New Spell, What'cha think? Options

[Dragonaxe]

Perception Filter (Single-Sense)
Type: P - Range: T - Duration: S - DV: (F/2)+1

This spell increases the threshold for perception tests to notice the target by the number of hits rolled on the spell-casting test. Note the target is not invisible; just unremarkable and overlooked. Thus they are fully capable of setting off trip wires and pressure pads, as well as other devices that would detect them. However people that investigate still have to succeed in a perception test to take note of them if it is reasonable that the device would detect a person. (Walking into a convenience store would set off a doorbell; but without a successful test the clerk would not take notice to who came in.) Any direct action on the part of the target that would draw attention to them negates the effect of the spell for the resulting perception test. (Shouting, firing a gun, for example.) Breaking line-of-sight will reestablish the effect, forcing a new successful perception test or overt action on the target's behalf to be noticed again.


Thoughts?

[Fatum]

So, you're basically mimicking Concealment power, aren't you?
If this spell affects any perception test to notice its target, how is it single-sense? If it's not single-sense, why is its drain so low?

[Bodak]

Is it Illusion or Manipulation?

If it were Mana, you'd have the effect you're describing where sensors would be triggered but beings would not notice the alarm bells ringing.

You have made this spell Physical though. Are you hoping if you roll enough hits (to beat OR), it will suppress the sensors altogether? Are you expecting the number of hits to raise the perception threshold for Targeting autosofts or some kind of electro-mechanical perception tests?

[Yerameyahu]

Ditto Fatum's comments: dupes Concealment (one of the more incredible powers), and the stats don't match. In fact, I don't think even Concealment can affect secondary effects as you describe (the doorbell). I'm not sure any magic can do that, not cast on the sneaking character.

[Udoshi]

I think, perhaps, that you might want a Stealth spell - just street magic Spell Designed to Multisense.(so its sight, too)

Its not quite a +perception threshold, but anyone who wants to percieve you has to resist your spell first, which is a very similiar game mechanic.

[Dragonaxe]

The door bell example may have been misleading, in fact the sound of the doorbell is heard, the clerk however as he looks over does in fact see that someone has come in. However he doesn't (without making the perception check) takes any real notice, it's as if his eyes just pass over the subject of the spell. They are easier to be dismissed. The effect i was going for is that of dismissal as opposed to invisibility. Better for someone to realize the subject has walked though the door and that they aren't worth noting than to hear a doorbell (to use our previous example) and not see the reason why it was set off. As for autosofts and such; if he has drawn attention to himself then the spell does not help. I was torn as to the type because it is in fact part manipulation and illusion. That was part of what I was hoping to get help with.

[Seth]

This spell increases the threshold for perception tests to notice the target by the number of hits rolled on the spell-casting test.

This spell is around three times more powerful than any other equivalent spell: As an example other spells reduce the number of die that the other person has to roll. Each die they roll has a 1/3 chance of being a success. This spell reduces the number of successes.

As a GM I would flatly say no.

The idea isn't bad: but just treat it is chameleon with a couple of differences: pick one or make your own

• Its a "Some body elses problem field" so you don't get the miss chance from chameleon, but also you are not alerting people if they do see you (people freak out if they see chameleon)
• Its like chameleon, but has a higher drain code (because people don't freak out, it is just better)

[Dragonaxe]

This spell reduces the number of successes.

The spell does not in fact reduce successes, it merely increases the threshold for the test.

Using our prior example:

Subject has a force 3 casting of this spell with the maximum number of hits, 3. He walks in to a store and the doorbell goes off. The clerk looks over; normally he would need 2 hits as a threshold (standard pedestrian), and is receiving +3 dice to his pool for actively looking. However with the spell in place the threshold would be 5. Still not impossible by any means, figuring an average human with a Ini of 3 and an perception of 2 would be rolling 8 dice with his modifier for actively looking, granted it is much harder.

By having it reduce the dice that people would roll, using the same figures from above the threshold would be 2 instead and they would only roll 5 dice. giving them a much better chance at taking notice of them.

However as i write this and run some of the numbers i am leaning on changing it to reduce the dice observers would get to roll. Making it a Mana effect as it messes with the mind of those who are looking. Still torn as to if this is a Illusion or a Manipulation spell tho.

Thanks for the feed back so far!

[Neraph]

So it's Physical Camouflage from Street Magic?

[ProfGast]

The spell does not in fact reduce successes, it merely increases the threshold for the test.

I fail to see the distinction.
Say someone rolls perception and has 5 successes over a threshold of 4. He sees them.
Then say someone uses a spell that *reduces succes* by 2. That means he has 3 successes and does not see them.
How about increasing the threshold instead? That means you still have 5 successes for a threshold of 6 now. Wait. That sounds the same. Mechanically and mathematically the same.

[sabs]

And how does it work with Drones? Cameras, Spyder's 500 miles away looking at a Trid Feed.

[Dragonaxe]

So it's Physical Camouflage from Street Magic?

Well in rules effects i guess if i changed it to the reducing dies rolled it would be... only not as powerful, as it does nothing to ranged combat.

The effect i am trying for with this spell is for hiding in plain sight.

Let me explain it a bit differently, with the spell on i want to be able to go for a walk and not have people on the street walk into me because the "know" that there is someone there (a problem with invisibility), but unless i draw attention to myself i don't want people to take notice on more than a passive level. That's what i am going for. I want the fact that the subject exists not to be hidden, but the subject is bland and not worth fully registering in the minds of the observers. Also i was intending on using this on a car for tailing purposes, so it would just be a car on the road making harder for the mark to realize he is being tailed.

If i need to redesign the spell ground up due to a mistake on my part i am ok with that, just looking for how to make it work with out the op.

[Seth]

The spell does not in fact reduce successes, it merely increases the threshold for the test.

Let me point that it does:

SUppose I need a threshold of 3 to see you.
Without the spell 3 successes with it
If you get X successes with the spell, I now need 3+x successes.

Basic algebra shows that this is exactly identical to subtracting x from the number of successes
Adding to the threshold is identical to subtracting successes (except for the rule of 1)

So this spell is about three times more effective that concealment or chameleon: they reduce the die you roll. This reduces the successes that you get: a ratio of about 3 to 1.

[Dragonaxe]

Let me point that it does:

SUppose I need a threshold of 3 to see you.
Without the spell 3 successes with it
If you get X successes with the spell, I now need 3+x successes.

Basic algebra shows that this is exactly identical to subtracting x from the number of successes
Adding to the threshold is identical to subtracting successes (except for the rule of 1)

So this spell is about three times more effective that concealment or chameleon: they reduce the die you roll. This reduces the successes that you get: a ratio of about 3 to 1.

I see what you are tying to say, however the way i look at is the following;

For each point of threshold you need to roll 3 dice, by law of averages to be reasonable assured that a hit will come up. With perception (the skill this spell interacts with) Just by actively looking you get a +3 Dice pool bonus, there is one hit. An average human has intuition 3, Another hit. And a perception of 3; that's a total of 3 hits minimum by the laws of averages for an average cop, sec guard or Johnson. But begin to add to the threshold and you begin to make it nearly impossible very fast.

The average Pedestrian is a base threshold of 2 In my running example. The force 3 spell's 3 hits add 3 to the threshold, bring it to a total of 5. Now since it takes by the law of averages 3 dice to get one hit you now need a total of a 15 dice pool to effectively get it each time. That takes it from a Average cop, Corp Sec, and J to notice to the high end of a human; requiring 6 Intuition and 6 perception and actively looking for the final +3 bonus. Therefore a Force 3 casting makes it nigh impossible for the average person to take note; as without the skill the average person only rolls 5 dice(3 for Intuition, 3 for actively looking and -1 for defaulting on perception).

However If i change the spell to reduce the dice pool, -1 per hit for example; it would change our example like this: The base dice required to beat the threshold 2 test, with the modifiers of the force 3 casting with 3 hits, by law of averages is 6. For a average cop, Corp Sec or J; no problem. The +3 dice bonus from actively looking negating the spells modifier. However with their 3 Intuition and 3 Perception, they should still get the 2 hits by averages. While this still makes it nigh impossible for a average person as they would be rolling only 2 dice(3 for Intuition, 3 for actively looking and -1 for defaulting on perception as well as -3 for the spell's 3 hits). But as you begin to deal with observers that are in any way perceptive and or augmented you begin having to cast at much higher force ratings to be able to make it work effectively.


This difference in effect is at what forces it need be cast to be effective in a given situation, as well as balancing the drain accordingly. If it's powerful enough that a force 3 casting makes require higher skills and attributes or augmentations, it need a much higher drain than one that only needed two of those 3 at the same force.

I am trying to balance the spell as best as possible. So i am trying to figure out what the drain would look like with each version. The spell referenced earlier, Physical Camouflage, has a drain of (f/2)-1 and effects ranged combat as well as perception. While the spell i am going for only effects perception, and loses the effect if the subject draws attention to themselves.

The drain for the version that add to threshold would have to be higher, i just don't know how much, i would like suggestions for both versions.

[Yerameyahu]

That's kind of the point. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are already other kinds of illusions for 'easy' invisibility.

We can all appreciate the wish for balance, but using Threshold only makes that harder. It's a coarse-grained mechanic, for exactly the reasons mentioned, and it interacts oddly (that is, badly) with the normal hits/Force/Drain system. Shadowrunner mages can cast between Force 5 and 12, and this spell (as written) doesn't even have to deal with OR or anything, right?

[Dragonaxe]

I'm sorry OR?

[Yerameyahu]

Object Resistance, it's how inanimates resist illusions (and other spells, of course).

[Draco18s]

I think a more appropriate thing is that if you walk into the convenience store and the bell goes off the clerk automatically still sees you but doesn't notice anything unusual about you. That is, you could be a troll with an AK-47 out and he'll still just go back to reading his newspaper, and if asked about you later he won't be able to recall your metatype.

Rather than a perception test to see you, it would be a perception test to find you remarkable. So if no one is allowed through that door, that means you sir.
Hours later I would ascribe the same additional threshold to the Memory Test to recall anything about you.

[Yerameyahu]

Tricky, but closer. It's not as bad as *not* being alerted by an… *alert*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) The question is, will the surveillance cameras also find you unremarkable? :/

[Draco18s]

The question is, will the surveillance cameras also find you unremarkable? :/

This isn't an "improved" spell, so no. It'd need extra drain for that.

I would, however, say that if someone is confronted with both view points (either by watching a security cam/recording and the live spell-muted version, either at the same time, directed by, or after the fact) that the affected subject adds their Willpower dice to their perception pool (a second time) as they're resisting the spell actively at that point. Alternatively, they roll willpower and hits reduce the threshold.

This is similar to Alter Memory and how conflicting evidence causes the subject to get an immediate resist attempt, knocking hits off.

[Yerameyahu]

Exactly. It seemed like the original version had this super-spell doing everything, so I asked. I guess I'm concerned that this sort of *is* Alter Memory… except on arbitrarily-many targets at once.

[Draco18s]

Exactly. It seemed like the original version had this super-spell doing everything, so I asked. I guess I'm concerned that this sort of *is* Alter Memory… except on arbitrarily-many targets at once.

Actually it kind of is, and as a sustained spell that keeps effecting new targets.

Hmmm.

[Yerameyahu]

Right, that's my point. That's a Bad Thing™.

[Draco18s]

Agreed.

[KarmaInferno]

More or less a Someone Else's Problem (SEP) field.

Sounds great in theory, but it is unbalancing in that it simply makes site infiltrations way WAY too easy.

The game needs to be a LITTLE challenging, y'know?




-k