Invisible to Cameras, But Not to the Naked Eye Options

[FlakJacket]

This has probably come up before and is fairly obvious to most people, but I don't usually deal with magicians so I just wanted to check. If you cast Invisibility on yourself at Force 1 you'd be invisible to all visual based mechanical or electronic devices, but people would only have to roll one success at a Willpower 2 test to see you and not notice the spell?

[Catsnightmare]

No, they would have to cast Improved Invisibility to be unseen by cameras and a person roll more successes at TN2 than the spellcaster got on their sorcorey test for the improved invisibility spell.

[Fortune]

Invisibility, being Mana-based, has absolutely no effect on cameras and the like. The Physical spell Improved Invisibility is needed to affect tech.

[FrostyNSO]

I think he/she may be asking if a force 1 invisability (improved, of course!) would be enough to fool a camera?

It would if the camera isn't allowed to resist the spell?

Does the camera get to make a check using it's device rating?

[Fortune]

No, objects never get a resistance roll against spells.

There is some debate (in the case of Illusion spells) about whether the Force of the spell must be equal or greater than one half of the OR of the object though.

[Modesitt]

The passage you're looking for is on page 192, right column.

[Fortune]

I know that passage is there, and have argued about it before. This does not seem to be an official rule in regards to Illusion Spells as far as the official SRM campaign is concerned, which is why I stated that there is some debate over the matter.

Unfortunately, after 20 minutes of looking (the Search function doesn't work for me at all), I can't find the thread where bitrunner discusses it.

[Fortune]

As a note, I was under the impression that ORs only went as high as 10.

[Modesitt]

Upon re-reading - Yeah. Chart only specifies up to 10, then just leaves it open after that.

This is what you're looking for.

He seems to freely mix the concepts of the Force necessary to affect a given OR and target numbers. I might do a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the two paragraphs in question sometime. I'm personally inclined to just chalk it up to sloppy editing. I think sentence three supposed to go "..against inanimate objects is USUALLY based...". The first word of the next paragraph should be changed to 'Some' to avoid confusion. Actually, it'd be best if everything related to Force was put in the section on ... FORCE! You know, where this would logically be, not nestled in among stuff about target numbers.

One of these days, I'm going to make a list of all the editing changes I'd make to the SR books if I could. Not rules I don't like, just a word here and there to clarify things, move things around, that sort of thing.

[Fortune]

That's the one, thanks. (I hate that I can't use the Search feature!!!)

It would make sense to have a blanket statement covering the relationship between Force and inanimate objects. I'm surprised nobody has contacted the official info-guy for an answer to this, as it has come up more than once. I would do it, but I think he's getting sick of me by now. :D

[GrinderTheTroll]

[TeOdio]

Invisibility is one that crops up a bit in my game as I try to emphasize a stealthy approach. When you look at the passage about The sorcery Test (p. 182 in my book) it seems pretty clear to me that that the Force rating should has to be at least half the Object Resistance when the mage is targeting that object with a spell. Improved Invisibility has no target. It is an indirect illusion. Therefore, it would affect a camera. If someone was watching the recording or watching the camera directly, they could notice some flaws in the image that would give the mage away (the problem with a low force spell) assuming the person could get enough successes to beat what the mage rolled on his sorcery test. A directed illusion spell, like Chaos would require the Force of the spell to be at least half of what the OR is.
Ah Shadowrun, where the rules are never in the right place in the book, but strewn out across countless pages.
:S

[Kanada Ten]

[Panzergeist]

I don't think that passage applies to indirect illusions, since they aren't cast on the object which they are fooling. It would, however, apply to the thing being made invisible, so you would need force 5 invisibility to make a drone invisible.

[Kanada Ten]

If that were the case then the mana Invisibility could not even make your clothes invisible because mana spells cannot affect inanimate objects. You are free to rule that the OR/2 relates to the spell's subject and not the target in the case of Indirect Illusions (thus requiring mages to use high force spells to make their high tech armor disappear).

[GrinderTheTroll]

This line of thinking has helped me understand the whole "OR or not to OR issue":

Since Improved Invis affects the mind and cameras don't have minds (or get resitance rolls for that matter) the only way to make the spell work on an inanimate, non-living object is to cast a spell of high enough level to effect it, that being OR/2. Technically, all you'd need is 1-success.

In the case of a camera, someone is probably looking through it and at that point, the viewer would need to roll to resist the spell, since they have a mind which is directly what the spell is targeting. This is where the number of successes generated are important.

The bottom line is, since inanimate objects don't get resistence tests, so they can only be effected by casting a spell at high enough level that being OR/2.

SR3 does a poor job of explaining this, but thinking about it in this manner helps it make sence to me since, after all, cameras have no mind for the spell to effect.

[Tarantula]

[Moon-Hawk]

I agree. The person looking at the output of the camera (in real-time or recorded) is not a target of the spell, but they are getting their information from a camera, and the camera has been fooled. Therefore the person still can't see you, but that's not because they're being in any way affected by the invisibility. They are relying on information gained from a source that was a target of invisibility.
Subtly different.

[GrinderTheTroll]

Ah, so if I understand what you are both saying is, as long as the camera is beatin (OR/2), then no matter what is on ther other side, they can't see it? It makes good sence, because, as mentioned, you can't record magic, and if you forced a resistance test, you'd need to make once each time you look at the replay, which is impossible.

Great, let me restate my explaination:

[Moon-Hawk]

I totally agree with your revised statement.

[mfb]

this seems sensible to me.

[TeOdio]

Don't forget, however, you can record magical effects as long as they are Physical spells in nature. I think K10 hit it on the head in his explanation (thanks for the MITS look up on that, once again 2 books to say one thing hehe). They also give examples where Physical Illusion spells like Trid Phantasm can effect a user. I still think a person viewing the spell as recorded whether it is an invisibility spell or a Trid Phantasm spell, physical mask, etc would get a roll to notice something wasn't right. THe camera would record exactly what it sees. remember, this ain't D20. Invisibility is not a static spell that does the same level of effectiveness for every spell user. A mage must take shape some magical energy, the Force of the spell if you will, and attempt to create an image (or in the case of invisibility, erase an image). The amount of successes determines how well the Mage makes the image stick. For instance, a mage that generates 2 successes might not have been as precise with his creation of the image. A person seeing the image, assuming they might be smart enough to notice the differences enough to "determine the illusion is not real" SR3 p195, would have an easy time if the Force was low like a 2 or 3. If the Force wass relatively high, like a 5 or 6, than power of the magic fueling the illusion might still be enough to fool someone even if the spell was cast poorly (ie, few successes). Because of that reason, I feel a person viewing what the camera recorded, might pick up on the irregularities in the image. If you follow the OR argument, however, the Force of the spell needed to "fool" a camera would almost assuredly fool your average guard watching it anyway.

[mfb]

that's not how Imp Invis works, though. if the spell is successful, the camera simply fails to record the subject of the spell. there's nothing for any viewer to notice--the viewer isn't being affected by the spell at all, as a matter of fact, so there's no reason for the viewer to resist.

[The White Dwarf]

This thread has shined some useful light on some oft contested or misunderstood points. Thanks guys, hope some others get the same use out of it.

[RedmondLarry]