spell? B doesn't even have LOS to me, so should his magic work on me at all?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ol' Scratch
post Dec 19 2003, 08:23 PM
Post #20


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890



I'd say it's 4: The laser hits the target just fine, and the missle strikes the target unless the missle has to pass through where the character is. Laser weapons would damage the character as well, but you'd still have to hit him and be incredibly lucky (meaning, the GM would have to just be a dick about hitting him at random or the character would have to be directly in front of another appropriate target). The +8 penalty would/should still apply, however.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zazen
post Dec 19 2003, 09:09 PM
Post #21


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,685
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 3,123



QUOTE (Doctor Funkenstein)
I'd say it's 4: The laser hits the target just fine, and the missle strikes the target unless the missle has to pass through where the character is. Laser weapons would damage the character as well, but you'd still have to hit him and be incredibly lucky (meaning, the GM would have to just be a dick about hitting him at random or the character would have to be directly in front of another appropriate target). The +8 penalty would/should still apply, however.

That's a good one. The light is bent or replicated by the spell, but damage effects from the light are applied.

Now lets say you cast invisibility on someone and shoot a target behind him with a laser weapon. Does the rear target feel damage or does he just see an ineffective beam hit him in the chest?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Dec 19 2003, 09:33 PM
Post #22


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

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



You wouldn't see the guy's shadow because you don't WANT to see the guy's shadow. That's the spell. Lasers weapons would work because they have nothing to do with 'seeing' what you're ripping up, but you might not actually see the fact that you hit anything but the wall behind him. The guy behind the invisible man won't feel anything, although perhaps he'd see the searing beam of light on his chest (that is, until the invisible man is knocked down or whatever).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheScamp
post Dec 19 2003, 09:34 PM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 400
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 825



QUOTE
"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers." 'Nuff said.

Sure, however the bit that says physical illusions "create actual sensory input" is waaaay open to interpretations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rev
post Dec 19 2003, 10:54 PM
Post #24


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 675
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 2,034



QUOTE (TheScamp)
QUOTE
"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers." 'Nuff said.

Sure, however the bit that says physical illusions "create actual sensory input" is waaaay open to interpretations.

Well excep tthe interpretation that it affects only the mind... cause it says it makes real sensory input.

So maybe mana illusions affect the mind, and physical illusions affect the eyeball/nose/camera/etc?

I think it is open to interpretation whether invisibilty works on light based tripwires. Those aren't really vision.

Its not as if saying they affect the mind gets you out of the whirlpool of manipulation spells. There are all those cursed controling manipulations to cover that. Basically the only rule that works is that if you can fit a spell into any other category do, if you cant put it in manipulation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Dec 19 2003, 11:04 PM
Post #25


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



That's why illusion spells have been defined as "anything that sounds like it could be an illusion," because everything can be a manipulation spell of some sort.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st May 2023 - 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.