Physical Invis. v. Mana Invis., Spell question |
Physical Invis. v. Mana Invis., Spell question |
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.
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
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 |
That's in the spell description. Sphynx |
||
|
|||
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. |
|
|
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 |
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 |
||
|
|||
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 |
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. |
||||
|
|||||
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 |
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.
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.
That thread ended for a reason...
This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 22 2004, 07:21 PM |
||||||
|
|||||||
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
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. |
||
|
|||
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 |
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? |
||
|
|||
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 |
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 |
||||||
|
|||||||
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.
|
|
|
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:
|
||
|
|||
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 |
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 |
||
|
|||
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.
|
|
|
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 |
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. |
||||
|
|||||
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? |
|
|
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 |
Correct. The camera is not resisting, your magic simply isn't powerful enough to affect it.
|
||||
|
|||||
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 |
|
|
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 |
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: |
||
|
|||
Sep 23 2004, 06:39 PM
Post
#23
|
|||||
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
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. |
||||
|
|||||
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 |
|
|
Sep 23 2004, 07:06 PM
Post
#25
|
|||
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Odds vary widely depending on facility. The Ares military weapon complex? High. The Toys 'R' Us warehouse? Low. |
||
|
|||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:55 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.