Invisibility and doors, using invisibility on a door Options

[TommyTwoToes]

I had a player who wanted to cast invisibility on a door so he could see through it and cast direct combat spells at people on the other side.

Can you voluntarily fail your resistance roll against your own spell so that the door is invisible to you?

Does the invisible door impede direct spells (either combat or the manipulation spells like Control Actions)?

If the folks on the other side of the door get more hits than the net hits from the spell on the door, do they know that the door is invisible?

[Smokeskin]

That's like drugs, just say no.

The spell wasn't intended to work that way, and it is clearly an attempt at abusing it rather than a creative use. It simply won't work.

[Doc Chase]

Using Invisibility on a door is akin to painting a train tunnel on a large rock. Just as hilarious, too.

[CanRay]

"All right, I'll just cast invisibility on the door and... It's now a wall. OK. That didn't work."

[TommyTwoToes]

"All right, I'll just cast invisibility on the door and... It's now a wall. OK. That didn't work."

This is funnier than what the player wanted to do.
I could see this for a vault door. Makes it hard for the theives to find the cash.

[Dashifen]

I had a player who wanted to cast invisibility on a door so he could see through it and cast direct combat spells at people on the other side.

Can you voluntarily fail your resistance roll against your own spell so that the door is invisible to you?

Does the invisible door impede direct spells (either combat or the manipulation spells like Control Actions)?

If the folks on the other side of the door get more hits than the net hits from the spell on the door, do they know that the door is invisible?

I'd allow it. While it might be useful in limited ways, eventually there'll be something on the other side of that wall/door that reacts faster than the mage to -- at the very least -- get out of LOS. And, the mage just announced his presence, too, so any opposing magical support just got called in.

The door does not impede direct spells since they don't travel through space. Indirect combat spells do and would be impeded by the door (unless they beat its barrier rating but then the other side gets the barrier as armor, etc. etc. etc.). It's a pretty good ambush possibility, though.

RE: the other side, they, too, would have to fail their resistance check and, thus, succeed in (not) seeing the invisible door.

[Magus]

Invisibility just fools the mind that the door is not there. It would be a blank wall as the mage has no idea what the room behind the door looks like. SR Invisibility is not "TRUE" (as in DND) invis. This is a jedi mind trick that the door does not exist. So no, casting Invis on a door does not make a window into the next room. Get a mage google Fiber Optic snake under the door a la Sam Fisher and have at it.

[Dashifen]

Invisibility just fools the mind that the door is not there. It would be a blank wall as the mage has no idea what the room behind the door looks like. SR Invisibility is not "TRUE" (as in DND) invis. This is a jedi mind trick that the door does not exist. So no, casting Invis on a door does not make a window into the next room. Get a mage google Fiber Optic snake under the door a la Sam Fisher and have at it.

That's a fair point, since it is an Illusion. If the player make as a custom invisibility spell that is an environmental manipulation, then.... I'd probably still allow it since it's pretty cool.

[UmaroVI]

That's a fair point, since it is an Illusion. If the player make as a custom invisibility spell that is an environmental manipulation, then.... I'd probably still allow it since it's pretty cool.

You mean like Improved Invisibility?

[KarmaInferno]

At BEST, they might see what appears to be on the other side, but it's not real. It's an illusion.

The Invisibility spell does not confer actual invisibility. It merely "paints over" the subject with an illusory image.

As stated above, it's no different than painting a train tunnel on the door.



-karma

[Magus]

You mean like Improved Invisibility?

Improved Invis fools electronic devices by warping light photons away from it, so once again blank wall. No visible door but also no window in the wall.

[The Jopp]

You mean like Improved Invisibility?

The problem is that the Improved Invisibility is still an Illusion spell regardless of description of "bending light" around an object.

Creating a Manipulation version would definitely cause higher drain at the least.

[LurkerOutThere]

I'd allow it. While it might be useful in limited ways, eventually there'll be something on the other side of that wall/door that reacts faster than the mage to -- at the very least -- get out of LOS. And, the mage just announced his presence, too, so any opposing magical support just got called in.

The door does not impede direct spells since they don't travel through space. Indirect combat spells do and would be impeded by the door (unless they beat its barrier rating but then the other side gets the barrier as armor, etc. etc. etc.). It's a pretty good ambush possibility, though.

RE: the other side, they, too, would have to fail their resistance check and, thus, succeed in (not) seeing the invisible door.

SR magic doesn't work the way you think it works. I'll give you an example, lets say I know the corp security goon is on the other side of a mirrored glass wall thanks to my buddies radar sensor. Even though I know for a fact that he's there I can't cast spells on him. Why would an invisibility spell fundamentally alter the laws of magic no matter what it's nature.

[Magus]

I have to agree with Lurker. Magic may break the laws of Physics but it does not break its own fundament wacky laws LOL

[CanRay]

I have to agree with Lurker. Magic may break the laws of Physics but it does not break its own fundament wacky laws LOL

Magic follows physics. Just not as we understand them.

At least, that's what the Hermetic Mages say. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

I would happily allow a Manipulation that renders things transparent; the door becomes a very clean full glass door. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Name the spell 'Window' or something. The area version is 'Don't Throw Stones'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[nezumi]

If you cast Invisibility on a wall, can you then cast spells at targets on the other side since line of sight is no longer obstructed, while still receiving cover from the wall from bullets?
Yes. If you successfully cast Invisibility on a wall (keep in mind that the Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the wall's Object Resistance), then it no longer blocks LOS and you can cast spells through it (except for elemental manipulations, which will still hit the wall). Likewise, the invisible wall will not provide cover from any ranged attacks (unless the attacker resists the spell's effect), though it will provide an armor bonus, since the bullets must still pass through the wall.

MADNESS I SAY! MADNESSS!!

[Yerameyahu]

That's the SR3 FAQ, not the SR4. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Maybe they've retracted that silliness.

[Dashifen]

@Lurker, I'd agree with you if the Imp. Invis spell didn't indicate that it bends light. That should have been the purview of environmental manipulations, but it's in the Illusion category. So, the question is really whether or not the Imp Invis spell should provide this capability. Invisibility (i.e., not improved) shouldn't by any means, but Imp. Invis. would depend, it seems to me, on whether you go with the description fluff or with the category. I'd prefer to go with the category (i.e., Illusion) and thus say that it doesn't work, but if you go with the fluff, then I'd have to say that it does.

At my tables, all physical illusions are actually environmental manipulations and, when I first posted, I had glossed over the fact that I think of things in those terms and not RAW.

[Dakka Dakka]

We had a similar problem in a Vampire game. I'll rephrase it in SR terms with the orginal terms in parenthesis but the problem remains the same. A character (Ravnos) used trid phantasm (Chimerstry 2 or 3) to create the illusion of a light source in an otherwise dark room. Does this help with visibility?

I think not as illusions can only add or remove sensory input that the caster actually knows about.
The same thing goes for an "invisble" door. It simply won't work. The spell can only remove the information "door" from the view, it does not replace it with something else. That is a mask or phantasm spell.

[TommyTwoToes]

Thank you all for the responses, I think I will talk it over with my group. They may end up using the transform wall into glass spell instead.

[Mongoose]

Even if it did work (make the door look transparent), the spell is an ILLUSION spell. What you would be looking at is not what's on the other side, but an ILLUSION of what is on the other side. So it wouldn't work for spell targeting.

Imagine this; mage A (using astral perception or some such) creates a phantasm of somebody who is invisible (target C), which exactly duplicates their appearence and location. What happens if mystic Adept B (who isn't using astral perception and has no enhanced senses) at Target C? Nothing, because he can't see the target!

Same for trying to cast through an "invisible door".

BTW, one of the magic supliments for SR2 did have a spell that allowed you to see through walls / other objects. I forget what it was called, but I know that there was a linmit on the barrier rating you could see through. I;d suggest using that in addition to having to overcome the OR. Something like max barrier = force + (extra) successes.

[Jaid]

visual information gained via magical senses do not allow you to target people (ie you cannot target a spell on someone you can see through clairvoyance unless you can also see them with your eyes)

i would apply the same ruling to information gained from making walls invisible, personally.

[Yerameyahu]

Even if you made it physically invisible? (I'm not sure this is even possible in SR4, but let's assume it for the sake of argument). If you turned the door to glass, then mundane LOS would work, yes?

A detection spell that sees through walls would not, as you say; neither would an illusion.

[TommyTwoToes]

Even if you made it physically invisible? (I'm not sure this is even possible in SR4, but let's assume it for the sake of argument). If you turned the door to glass, then mundane LOS would work, yes?

A detection spell that sees through walls would not, as you say; neither would an illusion.

This seems more in line and balanced. Especially since both sides can see through the glass.