Devs please help us out on the definition of some rules, stops derailing threads and can give us all a clearer answer (i hope) Options

[masterofm]

Ok so I have noticed that there are quite a few topics that go off topic on a rules debate (mainly dealing with rules that are not so clearly defined) so I propose that people bring up all the little small things that need a finer interpretation on what the rule was intended to do to prevent topic derailment.

I would love to have this one settled once and for all because I'm tired of arguing it.

Does the illusion spell invisibility or improved invisibility truly make things invisible so as to use it as a way to get around LOS issues?

Can mages chose to fail to see through their own spell?

example: I cast improved invisibility on a metal box I am hiding behind. I cast a stunball at the enemies charging at me because I now have LOS. Is this valid?

If that works then the mage casting would have had to fail against their own spell to be able to gain LOS. Can the mage choose not to resist the spell that they cast on the metal box or is this just not an option? Can you see the person and still not gain LOS on the target in the same way that you could see someone with radar vision but still be unable to target them?


It would be nice if other people could come up with similar loosely defined rules, or arguments on other topics so that hopefully we can all gain some clarity and allow for a single topic where devs can chime in and help us all out.

[Blade]

How does the defaulting in the Matrix work? (when rolling skill+program)

[masterofm]

How obvious is movement. If a person takes a single step does it actually translate into them taking five steps so that then take one very long blurry step, or can a person just pump their legs faster and takes five steps for every one instead? What does a person or anything with legs look like when movemented?

[Tarantula]

Nitpick... you don't "see" people with radar, which is why you can't cast on them with it.

[HappyDaze]

Nitpick... you don't "see" people with radar, which is why you can't cast on them with it.

I really think that all of the problems could be cleared up if the only way to target spells was with Astral Perception. Just give it to the Mystic Adept, and everything else will work out fine.

[Kurious]

Kudos masterofm for starting this thread.

/hoping for 'official' clarity to some very interpretable situations.)

[wind_in_the_ston...]

Does the illusion spell invisibility or improved invisibility truly make things invisible so as to use it as a way to get around LOS issues?

As much as I would love to see many issues cleared up by the authors, answering this one probably won't count. I, for one, refuse to believe that an illusion spell can reveal something that the caster is unaware of. I would categorically refuse to play by that rule. And I'm sure there are others that feel the opposite (and no, you don't have to tell me about it). It's probably better left to the imaginations of the players. Most groups tend to come to some sort of agreement about this sort of thing.

[ShadeRavnos]

I would think that with both Invis spells it would dwpwnd on how they exactly worked. Do they remove the object from the viewers perception or actually bend light around the object. Find out that answer and the problem's solved(I hope)

[Stahlseele]

regular invisibility in shadowrun basically tells you:"you can't SEE it!"
improved invisibility somehwere actually had the part about beinding light around said objects written into the description . . i think in one of the 3rd ed books . .

[toturi]

regular invisibility in shadowrun basically tells you:"you can't SEE it!"
improved invisibility somehwere actually had the part about beinding light around said objects written into the description . . i think in one of the 3rd ed books . .

4th Ed had the "warping of light" description in Improved Invisibility. 3rd Ed was fine.

In either edition, there was never a "bending" of light.

[Stahlseele]

warping, bending, same difference <.< . .
bigger problem than that would be the old: if i pick up that stone over yonder and put it into my bag while invisible, will the stone become invisible too?

[toturi]

warping, bending, same difference <.< . .
bigger problem than that would be the old: if i pick up that stone over yonder and put it into my bag while invisible, will the stone become invisible too?

The difference is that the statement can be taken to mean that literally, the light around the subject is warped such that there is the illusion of the subject being invisible. Using "bend", then the more likely inference is that the light rays are bent around the subject.

[Stahlseele]

if the warping only made it appear as if the object WERE invisible, then cameras and the such would still pick it up?
and if the light rays were bent around the object it would not be illusion but physical manipulation, but as the light rays don't hit the object any more and thus are not reflected, the object itself would become invisible, even to cameras.
in both cases, radar and ultrasound and other such nonsense still picks it up.

i still wanna know about my pet rock O.o

[Hasimir]

Just my personal take on it...but...

If the "invisibility" is caused by an ILLUSION, then no...you can't "see through".
Your mind refuses to register the presence of the invisible thing, but you don't see past it or inside it...it is not "transparent", it is just out of your perception.
So, the mage hiding behind an invisible door will be invisible too...the stone placed inside an invisible bag will vanish from perception...etc.
The improved version is just so powerful and complex that it has the same effect on machines, it basically causes a "glitch" in the hardware/software...or it warps the target's conditions so that it become unperceptible...but that's all.
You can bend the light all you want, but you still won't be able to see INSIDE a closed box.

It basically works like the discipline of Obfuscate from the game Vampire.

But...someone could create a MANIPULATION based Invisibility spell that makes the phisical body of the subject turn "transparent".
THIS will allow LOS.
THIS will allow to see inside the box.
THIS will make you invisible to cameras from the very start (but other sensors may not be fooled, like Thermo-sensors, Ultrasound, etc)

There are Pros and Cons:
- the Illusion masks your presence working on the other's MIND...they won't walk into you, for example; they will just subconciously avoid you.
- the Manipulation instead alters your physical status...in the example above, people may happen to accidentally stumble on you.

Say, you are fighting and decide to flee using an Invisibility spell.
With the Illusion you can stand still in the place you were just a moment ago, and your opponent will NOT be able to blindly hit you...you are simply "gone" and if he tryes to hit something in your general direction, his mind will make him hit AROUND you.
With the Manipulation instead you are simply not-visible...so unless you MOVE AWAY your opponent could succesfully hit you...the situation only calls for modifiers relative to a sort of "total cover" or maybe "blind fighting".

A middle-ground option would be a spell that summons a sort of "mirage" doing the light-bending thing.
You don't affect minds or senses...you are just not-visible.
So you ARE there, you block LOS, you are not see-through, you can get stumbled upon, you can be blindly attacked...you can be smelled and touched and heard and "seen" with thermo-vision and radar and anything that doesn't involve light-perception.

...

ILLUSION has to be defined.
Does the effect take place on the viewer's mind, through mental suggestion?
Or does the effect take place in the physical world, through the projection of faux perceptive stimuli? (creating a mirage)

[Wakshaani]

Yeah, it'd kinda HAVE to block LOS, in order to keep teh world from breaking. Otherwise, cast invisibility on, say, a wall and clobber the people behind it, or a car to blast those inside, or or or...

Tinted windows stop magic. Been around for decades. Why bother if teh mage can just turn the *window* invisible and mind control you to come outside?

Gotta say I'm down with the "Nice try, but nuh-uh." crowd.

[Kurious]

The debate on invisibility on objects (and all the related questions that spring from it) is completely interpretable... and quite divisive.

Worse, just like a couple other threads that I have seen, I have a funny feeling even if the Devs answer the question, half of the poster here will not accept the answer and will continue to insist that their logic is correct, or insist that 'the book doesn't say that' so the Devs are wrong.

~I for one would love the clarification regardless...~

(Also, players, keep in mind... if you bend the rules to get an unfair advantage over your enemies- you in turn set precedence for the same tactics to be used against you. Do this at your own risk (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

[toturi]

if the warping only made it appear as if the object WERE invisible, then cameras and the such would still pick it up?
and if the light rays were bent around the object it would not be illusion but physical manipulation, but as the light rays don't hit the object any more and thus are not reflected, the object itself would become invisible, even to cameras.
in both cases, radar and ultrasound and other such nonsense still picks it up.

i still wanna know about my pet rock O.o

If the warping made it appear as if the object was invisible, then cameras and such would not be able to pick it up; because even to the cameras, it would also appear to be invisible.

Your pet rock should become invisible insofar that it does not break your invisibility/improved invisibility.

[Tarantula]

Yeah, it'd kinda HAVE to block LOS, in order to keep teh world from breaking. Otherwise, cast invisibility on, say, a wall and clobber the people behind it, or a car to blast those inside, or or or...

Tinted windows stop magic. Been around for decades. Why bother if teh mage can just turn the *window* invisible and mind control you to come outside?

Gotta say I'm down with the "Nice try, but nuh-uh." crowd.

Tinted windows stop magic. Been around for decades. Why bother if teh mage can just powerbolt the *window* to smithereens and mind control you to come outside?

The debate on invisibility on objects (and all the related questions that spring from it) is completely interpretable... and quite divisive.

Worse, just like a couple other threads that I have seen, I have a funny feeling even if the Devs answer the question, half of the poster here will not accept the answer and will continue to insist that their logic is correct, or insist that 'the book doesn't say that' so the Devs are wrong.

~I for one would love the clarification regardless...~

(Also, players, keep in mind... if you bend the rules to get an unfair advantage over your enemies- you in turn set precedence for the same tactics to be used against you. Do this at your own risk (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

All I have ever said, is that if the Devs clarify something and contradict the books, either the devs should correct their statement to match the books, or they should have the books corrected to match their statement.

[Wasabi]

What is the difference between an Agent and IC?

Do emulated Complex Forms (Skillsofts used in the 'Biowire' echo) follow all of the rules of Complex forms?
[Per the July dev chat the answer is basically 'yes for now and we devs are making a faq entry to further clarify how it should work']

When a character with the Indebted negative quality pays off the debt must he sell back the negative quality?
[Two players in two different games asked me so I'm posting it here... its not something I could do and still sleep at night]

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Tinted windows stop magic. Been around for decades. Why bother if teh mage can just powerbolt the *window* to smithereens and mind control you to come outside?

Tinted windows don't stop magic anymore. See the "astral shadows" discussion awhile back. You would have to switch to astral perception though.

[Stahlseele]

What is the difference between an Agent and IC?

i don't really know my way around that special corner of shadowrun, but compare it to a cruise missle and a mine . . the ic is more or less locally fixated untill something tips it off(like a mine) and an agetn can get sent to do any task anywhere and react to certain stimuli to tip it off(like a crusing missle)

[Tarantula]

Tinted windows don't stop magic anymore. See the "astral shadows" discussion awhile back. You would have to switch to astral perception though.

Yes, they do. You can't see in normally, you also can't see in astrally. Same opaqueness.

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Debatable.

Street Magic specifically notes that mirrored glass is simply an astral shadow through which astral perception works...whether or not that extends to tinted glass is going to depend on the GM.

If one is effective and the other isn't, it would be beyond bizarre, though.

[MaxMahem]

As much as I would love to see many issues cleared up by the authors, answering this one probably won't count. I, for one, refuse to believe that an illusion spell can reveal something that the caster is unaware of. I would categorically refuse to play by that rule. And I'm sure there are others that feel the opposite (and no, you don't have to tell me about it). It's probably better left to the imaginations of the players. Most groups tend to come to some sort of agreement about this sort of thing.

I don't see why you have a problem with it. I mean, it is magic after all.

---

An easy way to avoid the potential abuses of a player using invisibility to turn walls and/or other objects invisible is to simply state that the spell only works on people.

Frankly I don't see allowing it to be used on objects as that big of a deal. I mean, casting it on an unattended object means you have to pass its object threshold, which means the illusion will be easier to resist. A player turning a car or greande or something invisible to gain the advantage is the kind of creativity I want to encourage.

As for using it to turn walls and such invisible to see through them, my response is to fold:
First I argue that magic (especially single target spells like illusion) doesn't work on discrete bits, but rather the target as a whole. So you can't turn a section of wall invisible (its not a discrete target) but you can turn the whole building invisible if you like (though I might justly bump the threshold WAY up in this case). This is for the same reason you can't simply decide to powerbolt your opponents eye or something. You have to target the target as a whole.

Secondly I would argue for an object like a door (which you might argue is a discrete target within a building, and I might agree) you don't have enough LOS to truly target it. Since at least half of it is obstructed from your view.

[Da9iel]

Secondly I would argue for an object like a door (which you might argue is a discrete target within a building, and I might agree) you don't have enough LOS to truly target it. Since at least half of it is obstructed from your view.

I agree with everything up to this last paragraph. By that argument half of everything is obstructed from your view. You can't see my back when I'm facing toward you; you can't see my front when I'm facing away from you.

Interesting that there are no Dev replies that I can see yet.