My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 Spell Design: Electronic Invisibility, A Variation on Improved Invisibility |
 Jul 18 2004, 11:45 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 97 Joined: 12-July 04 From: A spherical chunk of green cheese Member No.: 6,472  |
People are not inanimate objects though. ;)
Unless we're talking about dead people - but in SR, even that can't be guaranteed. |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:48 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Neither are trees inanimate objects, they are live but still listed under OR 3! :D
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:52 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
If this is what you're referring to, keep in mind it says "cast *against* inanimate objects". An imp. Invis is not cast *against* a camera etc, but the subject (thing/person) being made invisible. Of course, this also means casting spells at a minimum of Force 5 if you want the party Gun Bunny & his smartlinked weapons to be invisible (10+ OR). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:53 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
Last time I saw an animated tree I'd eaten half a can of nutmeg. :P
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 18 2004, 11:56 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Not quite - for living people you don't use OR - you use Body as the TN for Powerball/Bolt, and willpower for Manaball/bolt. In the case of a critter that has no stat for willpower, OR might be applicable, and then a force one might have no effect. Otherwise, force 1 spells can affect a lot of things. *If* you have enough successes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:01 AM
Post
#31
|
|||||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Yes, but that's not always true. Ivisibility uses a TN of 4 but it still doesnt do anything to technological devices if the force isn't at least half the OR. You can have a spell that gets 20 sucesses but does nothing. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:07 AM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 498 Joined: 31-May 02 From: All the way in the Back to the Left. Member No.: 2,800 |
So you guys are saying I would need a force 20ish detect aircraft carrier spell to detect aircraft carriers?
And what about Riggers? You can't just target the sensors with your spell. You have to target the vehicle and try and roll out your ass to to beat the TN since he gets half body and armor before dividing by half. I don't think it is as hard to trick technology with invisiblilty as it is to blast it out of existance with a powerball. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:13 AM
Post
#33
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
I'll completely disagree as the Imp. Inv. in NOT CAST AT the Tech Devices - it's cast around the subject - therefore OR does not apply to the spell TN or force.
Cameras still don't see the Imp. Invis. subject even at force 1, as the spell is not cast against the camera. Once again. The spell is cast around the subject. Not the cameras or other technological devices. Force and OR have no bearing on whether or not the camera "sees" subject. If the spell succeeds at force one, the camera cannot see the subject. But that's just my interpretation. Should you decide to make the Gunbunny's High Tech smartlinked pistol invisible (10+ TN), then you need a minimum force 5 to make it invisible. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:23 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
The thing viewing the invisibility is specifically the target of the spell. That's the basis I'm going off of, but hey, everyone is free to do it however they want in their games, but this does make the "free force one spells for everyone" a LOT less prevalent and I believe in line with the way it should be, but YMMV. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:35 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 498 Joined: 31-May 02 From: All the way in the Back to the Left. Member No.: 2,800 |
I think a force 1 Imp Invisibility spell is great for natural selection. But we do limit the number of successes by the force of the spell, making force important.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:38 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
First, there's a huge difference between the Target Number of a spell and the Target (or Subject) of a spell. They're wholly different beasts, even though the latter generally determines the former in cases of Combat Spells and Directed Illusions.
Second, as BitBasher has said, there's a flat rule in the game that states that the Force of a spell has to be equal to at least half the OR of the Target before it even has a chance of affecting that target. If this first caveat is met, THEN the Target Number comes into play to determine the actual effect of the spell. If the Force of the spell is less than half, the spell as no chance of affecting the target no matter what -- it just doesn't have the moxy to do the job. Third, this rule is basically a tack-on to the rules. As written in the errata, no Level 1 spell can affect any inanimate object (which does include trees, but basically not any sentient being with a standard stat block such as metahumans and critters) because the lowest OR available is 3 for Natural Objects such as (that's right) trees. If for whatever reason you choose to ignore the errata, then ORs only come up for spells that specifically mention them, usually only regarding the Target Number or the Threshold of the spell. Fourth, Invisibility and most other Indirect Illusions are cast on a Subject. The actual Target of the spell, however, is everyone and everything witnessing the Subject. So the tacked-on blanket OR rule applies and varies from Target to Target even though the Subject remains the same. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:57 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 16,898 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
On the one hand, something like this serious damages magic's effectiveness.
On the other hand, it provides a reason for something like the absolutely boneheaded FAQ suggestion on how to deal with vehicles and drones to exist. It still doesn't make sense, but at least it gives you some sort of bonus for casting that Force-45 Improved Invis. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 12:59 AM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 498 Joined: 31-May 02 From: All the way in the Back to the Left. Member No.: 2,800 |
Where exactly in the 'tack-ons' does it say that? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 01:15 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
"The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object."
The lowest OR score is 3 for things like living trees, and that's on SR3 p. 182. Thus a Force 1 spell will not affect any inanimate object because 3/2 is 1.5. Though one can argue that this is rounded down as is most things in the game, but then you run into the problem with a minimum TN of 2. The tack-on is a tack-on to the paragraph talking about Object Resistance numbers and their use with inanimate objects, of which metahumans and critters are not. etc. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 01:18 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 498 Joined: 31-May 02 From: All the way in the Back to the Left. Member No.: 2,800 |
Ok I read it that you where saying it applies to metahumans. I need more coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 01:48 AM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Weren't you the one just saying that a Target is not the same as a Target Number? Sure, a TN cannot be lower than 2, but the quoted sentence does not ever mention a Target Number. It mentions Force and Object Resistance. These are not Target Numbers; they *become* Target Numbers where applicable, but they are not Target Numbers. If anything, they are attributes, like Body or Will, and they can certainly become 1 when needed. So, half of OR 3 is 1.5, rounded down is 1. A Force 1 spell is equal or greater to 1, so it can affect the object. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 01:51 AM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
Just about everything is a target number for something in the game. The Target Number of a spell, as specified by the term "Target" in the spell's stat block, is wholly different than the target of a spell. But half the OR of a target is still the "target number" used to determine the required Force to affect it.
Don't blame me 'cause they use the same and similar terms to describe a plethora of different things. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 02:02 AM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 03:19 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
This rule can create some silly situations. For example, a Force 3 deadly fireball that hits a keg of gundoder but does nothing to it, because the OR of gunpowder is 8. It also makes spells like Trid Enterainment are useless below force 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 03:43 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
I didn't say that I cared for it. It's just what the rules say. I tend to look down upon most of the online errata and FAQs since many of them seem to be snap decisions instead of carefully thought-out and researched ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 04:52 AM
Post
#46
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Okay, so by that argument no attribute can ever be lower than a 2. An Otaku may have a 1 in Body, but because that attribute might sometimes be used as a target number (say for a Powerbolt spell), then its minimum possible value is a 2. In fact, that same weakling Otaku can never run out of Combat Pool, because even when he uses it all up and has 0 remaining, that number must automatically be rounded up to a 2, because there might be an obscure case where it is used as a TN (although I can't really think of any off the top of my head.) No. Not every number in Shadowrun is a Target Number all the time. Sometimes it is an attribute, or in some cases like this one it is *half* of an attribute, and therefore does not necessarily round up to 2. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 06:07 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
That won't help your poor otaku, because the "target number" to be paralyzed due to low body is 0. Err, I mean 2 ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 19 2004, 06:50 AM
Post
#48
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
That's 100% correct in reference to it being a target number. This is exactly how it is in the game. The minimum TN for any test in the game is 2, even if the actual value is 1 or lower. That doesn't change the actual value of the attribute in any way whatsoever.
Nope, because that doesn't make it a target number. He still has no pool. If there is some effect that targets Combat Pool, and I'm not aware of anything that is, it would, indeed, have a minimum TN of 2 even if the pool was completely depleted. It in no way increases his actual Combat Pool despite your ignorant attempt to state otherwise.
I didn't say it was always a target number, nor did I say that it would necessarily be a 2 in the earlier case. I simply pointed out that that blanket rule could give rise to an argument stating that a Force 1 spell could or could not be effective against natural objects. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 19 2004, 07:28 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
You've already realized that this is silly, and you're backpeddling. :P edit- ...for which I am thankful! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 19 2004, 03:37 PM
Post
#50
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 173 Joined: 16-July 04 Member No.: 6,488 |
I am not backpeddling. Maybe you should read the original quote.
Followed by the clarification here.
I don't recall once saying that was my opinion, only that someone could argue it regardless of how stupid it was. This has been proven repeatedly in the last couple of days (i.e., people arguing that "another character" means a third person, not your actual opponent). |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th April 2022 - 12:32 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.