IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Physical Invis. v. Mana Invis., Spell question
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 22 2004, 05:32 PM
Post #1


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



Does "Physical" Invis. (aka Imporved Invis.) do any good against living targets, or just against non-living ones? Can't find something specifically that says either way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spookymonster
post Sep 22 2004, 05:34 PM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 22-April 02
Member No.: 2,638



Improved invisibility affects both living and non-living targets (in this case, targets refers to the viewer, not the person/area being made invisible).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sphynx
post Sep 22 2004, 05:52 PM
Post #3


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 11-October 02
From: Netherlands and Belgium
Member No.: 3,437



QUOTE
Improved Invisibility affects technological sensors as well.


That's in the spell description.

Sphynx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 22 2004, 06:03 PM
Post #4


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



Yeah I've noticed that, I was just hoping for some text that would definitively say that.

The description in SR3:186 says, "Physical spells affect the physical properties of a target. Only Physical spells affect non-living objects."

I suppose since mana illusion happen in the mind and physical create some visual effect, this would help explain it.

Just wish there was something more explicitly stated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Sep 22 2004, 06:08 PM
Post #5


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
I suppose since mana illusion happen in the mind and physical create some visual effect, this would help explain it.

Physical Illusions don't create an actual visual effect. They simply (physically) manipulate the target into sensing something.

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 22 2004, 06:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 22 2004, 06:50 PM
Post #6


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
I suppose since mana illusion happen in the mind and physical create some visual effect, this would help explain it.

Physical Illusions don't create an actual visual effect. They simply (physically) manipulate the target into sensing something.

SR3:203 under Illusion Spells says, "Physical illusion spells create actual sensory input". 2nd column under "Indirect Illusion Spells" says, "Indirect Illusion spells manipulate energy to create and illusionary image or sound or some other sense-based effect fooling the sences. They must be cast 'around' a person or over an area."

I think these would say that Physical Invis would create something that would refract or bend the light so that the target would appear to be invisible.

Same page under Illusion Spells says, "Mana based spells effect the mind and are ineffective against technological viewing systems like cameras."

The "Indirect Illusion" part helps answer my question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Sep 22 2004, 07:06 PM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
"Physical illusion spells create actual sensory input"

That's basically what I was saying. It feeds the camera an image without the invisible object -- it doesn't actually make the object invisible.

QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
Indirect Illusion spells manipulate energy to create and illusionary image or sound or some other sense-based effect fooling the sences.

Illusory image: not an actual image, but an image one is fooled into seeing. Illusion: a misleading image presented to the vision or perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature.

See here for the average Dumpshock view on the subject (33-4 in favor of "does not create actual light, only sensor input"). Further recent discussions here and here.

QUOTE (Glyph @ Jan 18 2004, 07:25 AM)
A physical illusion creates *actual sensory input* of images, not the images themselves. Otherwise, what would be the point of having a resistance roll for Improved Invisibility, if you still got the -8 TN penalty even if you resisted? But that's not how it works. If you get more successes with your Intelligence test, the spell doesn't affect you at all.
That thread ended for a reason...

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 22 2004, 07:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spookymonster
post Sep 22 2004, 07:30 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 639
Joined: 22-April 02
Member No.: 2,638



Do not debate the ways and means of Improved Invisibility, young Grasshopper, for that path leads to madness and damnation...;)

When you're the GM, interpret the text however you want. When you're the player, your GM's interpretation is final.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Sep 22 2004, 08:00 PM
Post #9


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



What annoys me, though, is that Improved Invis is completely worthless against technological sensors unless it's around Force 5-6. After all, the CCD on a typical video camera is at least as complicated, if not moreso, than your average computer chip, and thus has an OR of 10 or more. It's not really a problem; it's just kinda frustrating that there is no appreciable difference between regular Invisability and Improved Invisability for Force 1-4.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sphynx
post Sep 22 2004, 08:11 PM
Post #10


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 11-October 02
From: Netherlands and Belgium
Member No.: 3,437



Actually since the Camera is not the target of the Spell, OR shouldn't apply. And since Camera are non-sentient, the get no roll to resist, so it's an auto-success.

It does say under spell casting that you use the OR table for casting something at an object. If you have to start using the OR table for everything effected by a spell (or part of the effect of a spell) alot of spells become useless. Catalog would suck as a spell, as would Clairvoyance (can't see what's in the vault), etc, etc. I strongly recommend against opening the can of worm that applying OR to an invis spell would create....

Sphynx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 22 2004, 08:31 PM
Post #11


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Sphynx)
Actually since the Camera is not the target of the Spell, OR shouldn't apply. And since Camera are non-sentient, the get no roll to resist, so it's an auto-success.

It does say under spell casting that you use the OR table for casting something at an object. If you have to start using the OR table for everything effected by a spell (or part of the effect of a spell) alot of spells become useless. Catalog would suck as a spell, as would Clairvoyance (can't see what's in the vault), etc, etc. I strongly recommend against opening the can of worm that applying OR to an invis spell would create....

Sphynx

They just become usless at Force < 4. The theme is that more processed objects are harder to affect with magic. It wasn't until I re-read the SR3 about 100 times before I got the interpretation that OR does apply for invisibility as well as other spells.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Sep 22 2004, 08:41 PM
Post #12


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



QUOTE (Sphynx)
Actually since the Camera is not the target of the Spell, OR shouldn't apply. And since Camera are non-sentient, the get no roll to resist, so it's an auto-success.

Actually, they *are* the targets of the spell. See, the spell is *cast* on a Subject, which is the area or person that you're making invivible. The *targets* of the spell is everyone who tries to view the Subject. This is the interpretation the board has comt to after many long, hot debates and dozens of people quoting the BBB, MitS, and T:AL until they were blue in the face. It makes most Physical illusions useless below Force 5-6, but them's the breaks, I guess.

It's the same way for detection spells, unfortunately, which is why most of them too are almost useless below Force 5-6 as well. Bummer, huh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sphynx
post Sep 22 2004, 09:12 PM
Post #13


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 11-October 02
From: Netherlands and Belgium
Member No.: 3,437



QUOTE (SR3 page 182 under Sorcery Test)
The target number for spells cast against inanimate objects is based on the material from which the object is made


QUOTE (SR3 page 195 under Indirect Illusion Spells)
They must be cast "around" a person, or over an area


QUOTE (MitS page 55 under Illusion Spells)
Indirect illusions are cast on a subject person or area


Only included the 2nd quote to show that the preposition is not the important factor here.

Nice interpretation you have there, but it's not Canon. Object Resistance is ONLY for when you cast against an object, Illusions are cast around (or on) a person. Therefore OR plays no factor at all.

Sphynx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 22 2004, 09:25 PM
Post #14


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



Problem is in order for a spell to affect some innimate object, it has to be atleast 1/2 OR in force. Carmera's OR = 8, so Force 4 minimum is required for the spell to even affect it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Sep 22 2004, 09:38 PM
Post #15


Decker on the Threshold
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 2,922
Joined: 14-March 04
Member No.: 6,156



Wouldn't the OR be 10 or higher? the CCDs they use in cameras definately count as "Highly processed objects" to me.

As for your objections, I'll quote Kanada Ten's explaination for it, since I can't seem to find the larger debate over it:
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
You are affecting the Targets, which are those that observe the Subject which is whom the spell is cast upon.

Technological devices never resist any spell, but any spell must have a force equal to or higher than half the OR to affect it.

If you really want the Subject to be the Target for Indirect Illusions then the force must be so high to affect their clothing and gear, ect.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sphynx
post Sep 22 2004, 09:38 PM
Post #16


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 11-October 02
From: Netherlands and Belgium
Member No.: 3,437



QUOTE (SR3 PG 182 + Errata)
The target number for spells cast against inanimate objects is based on the material from which the object is made.  The more "high-tech" or processed an object is, the harder it is for magic to affect it.  Consult the Object Resistance Table for examples of objects and materials.  The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object.


We've already established by my previous quotes that you are casting 'against' the person (not the camera). From that point on, "it" is the pronoun for the object cast against (the person). Unless you're casting the spell against the camera, the "it" to be affected isn't the camera, so the OR/2 round down < force does not apply.

Anyhows, I've had this discussion countless times before. Not going to carry it further. Everyones allowed to have their own interpretation, but you should remember that it is just that, an interpretation. I'm not saying my view is Canon, I'm saying your view isn't Canon. Someone should not say "it is this way" when "this way" is merely an interpretation. ;)

Sphynx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Sep 22 2004, 09:53 PM
Post #17


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



Sphynx, you may have had this conversation before, but in order for your interpretation to be right you have to completely ignore where it is explicitly stated that the thing or person that views the subject of an invisibility spell or illusion is the Target of the spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 22 2004, 10:00 PM
Post #18


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Sphynx)
QUOTE (SR3 PG 182 + Errata)
The target number for spells cast against inanimate objects is based on the material from which the object is made.  The more "high-tech" or processed an object is, the harder it is for magic to affect it.  Consult the Object Resistance Table for examples of objects and materials.  The Force of the spell must be equal to or greater than half the Object Resistance, rounded down, for it to affect an object.

Anyhows, I've had this discussion countless times before. Not going to carry it further. Everyones allowed to have their own interpretation, but you should remember that it is just that, an interpretation. I'm not saying my view is Canon, I'm saying your view isn't Canon. Someone should not say "it is this way" when "this way" is merely an interpretation. ;)

Sphynx

My hurdle is thinking that the camera requires a certain level of the spell to be affected, while the person viewing the illusion is making the Resistance test with intelligence to try and disbelieve the illusion.

I guess unless we all get some "official" ruling on SR3's choice (or lack therein) of wording, interpret as you see fit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sandoval Smith
post Sep 23 2004, 04:41 AM
Post #19


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,144
Joined: 22-September 04
Member No.: 6,690



This is making my brain hurt. I'd always thought a video camera automatically failed.

So if I had Joe Average sec guard, sitting at a desk looking down the hall, and he failed to beat Improv Invis force 2 he wouldn't see me. But, if there was a camera looking down the hall, all he'd have to do is glance at the monitor on his desk and there I'd be?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Sep 23 2004, 04:44 AM
Post #20


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



QUOTE
So if I had Joe Average sec guard, sitting at a desk looking down the hall, and he failed to beat Improv Invis force 2 he wouldn't see me. But, if there was a camera looking down the hall, all he'd have to do is glance at the monitor on his desk and there I'd be?

Correct. The camera is not resisting, your magic simply isn't powerful enough to affect it.

QUOTE
Sphynx
Improved Invisibility affects technological sensors as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Sep 23 2004, 04:45 AM
Post #21


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



If OR is indeed involved, that's exactly how it would work.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Sep 23 2004, 05:37 PM
Post #22


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,754
Joined: 9-July 04
From: Modesto, CA
Member No.: 6,465



QUOTE (Sandoval Smith)
So if I had Joe Average sec guard, sitting at a desk looking down the hall, and he failed to beat Improv Invis force 2 he wouldn't see me.  But, if there was a camera looking down the hall, all he'd have to do is glance at the monitor on his desk and there I'd be?

Ha! That'd be a funny situation, I could see the Guard doing a fe double takes...looks at the monitor....looks down the hall....looks at the monitor... :rollin:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blakkie
post Sep 23 2004, 06:39 PM
Post #23


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263



QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
QUOTE (Sandoval Smith)
So if I had Joe Average sec guard, sitting at a desk looking down the hall, and he failed to beat Improv Invis force 2 he wouldn't see me.  But, if there was a camera looking down the hall, all he'd have to do is glance at the monitor on his desk and there I'd be?

Ha! That'd be a funny situation, I could see the Guard doing a fe double takes...looks at the monitor....looks down the hall....looks at the monitor... :rollin:

Basically the same situation as for Invisbility. If the guard had been paying attention during Security Watch 101 instead of passing notes to the cutie in the next aisle he'd recognise the situation immediately and punch the alarm button.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Sep 23 2004, 06:54 PM
Post #24


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



But what are the odds of that?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blakkie
post Sep 23 2004, 07:06 PM
Post #25


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263



QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
But what are the odds of that?

~J

Odds vary widely depending on facility. The Ares military weapon complex? High. The Toys 'R' Us warehouse? Low.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th April 2024 - 04:37 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.