Illusion Spells vs. Surveilance, Has technology gotten the better of magic? Options

[Kerenshara]

In another thread, something came up that I thought was interesting enough to be worth a dedicated thread:

Fooling a camera with an illusion spell requires overcoming an Object Resistance Threshold target number of 3.

That means you need to cast at least a F3 spell, because you may only keep a number of hits up to the spell's Force. That's a relatively achievable number, even for low-to-mid level Magicians.

On the other hand, affecting a drone requires a F5 spell, because the OR target on a drone is a 5.

Now, that higher threshold makes all kinds of sense when you're trying to kill the drone or directly affect it somehow. But, unless I've misread the rules, that means that anything F4 or lower for physical illusions will automatically fail to fool the drone. That's a dramatically more difficult proposition. It also suggests that rather than having cameras in locations, a better sollution would be simply to have dozens of tiny camera drones that simply report in when they see something amiss and the the spider can just jump in and verify the problem is genuine.

Somehow, I'm not certain the Devs had that in mind when they set up the new OR Thresholds.

So my question is this:

Do you think the new OR thresholds apply because the drone is a drone, or would you say that since the spell isn't DIRECTLY affecting the drone you use the lower "technological device" OR Threshold?

[McAllister]

Why not make the OR Threshold of sensors (on drones or otherwise) equal to 3 or Sensor rating, whichever is higher? Or 3 + 1/2 Sensor rating? Seems like the problem (aside from the fact that some people believe sensors on a drone have OR 3, because you're not targeting the drone, you're fooling the sensors) is that there's some weirdly fundamental difference between a camera mounted on a wall, and one mounted on a drone; ergo, making it possible for either to qualify as "highly processor objects" would seem a reasonable solution.

[Angier]

It all depends on which illusion spell you want to cast.

An invisiblity spell has to beat the drones visual sensors which are OR3. But that does not stop the drone from using the other sensor which will of course cumulate themselves into an OR of 5.
If you want to affect a drone with chaotic world you will have to beat OR5 as the drone will try to compensate the false sensory input with its full bandwith of sensors.

So the question is: What sensors is a drone using to get it's input. If you have a surveillance drone with camera and micro it will be fooled with an invisiblity spell which has to beat OR3. If you try to slow down a full fledged combat drone (with different visual mods and radar etc.) from acquiering it's target and shooting the target's ass off you will have to beat OR5.

[Kerenshara]

I agree that a non-visual sensor like ultrasount or millimeter wave radar is going to find the Mage, but it's also going to find lots of other random objects. When it comes right down to it, the visual (and near-visual) spectrum offers the most useful data when doing a general search pattern.

Example: I am on a rooftop under cover of a F3 Improved Invisibility and I got my 3 Hits. Generally, the should (in principle) be ehough to cover me against a wandering drone, especially if I am covered in something that breaks up my infared (which I think is covered anyhow) and radar/acustic silhouette. The condition of items on a rooftop change constantly and relying on non-visual sensors primarily is unreliable in a case like that.

Another Example: A car with a Pilot Rating and visual sensors is technically a drone, so do I show up as I walk by covered by the same spell? Does it make a difference if a Rigger is jumped in?

[Angier]

Actually, the power of a drone's (non)visual sensors depends on it's sensor rating(s) and it's sensor autosoft. So there should be at least some sort of test to decide if the drone is capable of identifying the mage cowered against the rooftop/the buildings on it.

That's why I let drones do specific sensor tests against passive illusion spells while I use the flat out OR5 against active illusion spells eg. chaotic world.

[Kerenshara]

Actually, the power of a drone's (non)visual sensors depends on it's sensor rating(s) and it's sensor autosoft. So there should be at least some sort of test to decide if the drone is capable of identifying the mage cowered against the rooftop/the buildings on it.

That's why I let drones do specific sensor tests against passive illusion spells while I use the flat out OR5 against active illusion spells eg. chaotic world.

*smacks head*

What I have been looking for is a way to lay down a ruling or at least a consistent HOUSE rule to handle the obvious disconnect, and the way you just characterized it is perfect. So Improved Invisibility is OR 3 and Chaff is OR 5. Wonderdful!

[Angier]

I always wondered why there was no distinction between them.

[Deathmaster35]

My problem with tech vs magic is the rules for the ultrawideband radar that you have to make your own spell to be able to hide from them. The rules dont seem very clear on them, but it looks like if they get one hit they "see" you.


which raises a question for me, if a mage had the cyber version of this which would overlay his vision would that qualify as seeing a target for LOS requirements?

[LurkerOutThere]

Yes, the conventional explanation being that because the mage has paid the essence for the cybereyes they are now a part of him or her, satisfying line of sight.

[Bugfoxmaster]

Essence still confuses me. Does this mean that a mage couldn't use 'demolish arm' on someone's cyber-arm? Or could they? Or could you not demolish normal arms in the first place?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Essence still confuses me. Does this mean that a mage couldn't use 'demolish arm' on someone's cyber-arm? Or could they? Or could you not demolish normal arms in the first place?

I would be willing to use such things as Demolish Cyberware... problem is it does not work so well against things you do not have a direct line of sight to... against the replaced arms and legs though... Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Jaid]

Yes, the conventional explanation being that because the mage has paid the essence for the cybereyes they are now a part of him or her, satisfying line of sight.

i disagree. radar never satisfies line of sight.

*especially* not radar that overlays onto your field of vision.

[LurkerOutThere]

I should have caveated that, it's part of you so it brings you up to minimal line of sight. But if you couldn't actually see it normally (i.e. through a wall with radar)

[Deathmaster35]

I should have caveated that, it's part of you so it brings you up to minimal line of sight. But if you couldn't actually see it normally (i.e. through a wall with radar)

The item says it can replace your vision though, so I would assume that if you see a different spectrum that you can still target things you see in that spectrum. For example a cyber eye replaces your vision with an electronic device that sees the normal visual spectrum and you can still target things with spells, so it makes sence that if your vision is replaced with a device that sees the radar and Tray parts of the spectrum that you can target things you can see still, right?
I am not sure if I missed something in the book, but I was under the impression that you could target things with thermographic vision for instance if you were in an area with no light and had either natural or cyber thermographics.



And for the original topic (sorry for side tracking it) in my book the chart stops at OR 4, which drones are under. I am not seeing an errata that changes them to 5, so am I missing something somewhere that says drones are 5? As that makes drones an even bigger pain to damage with combat spells.

[deek]

The item says it can replace your vision though, so I would assume that if you see a different spectrum that you can still target things you see in that spectrum. For example a cyber eye replaces your vision with an electronic device that sees the normal visual spectrum and you can still target things with spells, so it makes sence that if your vision is replaced with a device that sees the radar and Tray parts of the spectrum that you can target things you can see still, right?
I am not sure if I missed something in the book, but I was under the impression that you could target things with thermographic vision for instance if you were in an area with no light and had either natural or cyber thermographics.



And for the original topic (sorry for side tracking it) in my book the chart stops at OR 4, which drones are under. I am not seeing an errata that changes them to 5, so am I missing something somewhere that says drones are 5? As that makes drones an even bigger pain to damage with combat spells.

The second update to SR4's anniversary edition shows drones at 5+. Not sure I've seen an errata on that either, but my printed copy and latest PDF both show it.

[Kerenshara]

The second update to SR4's anniversary edition shows drones at 5+. Not sure I've seen an errata on that either, but my printed copy and latest PDF both show it.

Exactly. And tiny drones are cheap enough, and have enough extra capabilities, then why would you bother with CCTV cameras at all?

Essentially, if passive Illusions (Physical Mask, Vehicle Mask, Improved Invisibility) need to be a minimum of F5 in order to affect a drone, that constitutes a MAJOR Nerf^TM of how they were used previously. AND you have to have a spellcasting DP of 15+ to have an odd-on chance of pulling it off. In 4th Ed, more than ever, drones are EVERYWHERE, and they simply ignore anything F4 and under. Sorry, but that one counts as a Nerf^TM in my book.

(Now, I completely agree that trying to affect the drone actively with something like Chaff would require the higher Threshold because you're trying to use Mana directly against the thing. But if the mana's being cast on ME, I don't think it should be quite the same Threshold. And needing a 3 against cameras generally seems about right, a "Hard" test.)

[deek]

Yeah, I agree with that interpretation.

There's a difference between casting Invisibility on me, to hide from cameras and drones (which should be a threshold 3) and casting it "on" the object so it is hidden. I would think the threshold 5 for drones is if I attempted to case Improved Invisibility on a drone, so it was invisible.

I think its important to understand what the object of your spell is, in these cases.

[Kerenshara]

Yeah, I agree with that interpretation.

There's a difference between casting Invisibility on me, to hide from cameras and drones (which should be a threshold 3) and casting it "on" the object so it is hidden. I would think the threshold 5 for drones is if I attempted to case Improved Invisibility on a drone, so it was invisible.

I think its important to understand what the object of your spell is, in these cases.

Exactly. I LIKE the Threshold 3 for electronic visual aids. It "fits" that you need a certain "depth" of the spell to fool the item since it can't roll against you like a coloidal being can. That's the equivalent of a camera having a WILlpower of 9, on average, or 12 if you're letting the camera "buy" hits (which you are).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Exactly. And tiny drones are cheap enough, and have enough extra capabilities, then why would you bother with CCTV cameras at all?

Essentially, if passive Illusions (Physical Mask, Vehicle Mask, Improved Invisibility) need to be a minimum of F5 in order to affect a drone, that constitutes a MAJOR Nerf^TM of how they were used previously. AND you have to have a spellcasting DP of 15+ to have an odd-on chance of pulling it off. In 4th Ed, more than ever, drones are EVERYWHERE, and they simply ignore anything F4 and under. Sorry, but that one counts as a Nerf^TM in my book.

(Now, I completely agree that trying to affect the drone actively with something like Chaff would require the higher Threshold because you're trying to use Mana directly against the thing. But if the mana's being cast on ME, I don't think it should be quite the same Threshold. And needing a 3 against cameras generally seems about right, a "Hard" test.)

I would agree, except that you cannot use a mana spell against a drone... it must be physical...

[Kerenshara]

I would agree, except that you cannot use a mana spell against a drone... it must be physical...

The three spells I mentioned are cast on objects BESIDS the drone, and ARE physical.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The three spells I mentioned are cast on objects BESIDS the drone, and ARE physical.

No Complaints... apparently I read a paragraph in an unintended fashion...

(Now, I completely agree that trying to affect the drone actively with something like Chaff would require the higher Threshold because you're trying to use Mana directly against the thing. But if the mana's being cast on ME, I don't think it should be quite the same Threshold. And needing a 3 against cameras generally seems about right, a "Hard" test.)

Emphasis on the Mana aspect of the sentence... My Apologies... I assumed you meant Mana Based Spells and Not Physical...
Keep the Faith...

[Zormal]

[font="Lucida Console"]Exactly. And tiny drones are cheap enough, and have enough extra capabilities, then why would you bother with CCTV cameras at all?

Essentially, if passive Illusions (Physical Mask, Vehicle Mask, Improved Invisibility) need to be a minimum of F5 in order to affect a drone, that constitutes a MAJOR Nerf^TM of how they were used previously. AND you have to have a spellcasting DP of 15+ to have an odd-on chance of pulling it off. In 4th Ed, more than ever, drones are EVERYWHERE, and they simply ignore anything F4 and under. Sorry, but that one counts as a Nerf^TM in my book.

I thought this was exactly why they added sensors into the OR3 category... So that by RAW affecting the sensors of a drone (so a 'passive' illusion) would be easier than affecting the whole drone.

I mean... when else is a spell gonna affect a sensor that's not 'Electronic Equipment'? Do you need the separation for something else?

-- (some minutes of searching) --

Hmm... I looked, but couldn't find the old thread discussing this, so I'm not sure if this was an 'official' ruling or just a houserule I found logical enough to consider RAI.

*shrug* whatever. It works for me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Kerenshara]

I thought this was exactly why they added sensors into the OR3 category... So that by RAW affecting the sensors of a drone (so a 'passive' illusion) would be easier than affecting the whole drone.

AHA!!!

Now I have the wording I want.

Though you may not target a speciffic part of a drone/vehicle with a spell, spells not cast directly on the drone/vehicle may affect only a speciffic part of the vehicle, resulting in a lower ORT.

[Zormal]

Exactly. Keeps things simple (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

AHA!!!

Now I have the wording I want.

Though you may not target a speciffic part of a drone/vehicle with a spell, spells not cast directly on the drone/vehicle may affect only a speciffic part of the vehicle, resulting in a lower ORT.

We have a winner....