 Kind of invisible or *really* invisible?, Force of an Invisibility spell? |
  |
 Aug 28 2003, 09:47 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 28-July 03 Member No.: 5,133  |
Synner, I specifically adressed the wording of that phrase, not a plan to quote it back to me in an attempt to convince me otherwise.
The spell us cast on it's target and anyone who sees it is not being targetted by the spell, it's a physical illusion, they are witnessing it's effect. I stand by my guns that it was poorly phrased. If anything and everyone who sees an improved invisibility is a target then you should outlaw those spells right away just for the lag they are going to cause in your game. Player: I cast improved invisibility. GM: Oh crap, well ok folks don't mind me, I'll be rolling this spell roughly 500 times during the run. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I don't agree with you and I just think they worded it poorly. The target is the thing that goes invisible, anyone who sees it is nothing more than a witness, unless they are being made invisible by the spell, they are not it's target. This is only relevant in so far as the OR rules on OR vs magic are applied, of course. Sunday |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 28 2003, 10:34 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Consider Detections spells, for they work in a similar fashion. Detect Enemies is cast on a Subject, in this case the Mage's friend Doug. Doug can now use that spell to detect any enemies that come into range of the spell. When someone that would be considered an enemy (I.E. a Target) enters the area of effect, they get to roll a resistance roll against the spell.
Doug is the Subject. The enemy is the Target. This does not differ when talking about the Invisibility spell. If the Mage cast Invisibility on Doug, then anyone that could possibly have a chance of seeing him would roll a resistance roll against the spell. Doug is the Subject. Any and all potential viewers are the Targets. In both cases, the spell roll is only made once, and the number of successes is recorded. Any future resistance rolls are made, and successes are compared to the successes of the caster when he originally cast the spell. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 28 2003, 10:38 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
[edit] Tsk. Some one remind me never to do this again, I hate arguing canon, bah. If this comes off bad/mean/harsh, forgive me, please? [/edit]
Every time someone looks at the Invisible character they make a resistance test, that is canon. How else could it be? The subject resists? No because it must be cast around a voluntary subject; you gain no lower drain for that. Look at the Trid Entertainment spell: it requires voluntary targets -those who want to see the illusion can. That is why you are allowed to roll once for all viewers, sort of an average to see how long before someone spots the subject.
If this were true then there would be no resistance test by the viewers, would there? It would be a perception test; which it cannot be, because adepts do not add Enhanced Perception dice to resiting illusions, they add True Sight dice. Think about the Armor spell and how it creates a glow. No one can resist seeing the glow, can they? - You can disagree on the subject vs target as you like, but by your interpretation the spell's force must then be greater than the subject/target's OR. But you can rule however you like. I almost prefer the second because naked mages are fun. Indirect Illusions are like a cross between Direct Illusion spells and Elemental Manipulations. They defy the rule of magic requiring LoS which is what makes everyone crazy. But they can do so because the don't actually do anything -it is all an illusion. It is not just invisibility that has this problem, think about Foreboding or Hot Potato. You cast Foreboding on a subject area. It affects all who enter the area even after the mage leves. Who is the target? Those who enter the area of effect. Let us suppose you quicken Foreboding to a person, as the center of the area affect as a curse for being a jerk. Everywhere that person goes, people will be afraid and try to flee, because they are being affected by the spell unless they resist it. You can play however you like, but only a target can resist a spell. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 29 2003, 07:30 AM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 344 Joined: 28-July 03 Member No.: 5,133 |
I realize it was poorly written on my part.
The entire thing was in reference to the OR vs Magic rule, which is meant for when you actively try to cast a spell on an object. I do not believe that this rule applies for purposes of something walking into an effects and becoming it's "target" because this type of "target" is not the same as when a spell is actually cast ON it's target. Ergo, I do not believe that a force 1 improved invisibility spell would be unable to fool anything with an OR greater than 2, don't get me wrong, it couldn't target such an object meaning it couldn't make IT invisible, but it would fool a camera just fine. Sufficed to say, I don't think they considered objects (sensors) coming into contact with illusions spells and therefore becoming their "targets" when they chose their words on the OR vs magic rules. Hope that clears that up. Sunday. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2003, 08:53 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Sunday - That makes even less sense. Since Indirect Illusions are cast "around" a subject (not a target) and not "at" or "against" it, that subject doesn't make a Resistance Test. A subject human "under" Invisibility or Mask doesn't Resist the spell since he is not its target, and a subject drone or camera in the same situation doesn't have OR come into play either.
To me the issue that remains to be adequately resolved is what does a electronic/mechanical target roll in lieu of Intelligence for its Resistance Test, when it becomes the target (not the subject) of such an Indirect Illusion, especially since OR is not typically rolled. Yes, this has been partially answered in the Official FAQ but honestly that answer really doesn't work for me. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2003, 09:22 AM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 26-February 02 From: UK Member No.: 340 |
This whole problem is due to the way Shadowrun categorises spells. They are grouped by the effect they have, rather how they are created. E.g. if a spell makes someone invisible that makes it an Illusion spell - whether they create that effect by manipulating lightwaves, fooling a person's senses or altering their body to be transparent.
This is one reason I liked Mage: The Ascension - you could have the same effect created in different manners, and how easy or difficult it was would vary e.g. invisibility could be done by bending light (Correspondance and Forces), fooling the mind (Mind), or altering their body to be transparent (Life and Forces). |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2003, 10:12 AM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
You are only partially correct Digitalmage, spells in Shadowrun are grouped by effect, but also by how they achieve that effect. Illusion spells according to SR3 (page 195) function by "manipulating the senses of a victim" or according to MitS (page 55) "[...]are cast on targets affecting their minds or senses". This falls clearly within your "fooling a person's senses" alternative. Illusion spells do not do so by "manipulating lightwaves" or "altering their body to be transparent" (either of which would not fool any senses since those would continue to function as normal, the subject being percieve - either the object or the lightwaves reflected of him/it - would trully be invisible). In fact this is where the difference between subject and target we've been talking about becomes all important. The subject is not affected at all (which would be a Transformation Manipulation), in fact, not even the lightwaves around the subject are affected (another Transformation Manipulation). The target(s) of the spell are the ones who are affected, not the subject(s), especifically (as explained in SR3 page 195, under Indirect Illusions) those who view the "magical effect" cast "around" the subject . Furthermore, viewing the spell effect "around" the subject (in the case of a single sense visual Indirect Illusion like Invisibility) "affects their (the targets') minds (Mana version) or senses (Physical version)". Simply put it's an Illusion which affects the minds or senses of whoever percieves it (ie. its targets). It does nothing to the subject of the spell. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 29 2003, 09:38 PM
Post
#33
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 26-July 03 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 5,029 |
Once again, thanks to everyone for the spirited debate; I'm learning a fair bit about how people read and interpret the rules system and that's at least as useful as a straight answer. Also, thanks to everyone who contributed to the distinction between subject and target; I'm a man who likes his semantics clear, lucid and cogent. :)
Okay, I understand this whole idea. My question remains, however: how invisible is the subject of an Invisibility spell? I'm sympathetic to Synner's smooth, succinct synopsis (say that three times fast ;)), but it left me with a conundrum:
What about the +8 TN modifiers to vision, i.e.:
Now, this excerpt is using "target" incorrectly--they obviously mean "the individual who is 'wearing' the Invisibility spell--but isn't the implication that those blind fire mods come in to effect somehow? By reading the descriptions of Indirect Illusion Spells (p. 195) and Spell Resistance Test (p. 183) in addition to Synner's helpful post, I think I understand the mechanics. However, what happens to the +8? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 29 2003, 10:06 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
This quote is speaking of the target in regards to the attacker. The person he is trying to attack is his target. It in no way is related to the spell description's use of that word, with the exception that the target in this instance is the person affected by the attack in the same way as the (potential) viewer of an invisible person is affected (I.E. the target) by the spell. Target should always equate to the being affected by a certain action. While this may occassionally be the same thing as the subject, this is not always the case. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 29 2003, 10:59 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Fortune is absolutely correct regarding the sense of the quote. The quote you make is regarding the "target" of the attack, not of the spell.
The wording "target of the spell" at the end of the quote is obviously a mistake and should actually read "if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise sense the subject of the spell." The fact that the editor slip at the very end of his explanation does not negate the logic of the remaining sentences in both that section of SR3 and subsequent material in MitS. Regarding the +8 TN modifier, as I explained before it is an all or nothing situation. Simply put, if the target of the spell succeeds in his Resistance (Intelligence) Test the spell has no effect whatsoever. Assuming the target of the spell fails his Resistance (Intelligence) Test against the Spell (see above) he falls under the spell's effect. In this particular case the effect is that the subject of the spell is rendered Invisible to the target of the spell. What this means in game terms is that the target (who failed the Resistance Test) now suffers a +8 TN modifier or in other words "suffers the Blind Fire modifier (p. 111)" in any attacks against the subject of the spell because he cannot see him |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2003, 11:43 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 26-July 03 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 5,029 |
Thanks again for the detailed response, Synner. Just to make sure I understand: if the target of an Invisibility spell rolls more successes on their Intelligence test than the caster did on the casting roll, the subject of the Invisibility spell is, in fact, visible. And risible. Furthermore, the TN for the target's Intelligence test is the Force of the spell. Finally, if the target fails to score more successes than the caster, then the subject is invisible. Am I correct in my appraisal of the rules? ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 29 2003, 11:57 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||||||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
At least in this instance! ;) :) |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 30 2003, 03:53 AM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 26-July 03 From: Montréal, QC, Canada Member No.: 5,029 |
I'll have what he's having... ;) Thanks for the nod Fortune, nice to know I finally understood what the rules intended. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st April 2026 - 04:22 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.