[X] My Assistant

[Thanee]

But then you would make the drone invisible, not become invisible yourself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Not if you're treating the drone itself as the target. In that case the OR is 5+.

But you are not, and it is not; it is only a OR 3...

[James McMurray]

But then you would make the drone invisible, not become invisible yourself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

That's not how Physical Illusions and Object Resistance work.

"Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold (p. 183)."

You have to meet the drone's OR threshold* in order to have the illusion be effective. If you don't get [OR] hits, the drone see you. If you do, it doesn't.

* Note to Dakka Dakka: not beat it, just meet it. Force 5 is plenty for the vast majority of drones. No net hits are required for illusions.

[James McMurray]

But you are not, and it is not; it is only a OR 3...

Got a rules quote for that? It looks like a GM call to me (and one I've never had to make, since the party's mage never casts against drones).

[Dakka Dakka]

Well it could be that Physical Illusion Spells get a differing rule but it is true for all spells:

The Spellcasting + Magic test must generate at least one net hit to succeed and may need more if the effect has a threshold for success.

I always found that this rule was weird, but that's what it is. There are other spells that drones get to resist besides Physical Illusions.

OR 3 vs OR 5: that's what I'm talking about. I find it counterintuitive that for one class of spells (Physical illusions) you can affect only part of the drone, when otherwise you can't. Or could you just power bolt the ammunition belt of its LMG, which is made out of cheap plastic and thus only OR 2. Moreover this part would probably have a lot less damage boxes but destroying it would still make the drone a lot less dangerous.

[LostProxy]

Wouldn't this be a good solution to your problem?

Opposed spells are cast using full Magic. Others are limited to the allocated Magic.


For the record, I do not agree, that this is necessary. Mystic Adepts do not need to be able to cast opposed spells as good as any other Magician. That's their downside. If one wants a character with full casting capability, then one should play a full Magician. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

"But I can cast spells, so I must be able to solve every problem using spells." is not a valid argument to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

I didn't say anything about solving everything by using spells. What I am saying is many of the more useful ones are resisted and because they fail at these it makes them much more useless. Should they be as good at is as a mage? No. But that doesn't mean they should have such a large margin for failure when put against something with the ability to resist.

[Thanee]

I didn't say anything about solving everything by using spells.

That part wasn't aimed at you specifically... more of a general note. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Got a rules quote for that? It looks like a GM call to me (and one I've never had to make, since the party's mage never casts against drones).

Yep... Sensors are OR 3.
Admittedly, It is a GM call, because it could go either way... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[James McMurray]

Which just goes to show that if you plan on making a Mystic Adept, ask the GM how he'll be handling OR for illusion spells. It can greatly change your spell load out, or at least how often you end up overcasting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Which just goes to show that if you plan on making a Mystic Adept, ask the GM how he'll be handling OR for illusion spells. It can greatly change your spell load out, or at least how often you end up overcasting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Indeed (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Mäx]

Which just goes to show that if you plan on making a Mystic Adept, ask the GM how he'll be handling OR for illusion spells. It can greatly change your spell load out, or at least how often you end up overcasting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

That question is only necessary if you no your GM is gonna house rule it so that mys-adds max force is capped at something else then full magic or if you plan to have a pretty small casting dicepool thats unlikely to ever get enough hits for the higher threshold.

[Aerospider]

Well it could be that Physical Illusion Spells get a differing rule but it is true for all spells:

I always found that this rule was weird, but that's what it is. There are other spells that drones get to resist besides Physical Illusions.

OR 3 vs OR 5: that's what I'm talking about. I find it counterintuitive that for one class of spells (Physical illusions) you can affect only part of the drone, when otherwise you can't. Or could you just power bolt the ammunition belt of its LMG, which is made out of cheap plastic and thus only OR 2. Moreover this part would probably have a lot less damage boxes but destroying it would still make the drone a lot less dangerous.

So what parts of the drone do you think should be affected by an invisibility spell (cast on something else) other than the sensors?

Illusions do only affect the sensors so it should be OR3 – why would the more intricate make-up of the rest of the drone (circuitry, moving parts, etc.) have a bearing on what the drone does or does not see? The only part other than the sensors that could have any bearing is the Pilot program trying to see through the illusion, but since non-living observers don't get a resistance test (and the fact that the Pilot can only go by what the sensors tell it) this is not applicable.

Think about it – no spell is being cast on the drone here. If you get three hits then all stand-alone sensors will be fooled. Surely it would be counterintuitive to rule that drone-mounted sensors will see through illusions with 3 or 4 hits where stand-alone sensors would not?

I would rule that you could indeed target the ammo belt, but chances are it will be internal and hidden from view so no dice.

[HunterHerne]

The thing is, OR is based mostly on the processing and complexity of the object in question. And the fact is, the Drone is one big computer on legs. The sensors it uses are just part of that computer, not a computer itself (as most standalone sensors are considered to be [peripheral nodes]). So, I would say the drone sensors use the drone OR of 5.

[Dakka Dakka]

The thing is, OR is based mostly on the processing and complexity of the object in question. And the fact is, the Drone is one big computer on legs. The sensors it uses are just part of that computer, not a computer itself (as most standalone sensors are considered to be [peripheral nodes]). So, I would say the sensors use the drone OR of 5.

That's what I meant.
Also why can a the high Perception Street Sam with cybereyes still beat an Invisibility spell with 3 hits? Since the spell only affects sensors, shouldn't 3 be enough since he has cybereyes? I know the standard answer is because it's paid for with essence it's part of the character. It makes no sense to handle drones differently

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That's what I meant.
Also why can a the high Perception Street Sam with cybereyes still beat an Invisibility spell with 3 hits? Since the spell only affects sensors, shouldn't 3 be enough since he has cybereyes? I know the standard answer is because it's paid for with essence it's part of the character. It makes no sense to handle drones differently

Drones are not paid for with Essence. Why would you handle the Camera on a Drone differently than a Camera connected to a Cray Computer? They should both have the Same OR, and in fact, according to the Books, they Do. OR 3. A Sensor is a Sensor is a Sensor. There are no differences.

In your games, Does a Sensor attached to your combat vest get the benefits of your Willpower to resist the Illusion Spell, or is it completely fooled at OR3?

A DRONE is not being targeted by those types of Spells, just as the SENSOR is not being targeted. The Sensor detects the effect, so why would a Drone sensor be any different than a Microcamera on the wall? Simple, They wouldn't be.

[HunterHerne]

The sensor on my vest would have OR 4 (now that I actually checked them on SR4A pg 183), like most electronics. But it isn't physically part of a complex computer system, except through the connection to your commlink, and would count at most, as a peripheral node, which would either be electronics(OR 4), or a computer (OR 6).

[Dakka Dakka]

Update your SR4A.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The sensor on my vest would have OR 4 (now that I actually checked them on SR4A pg 183), like most electronics. But it isn't physically part of a complex computer system, except through the connection to your commlink, and would count at most, as a peripheral node, which would either be electronics(OR 4), or a computer (OR 6).

Sensors are Sensors. Sensors are OR 3 per the SR4A Book. Sensors are not Computers, nor are they Drones. You really should update your resources there HunterHerne... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Category - Threshold
Natural Objects - (Trees, Soil, Unprocessed Water) 1
Manufactured Low-Tech Objects and Materials - (Brick, Leather, Simple Plastics) 2
Manufactured High-Tech Objects and Materials - (Advanced Plastics, Alloys, Electronic Equipment, Sensors) 3
Highly Processed Objects - (Computers, Complex Toxic Wastes, Drones, Vehicles) 5+

[StevenAngier]

IIRC there was a whole discussion about the different ORs for drones to beat. The conclusion was that physical illusion spells only have to fool the sensor array's OR of 3 to get the illusion working against drones. It's one of those inconsistent approaches to the whole magic vs tech dilemma where the creator of this rule failed to make it clear how this is really intended and where RAW and RAI contradict each other to create a whole bunch of different approaches.

[Mäx]

Sensors are Sensors. Sensors are OR 3 per the SR4A Book.

But on that same token drones are droned are drones. Your not trying to fool some sensor somewhere with your spell, your trying to foll a drone.

[StevenAngier]

Actually you are trying to fool a drone by fooling it's sensors...

[Dakka Dakka]

And you are destroying a drone by destroying its essential parts. The tracks and gun barrels will be a lot less sophisticated than the whole drone. Allowing parts of a hole to be affected by Magic is a slippery slope.

[Thanee]

The drone isn't "changed" at all by Improved Invisibility.

Bye
Thanee

[Aerospider]

Actually you are trying to fool a drone by fooling it's sensors...

Indeed. More specifically, you are hoping that who- or whatever views the video feed will be given a false image. There is no test for the pilot, rigger or any other user of the drone to identify that what they are seeing is false - it is simply determined by how strong the spell is. If it's good enough to make the subject invisible to sensors then that's all there is to it.

[KarmaInferno]

The point is by Shadowrun magic methodology you CANNOT just affect part of a drone, you have to affect the whole thing or nothing.

Magic doesn't affect "sensors". It affects "aura". The drone has one aura. Magic can only affect entire auras, not just one piece at a time.



-k