Magic-proof suits!..., ....and the GMs who create them. Options

[Skeeve]

Well, I've got a bit of a rules question. Specifically, about the Manabolt/ball spells. As we all know (and it states on page whatever of SR3, I'm too lazy to look it up) you can't affect someone with a combat spell unless you have Line of Sight. What exactly constitutes line of sight?

For example, if you break into a secure compound, and the guards have tinted faceplates on their Heavy Sec. Armour, are they immune to a well-placed Stunball? What if they were wearing Full Body Suit Formfitting Armour (gloves, slippers, hood and all) and standing backwards? What about with a white sheet draped over their heads like Casper, a normal set of clothing, and a pair of gloves?

My GM seems to think they are, and I disagree. Well, except with the sheet part. Because it's just funny to watch Security guards run around with sheets on their heads. And it's so easy to shoot them in that case.

And please, go easy on me - it's my first time here.

[BitBasher]

No clothing or personal armor invalidates line of sight whatsoever.

[Eyeless Blond]

Obviously not, otherwise it would render most combat magic childishly easy to defend against. But why does it work that way? How is clothing in this case any different from actual cover, which does provide Visibility bonuses? It's an interesting question I've seen asked on these boards a few times, and never really seen explained to satisfaction. All that stuff about syncing up with someone's projected aura seems a bunch of nonsense, first of all because auras don't exactly radiate, and second of all because mages aren't always astrally perceiving, and you can't see an aura without astrally perceiving, can you?

I have an idea for why chothing and such doesn't provide cover bonuses, but I'd like to hear if anyone else with more experience and/or knowledge has some thoughts first.

[snowRaven]

The canon explanation is that a person's aura extends out from his/her body, and it is the aura that is targeted.

Exactly how you want to rationalize this is in-game your own damn problem :grinbig:

[Arethusa]

The people arguing that auras extend beyond clothing aren't saying that the mage can see auras radiating through clothing; only that he can pick his targets and, through magic, achieves line of sight to the target through the aura's radiation, regardless of whether he can specifically see it or not. It's a bit thin, yes.

I'd comment on clothing not providing cover, but my knowledge of SR magic is very limited and my experience with the game is practically nil.

[Skeeve]

Well, I'll admit the 'aura extends from the body' reply was my first counter, but he didn't buy it, if for no other reason than I couldn't find a page reference for such a 'ruling'. I think he was kind of cheesed about our party, though - it's his style to create NPCs to make sense, instead of creating them to challenge us.

That and the Seductress Shaman with all of the Control Manipulations broke one of his adventures.

But yeah - I've got no other ideas as to that, so, please, elucidate away, Eyeless Blond.

[Eyeless Blond]

I found this on another thread just now, and I think it's a better explaination than all that "radiating auras" (IMO) junk:

[Abstruse]

Another theory is drawn from the "radiating aura" theory...your aura extends outside your body, thus outside your clothes. When you cast a spell, you're using a limited form of astral perception which targets the aura. Or something like that...

The Abstruse One

[Quix]

Out of curiosity, if the explanation is that your aura extends outside your body then how far behind a corner should I need to duck in order to ruin line of sight? If I'm barely behind the corner then wouldn't my aura be showing? :wobble:

[The Jopp]

Another way of putting it could be that clothing/armour is "part" of you since it is in such a close proximity of yourself and your aura.

[Crusher Bob]

One of the dodges sometimes used here is that it takes 'some time' for the aura to 'bleed through' your clothing. So you could hide behind a clothes line for a {some small amount of time} but if you put those clothes on in {some small amount of time} your aura would bleed through the clothes and you would become targetable...

[Xirces]

So, if I carry a 6ft high, 4ft wide shield with a DNI camera on the front connected to my datajack am I able to be targeted by spells?

It's a stupid example, but I'm wondering what constitutes personal armour and where the line is drawn with cover. (IMO my example is portable cover).

Does a full exoskeleton count as armour? Passengers inside a vehicle can be targeted IIRC (assuming LOS still exists - windows etc).

Hmm...

How about a portable mage platform. It's a wheeled (or hovering...) box containing a mage who controls movement via a joystick (or DNI if he's cybered), completely enclosed and opaque thus making him immune to magic. BUT it has the fancy optics from SOTA:2063 allowing him to cast spells out.

Apart from the sheer stupidity of it, what am I missing? :)

(edit: hit post and then realised it would be simpler using one-way glass...)

[toturi]

A GUNDAM mobile suit with a mirrored cockpit.

[booklord]

Armor to protect against combat spells........

My thoughts on it....

1) The only armor that would completely protect against combat spells would have to be so heavy that character using the armor uses the armor's physical stats (strength, quickness, body ) instead of his own. He's effectively is a vehicle with 2 arms and legs.

2) Mirrored armor that covered the entire body could be counted as providing partial cover.

3) Shields could provide cover if they stayed completely behind them. But keep in mind most riot shields are see through. Mirrored shields might be more effective.

[Cray74]

[ShadowGhost]

Targeting Auras is a holdover/explanation from SR2 I believe. In SR3, there is absolutely no mention of "targeting auras".

All combat spells work by damaging the target directly, bypassing physical armor and other non-magical forms of protection. A combat spell can affect any target in the caster's line of sight.

IMO, targeting "auras" is pure BS - Powerbolt and Powerball, both Combat Spells, "channel destructive magical power into the target, doing physical damage. These spells affect both living and non-living things." (SR3, 191)

Since non-living things have no aura, it means combat spells do not require line of sight on an "aura" to hit a target with a spell, but simply plain line of sight on the Target.

Cover modifiers do apply to spells (pages 181, 150, 150 (Twice on the same page), 182).

A white shite draped over your head no more provides cover for magic spells than it does for simply shooting the same target with a gun.

An Opaque riot shield can provide cover... how much cover depends on how much you can hide behind it. However, it may not provide protection against an Elemental Manipulation area effect that is centered above or behind the shield, as per rules on 182, under Elemental Manipulation Spells.

As for an exoskeleton/vehicle type armor. That's up to the GM to determine if it's Armor, or a vehicle.

[Magusinvictus]

[xizor]

there is also glass that is opaque to the astral. i read about it in some security thead.

[BitBasher]

[Kanada Ten]

Consider that you need only to know where the target is in three dimensional space. You need not see the precise location - you can hit targets up to 99% covered, it is just more difficult. It is little harder to see where a person "hidden" in armor is standing than a naked person. Consider that touch range spells need not touch flesh either. If being completely covered doesn't protect from touch, why would it from sight?

[Voran]

Heh:

Spell Defense: "You can't seeeee me!"

Also known as the 'dunk your head in the sand', 'cover your face with your hands' and 'turn your back' defense :)

[snowRaven]

[Cray74]

[BitBasher]

Yes it does, but that does not make any mention of how the glass looks astrally, it's just talking about a mage in a car.

and:

[Jason Farlander]

from the Shadowrun FAQ