Kind of invisible or *really* invisible?, Force of an Invisibility spell? Options

[Velocity]

Does the Force of an Invisibility or Improved Invisibility spell have any impact on its effectiveness?

[Clipwing]

It sets the target number for resistance tests against if, if that's what you mean... Or did you have some more specific meaning in mind?

[Synner]

Low force means more successes in the Resistance Test reducing the chances the spell works at all.

[Velocity]

Correct me if I'm wrong--which I suspect I may be--but when the spell goes off, aren't you just... invisible? Like, the caster succeeds and that's that: +8 to see/shoot/poke the character?

[booklord]

If its improved invisibility and its a non-living machine like a drone firing at you then yes, +8 target modifier best of luck.

Us silly living things however have a chance to see past the invisibility spell. We roll intelligence against the FORCE of the spell against the number of successes the caster got when casting the spell. ( The target number for the caster is 4. )

Whether you see the outline of a person, or simply see the person as if they weren't invisible at all is up to the GM.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know based off that it might be a good idea to cast improved invisibility at force 1. Minimal drain and you automatically fool the security cameras. Add a cheap level 1 sustaining focus and you're ready to break into a corporate facility. ( and all your teammates can see you except for the troll )

[Spookymonster]

But if a drone has an OR of 9+ (being a highly processed piece of machinery/electronics), and spells need to be a minimum of 1/2 an object's OR, then anything less than Force 5 should fail to affect it automatically. And that's if you don't add in modifiers for the drone's Body or armor. Note that I say should; I don't play it this way, but the argument could be made for it.

[Clipwing]

[Spookymonster]

[BitBasher]

[Matrix Monkey]

Not buying into the whole "improved invis automatically beats all machine sensors" thing, I base resistance tests vs. drones off of the Sensor rating. Security cameras and such get a test based on their ratings.
As I recall, the higher the Sensor rating, the more alternate view-mode gizmos the sensor package includes (infra-red, UV, ultrasound/radar etc.). A drone sporting a rating 6 sensor package should at least have a chance of poking through improved invis.

[Matrix Monkey]

[Clipwing]

[Clipwing]

It's probably a good idea to throw this out here while we're on the topic...From the Official Shadowrun FAQ:

How does an improved invisibility spell function against a drone's sensors? Is it resisted by the drone or can the drone just not see the character? What if the drone's sensors include thermographic imaging?
Technically, Improved Invisibility requires a Resistance Test, and non-living things don't get to make Spell Resistance Tests. So the simple answer is that the spell automatically fools drones.
If you want to be picky, however, then you can note that Improved Invisibility works against any tech sensors that involve sight: video cameras, laser proximity detectors, rangefinders, thermo. As described on p. 135, SR3, however, vehicle sensors include other components such as ultrasound, radar, listening devices, etc. Theoretically, these sensors could pick up an invisible character. (The same as you might give an NPC a listening Perception Test as an invisible character moved by.)
If you allow a Sensor Test based on those components, you should apply some hefty modifiers, or perhaps only roll half the Sensor dice. Keep in mind that even if the drone detects the invisible character, it still won't be able to "see" him, so it may get confused or otherwise not act the same as if it had actually detected something walking by.

[Kanada Ten]

[Kanada Ten]

[Kanada Ten]

[mrgoat]

[Herald of Verjig...]

Give sensors the vision mods according to what is there. Usually just ultrasound to spot the invisible.

I would allow improved invisibilty to count as full armor against laser weapons. So that redline laser pistol, minus your force 6 improved invisibility spell, would do 6M+successes.

[Crusher Bob]

Remember this it is the 'appearance of invisibility' no actual light is bent or re-directed (that would probably be a transformation spell). So you can still get sun-burned, irradiated, mazered, etc while invisible. A transformation spell (probably similar to Armor) could be developed to give you resistance to the effects of EM radiation...

[motorfirebox]

again, i lament the fact that they didn't just make this spell a freakin' elemental manip.

[Crusher Bob]

Because the elemental manipulation would not be resisted :D. But yes you can make an EM re-directing spell as a manipulation, though this has some problems with: talking to the team on the radio (if the spell covers radio) and seeing stuff (how do your eyes get the light, though a good spell would make a copy of the light that your eyes 'would have gotten' if the spell wasn't in effect and send that to you. Notice that this would be magically aided vision, thus you couldn't cast spells w/o astral perception. Also note that if the spell bothers to manipulate what you see, you might as well throw in flare compensation...)

[Velocity]

[EDIT] Ignore me and look at the monkey. Everyone look at the monkey.
(i.e. just read Sunday-Gamer's post, he explained it better than I did :) [/EDIT]


Wow everyone, thanks for your... uuhh... fruitful responses. :) I haven't yet looked up the citation that Kanada Ten quoted (thanks KT!), but I will.

However, after some consultation with the Shaman in my group, I have to ask if this isn't, perhaps, a semantic issue? Does the aforementioned quotation not mean "victims" rather than target? Because if in fact the book does mean target, then why doesn't the caster have to re-roll the casting every time a new observer gets within line of sight?

[Sunday_Gamer]

Sorry Kanada ol' chum, but I do not agree with you. An improved invisibility spells "target" is whatever was made invisible. I think it was poor wording on their part to mix the terms that way. When someone or something walks into range of an invisible object (person or thing) they roll against the successes of the spell to see through it. No one is making a new roll against each target which seems to me would be what would happen if the spell was meant to target everyone who walked in... do they turn invisible? Course not, the spell is a spell that makes something invisible, not a spell that prevents it's target from perceiving A or B. Therefore it might be more accurate to describe people and things that must contest the invisibility spell as "victims" and not "targets".

On that note, an invisibility spell at force 1 would work great against really basic sensors, but the instant sound or any other sense not covered by sight becomes involved in the detection, then I make a roll at which point the mage may start cursing his force 1 spell.

Obviously the instant something rigged comes along, that force 1 will be a joke for the rigger to see through.

Invisibility spells are manageable, no need to get mental with the rules. The OR vs magic rules goes to show the difficulty of using mana to manipulate highly processed objects. Making a deck invisible is much harder than making a dog invisible. A camera panning over an invisible character is NOT being manipulated by mana, the PERSON's visual appearance is being manipulated, the camera is merely viewing said manipulation, which to me is COMPLETELY different from what was intended with the OR vs magic rules.

Least, that's the way I run it.

Sunday
PS: Why yes, I am the shaman Velocity is speaking of...

[Synner]

That went well, almost three weeks before the first Invisibility thread.

Sunday - Seems to me you are missing the obvious and Kanada is right.

To begin with Invisibility spells are Illusions which means their target should be the person or system that is affected by the Illusion not the 'subject' of the illusion, furthermore to make this distinction even cleared Invisibility falls within the Indirect Illusion classification.

According to SR3 (page 195), especifically under Indirect Illusions, it says "They must be cast "around" a person or over an area[...]" this is further reinforced by MitS (page 55) "Indirect Illusions are cast on a subject person or area. Anyone who views that person or area is a target of the spell." This confirms Kanada's (and other's) understanding that the spell is cast "indirectly" around a subject and the actual target is anyone who views the "subject".

To put it simply. Invisibility is an Illusion cast on or over something. It affects people and systems viewing that something. That something is not actually made Invisible (which would be a Transformation Manipulation), but rather the magic fools the viewer (human or machine) into "not seeing" what is there (or to put it another way it fools the viewer into seeing what would be "there" if the subject of the Invisibility wasn't there).

In this respect it is exactly the same as it's fellow Indirect Illusions Mask and Phantasm, except that those do the opposite and the magic fools the viewer into thinking something is there, when it isn't.

Now that that's been clarified, back to the actual mechanics Velocity was asking about. Reading the description of Illusions in SR3 page 194-195, we find that all Illusions including Invisibility (different from SR2 Invisibility) are directly Resisted by Intelligence, it is also explained that it is an all or nothing situation for the target. If he Resists the spell does not work. If he does not Resist the spell works.

This means anyone viewing the "subject" of the spell while it is Sustained becomes a potential Target. In practice when someone casts Invisibility he should write down his successes somewhere (target number 4). While Invisibility is Sustained every potential Target which views the subject of the Invisibility gets to Resist individually. He/it rolls his/its Intelligence (SR3 p.195) against the spell's Force, and if he/it gets more successes (SR3 p.195) than the caster's original successes he/it is completely immune to the spell. If he fails to get enough successes, the spell works against that target for the duration. Using low Force Indirect Illusions, especially Invisibility, makes it easier for the "targets" to resist the spell with their Intelligence (since the target number for the Resistance Test is the spell's Force).

As far as I know it hasn't been made clear exactly what electronic viewing systems roll, but I may be wrong.

[Laughlyn]

Invisibility needs to be completely re-written. As it stands it's a complete hold over from Shadowrun 1st Edition. Rules and all. The only difference is that the writers seem to think that it's completely blocks out thermal and thermal heat traces (not in the aura). On the same hand they seem to think that ultrasound can see invisible targets. Yet you see the ultrasound display, goggles, or the cyberware input to the optical nerve. So they speak in forked rules.

The point is, it's all how it works in your game. The rules are bogus already.