 Spell Design: Electronic Invisibility, A Variation on Improved Invisibility |
  |
  Jul 18 2004, 09:09 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 180 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,722  |
Hoi Chummers, need some help with a Spell Design. A paranoid magician friend of mine wants a spell that makes him invisible to all electronic devices, but visible to the naked/unaugmented eye.
Comments and Suggestion solicited QM |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 09:46 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Shouldn't be difficult. Lemme see if I can dig up a copy of MitS.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 09:48 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Could just cast Improved Invisibility at Force 1 using only one die on the casting test (if you don't make the success, try again... it's not like you'll have to worry about the Drain, at Force 1, with your entire Spell Pool available to soak with). Inanimate objects don't get resistance tests, and will therefore be affected, but, with only 1 success and a TN 1 to resist, people will always see through it unless they botch their resistance test.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 09:49 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
It's Improved Invisibility with the Very Restricted Target (Technological Sensors) spell modifier. That gives it a Drain Code of +1(L). It is otherwise identical to Improved Invisibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 09:52 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Won't work. A Spell has a minimum force to work on a technological device. What that is escapes me at this moment, of course, I could also be smoking crack. I swear I remember that though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 09:59 PM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 97 Joined: 12-July 04 From: A spherical chunk of green cheese Member No.: 6,472 |
The sentences before seem to imply that that's only the case when the object is the target of the spell. In the case of invisibility, the target is the caster, not whatever is observing him/her. So it's pretty open to interpretation. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:01 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
But they get smacked around by Active Sensors, which are completely and utterly unaffected by invis of either variety. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:01 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Of course, if you roll a one on your sorcery test (16.6% chance with one die) you're screwed.
Illusions spells have no threshold for fooling electronic devices, and they don't physically affect it, so there is no minimum force. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:05 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
Nope. The person the spell is cast on is the Subject. Those affected by the spell are the Targets. The sensors/devices are definitely the Target of the spell. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:07 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Backwards - the SUBJECT of the spell is the caster, the TARGET of the spell is whoever looks at the caster. Imp. Inv. has a TN of 4. Period. Unlike Powerball, which has a TN of Body, and then states "The TN for non-living targets can be found on the object resistance table." Spells that require the Object Resistance Table will state it, like Analyze Device, etc. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:11 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
That's what I was looking for, for invis to work on cameras it needs to be higher than half the OR. Since cameras have an OR of 8 more than likely the invis has to be at force 5, because the camera is the target of the spell. One sucess on a force 5 spell is all that is needed and the camera automatically is fooled since it does not get to resist.
Force one Improved Invisibility doesn't pay off. You can get enough raw sucesses to fool living things if you have enough dice, but against technology it fails automatically. EDIT: And the subject is not the caster. The subject is whatever the caster made invisible, which is not always the caster. If the caster cast this on Spanky Bill then Spanky Bill is the subject, and everyone looking at Spanky Bill is the target. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:17 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 97 Joined: 12-July 04 From: A spherical chunk of green cheese Member No.: 6,472 |
Looks like you're right. Pretty screwed up though, how whatever an invisibility spell affects is called the subject, and whatever a mask spell affects is called the target. Meh.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:25 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
Nope. Mask works the same way. In fact, pretty much all spells work that way. It's just in most cases the subject and the target are the same thing, so they're just called a target.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:29 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 97 Joined: 12-July 04 From: A spherical chunk of green cheese Member No.: 6,472 |
Works the same way, but the description still refers to the person it's cast at as the target instead of the subject. A matter of semantics, but annoying nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:37 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
That's because Magic in the Shadows is the book that defined the two terms. In the main book, they use both terms interchangably. They like to confuse people.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:39 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Aye, that they do. They should really correct a lot of those phrases in a future printing. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 10:40 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 97 Joined: 12-July 04 From: A spherical chunk of green cheese Member No.: 6,472 |
Sucks that I don't have Magic in the Shadows, then. :(
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:00 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Where is this listed? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:06 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Cheezy answer already quoted this at the top of the thread... so credit for this goes to him (him right?).
Er... make my above post force 4 to affect cameras, 4 is half or greater than their OR of 8. I mistakenly read it as greater than half not half or greater. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:19 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 97 Joined: 12-July 04 From: A spherical chunk of green cheese Member No.: 6,472 |
Yes, him. :P
I think he's asking you where you got the OR of the camera. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:30 PM
Post
#21
|
|||||||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
You never know man, and sometimes gender specific pronouns sound less impersonal and more friendly. :D
OH! Then I misunderstood completely. it's from:
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:33 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
You should've said credit goes to it.
~J for the use of dehumanizing genderless pronouns |
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:35 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Yeah, but I just saw "I, Robot" so I'm trying not to do that to you faceless online peeps. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:36 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
I meant where is this specifically for invis? In the spell section it gives a flat TN of 4, and makes no reference to OR, even though several other spells specifically do mention it when casting on something non-living (Powerball, Analyze device, Chaff, Wreck), whereas Imp. Invis, Flash, Physical Camouflage, Vehicle Mask do not. (although Vehicle Mask states the spell can only mask vehicle's with a body equal to or less than the force of the spell.) So I interpret this to mean the TN is as stated, unless otherwise indicated in the spell description. Otherwise Magic against Vehicles section would make the TN for Vehicle Mask = 8 (OR) + Body + 1/2 Armor, not a TN of 4. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:40 PM
Post
#25
|
|||||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
It's not specifically for invis, it's for ALL spells. It's listed under the Sorcery Test. You can get all the sucesses in the world but if the force of the spell isn't force 4 or higher it cannot affect cameras. Interesting side effect, Natural Objects are OR:3. A force one spell can affect NOTHING, Not even people. It has to be force 2 or higher to affect living things, and at an OR of 3 a force one spell is not equal to or greater than half the OR! I never noticed that before. EDIT: a Force one manabolt is the equivalent of pointing your finger and saying BANG for light drain, because it can't actually do damage! LOL! :spin: :grinbig: :twirl: |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 08:54 AM |
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.