New ShadowFAQ Rules Q's and A's

New ShadowFAQ Rules Q's and A's, Let the flames begin!

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 12:57 AM Post #26
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	bitrunner: Firstly, the 'co-coordinator' was a typo. I originally typed co-ordinator, but realized that the word was coordinator and somehow messed it up when correcting it (through the hotmail spellchecker even). I did notice when I transfered the email to the forum, but as I didn't want to be accused of editing the response in any way, I reprinted it word-for-word (as I stated in the first post), with no corrections. It was not meant as a slight. My apologies if you took it that way. Secondly, they are not my examples! If you will re-read my question, you will find that I gave no examples of casting the spell on inanimate objects. I was quite clear (and correct) in relaying your SRM ruling on the matter, so I am having trouble figuring out exacly what point you are having trouble getting across to me?

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 01:06 AM Post #27
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	Since when do inanimate objects get any kind of roll to resist spells? Other than vehicles, can you give me another canon example?

bitrunner View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 01:08 AM Post #28
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915	that's why i put the smiley on the end...not offended...just hurt that no one loves me... :) Seriously, there are a lot of people out there that think i'm, for lack of a better word, an "asshat"...there are others that think i'm doing good work for the game - i'll be 40 this year, and i grew up overweight with glasses and really good at math and science...i'm pretty sure i can ignore the first half and just continue to try to please the second half... 8) as for the latter, it was not directed at you personally - that's why i quoted - the examples are in your quoting of ShadowFAQ...that's what i'm finding fault with...

mfb

Jan 9 2005, 01:17 AM

Post #29

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

er, point of interest: the camera does not get a resistance test.

QUOTE (SR3 pg 183)

Non-living, non-magical targets may not make a Resistance Test.

so, outcome 3: as long as Joe gets 1 success, and his spell was cast at force 4 or higher, Joe is not seen by the camera.

the question is whether or not Joe needs to cast it at force 4 or higher, since he's not actually casting the spell directly on the camera. i say yes, because all of the text in the book suggests that, even though Joe isn't casting a spell directly on the camera, the camera is still the target (or, rather, a target) of the spell, and inanimate spell targets have a minimum force requirement to be affected.

the alternate opinion--the one supported by the FAQ--is that the force of the spell can be 1 and still keep Joe hidden from the camera. the only support i see for this opinion is the fact that the spell isn't cast directly on the camera itself. i don't see this as being a very strong argument, since you can make the same argument for a spell like powerball. the way i see it, invisibility has an area of effect, just like powerball; and just like powerball, everyone inside that area of effect is a target of the spell. for improved invisibility, the area of effect is "everyone and everything that views the subject of the spell"; for powerball, it's "everyone and everything inside the radius of the spell".

bitrunner

Jan 9 2005, 01:19 AM

Post #30

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 496
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Orlando FL
Member No.: 2,915

QUOTE (Fortune @ Jan 8 2005, 09:06 PM)

Since when do inanimate objects get any kind of roll to resist spells? Other than vehicles, can you give me another canon example?

it is implied as follows (all on pg 195)

Under the description for Illusion Spells (the category):
"Mana-based illusion spells...are ineffective against technological viewing systems like cameras. Physical illusion spells...are effective against such systems. If the observer generates equal or more successes in a Resistance Test, then the observer determines that the illusion is not real."

Under the spell itself:
"Improved Invisibility affects technological sensors as well."

the camera/sensor is the "observer" and therefore it is implied that it should make a Resistance Test using its Intelligence/Perception, which for a camera/sensor is based on its Device Rating.

if you (generic) are following the letter of the law, then it becomes a trivial matter and there is no chance at all for a camera to see something invisible that only requires ONE SUCCESS against a TN of 4 - that's just WAY to easy...and it just FEELS wrong (to me) that someone can do the same against Rating 1 cameras and Rating 10 cameras, just ONE SUCCESS against a TN of 4, and the Rating 10 camera can't do anything about it...the rating of the camera is never taken into account...

If that is the case, then I suggest making all cameras count as Sensors - whether they are in a vehicle or building should not matter...now, how do you handle the situation where a guard is watching the monitor - is that just a Passive Sensor Test, using the guards Intelligence? or does the guard get no chance at all, since the sensor is between him and the spell effect.

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 01:21 AM Post #31
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	I understand where the examples are. I was referencing your statement that you were having trouble getting your point across, as I am sure I understood it quite well, and have relayed that point to more than one person since we discussed the matter at some length in another thread. Oh well, no harm, no foul. :)

mfb View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 01:29 AM Post #32
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	i disagree, bitrunner. if you allow cameras to get a resist roll against invisibility, why don't they get a resist roll against powerbolt? i don't see invisibility against cameras as being all that unbalancing; as others have pointed out, there are lots and lots and lots of other ways to detect intruders. in a world where magic is real, any corporation dumb enough to rely only on cameras for intrusion detection is too dumb to survive long anyway.

Fortune

Jan 9 2005, 01:30 AM

Post #33

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

QUOTE

if you (generic) are following the letter of the law, then it becomes a trivial matter and there is no chance at all for a camera to see something invisible that only requires ONE SUCCESS against a TN of 4 - that's just WAY to easy...

And yet that is canon. Any assumption of a resistance roll is a house rule ... until such time as it is errata'ed.

bitrunner View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 01:52 AM Post #34
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 496 Joined: 28-June 02 From: Orlando FL Member No.: 2,915	the difference is that you cast the powerbolt directly at the camera...the illusion is not casted at the camera, it is an INDIRECT illusion, and the camera is "looking" at a point in space. You are changing what the camera (and anyone/thing else that is looking at that area of effect) sees - you are not directly changing the data stream of the camera itself... ok, so then do SENSORS get a Resistance Test?? And if so, why, because *they aren't living either*, yet the section on rigging mentions that they can make them. pg 136, Sensor Test Modifiers, Concealed by Spell: "Certain physical illusion spells, such as Improved Invisibility...require a Resistance Test to pierce the illusion." therefore, drones, vehicles, and buildings - which all use sensors - can make an Active Sensor Test versus the Signature of the target (or area) to see if they detect anything. Correct??

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 02:21 AM Post #35
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	So what you are now saying is that the Force sets the TN for the camera's resistance roll, but doesn't matter as far as OR is concerned. So if a Mage gets 8 successes (against a TN of 4) on his Improved Invisibility spell, the camera (which has some arbitrary rating of ?) would need 8 successes against the Force of the spell to pierce the illusion. Or would it be against a TN of the subject's signature? If it's the latter, when does the Force of the spell come into play?

Austere Emancipa...

Jan 9 2005, 02:37 AM

Post #36

Great Dragon

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

QUOTE (bitrunner)

pg 136, Sensor Test Modifiers, Concealed by Spell:
"Certain physical illusion spells, such as Improved Invisibility...require a Resistance Test to pierce the illusion."

therefore, drones, vehicles, and buildings - which all use sensors - can make an Active Sensor Test versus the Signature of the target (or area) to see if they detect anything.

Probably. Don't have my book right here. If it is true, it makes perfect sense: the Sensor system of a drone, a vehicle or a building uses a number separate spotting methods, only two of which might be visible light and IR camera.

The higher the rating of the Sensors, the more likely it is that the drone/vehicle/building effectively uses the other spotting methods to realize that there really is something there even when the cameras show otherwise. Therefore, the Active Sensor Test still does not imply that the cameras are any less fooled than if they were stand-alone security cameras.

Kremlin KOA View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 02:50 AM Post #37
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650	remember bitrunner Active sensors includes little things like radar

Crusher Bob View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 02:51 AM Post #38
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253	The concealability rules he might be referring to are in the cyberlimb section, using those rules for a dermal sheath at well sounds simple enough (since they are both artificial skin anyway).

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 02:56 AM Post #39
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	No, I think I wrote 'Dermal Plating' when I should have written 'Orthoskin', as was said above. :oops:

bitrunner

Jan 9 2005, 03:06 AM

Post #40

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 496
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Orlando FL
Member No.: 2,915

QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)

remember bitrunner Active sensors includes little things like radar

granted...

and cameras are just sensors with visual components only then...

but back to my question - if everyone is so hard and fast on the rule that a non-living thing cannot have a Resistance Test, then why do sensors???

it all comes down to one thing - the book and rules are still unclear and open to interpretation - at the least, errata needs to be put out in the magic section that talks about Resistance Tests that adds Sensors to those things that can make the test.

so now you have a technological device that can make the test - where do you draw the line??

Austere Emancipa... Austere Emancipator View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 03:22 AM Post #41
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222	I would just errata it so that the Active Sensor Test to not be fooled by the spell would not be called a Resistance Test. Just call it an Active Sensor Test, which happens to have a Treshold of (Successes of the ImpInvis spell) with a TN of (Force of the ImpInvis Spell). After all, it is implied that the Sensor suite is not actually resisting the spell as much as it is trying to use the other types of sensors it has to make up for the loss of cameras.

Kanada Ten

Jan 9 2005, 03:49 AM

Post #42

Beetle Eater

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

QUOTE

(SR3 pg195)
They [indirect illusion spells] must be cast "around" a person, or over an area (Magic rating in meters) that is within the caster's line of sight.

Vehicle Mask...

hyzmarca View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 04:52 AM Post #43
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456	Any building worth running against that only has optical cameras for security deserves what it gets. Improved Invis does nothing against ultrasound, radar, motion dectors, or therman sensors. Any decent security system will detect an invisable mage.

Fortune

Jan 9 2005, 05:01 AM

Post #44

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

To further muddy the waters, from the existing FAQ ...

QUOTE

Q: How does an improved invisibility spell function against a drone's sensors? Is it resisted by the drone or can the drone just not see the character? What if the drone's sensors include thermographic imaging?

A: Technically, Improved Invisibility requires a Resistance Test, and non-living things don't get to make Spell Resistance Tests. So the simple answer is that the spell automatically fools drones.

If you want to be picky, however, then you can note that Improved Invisibility works against any tech sensors that involve sight: video cameras, laser proximity detectors, rangefinders, thermo. As described on p. 135, SR3, however, vehicle sensors include other components such as ultrasound, radar, listening devices, etc. Theoretically, these sensors could pick up an invisible character. (The same as you might give an NPC a listening Perception Test as an invisible character moved by.)

If you allow a Sensor Test based on those components, you should apply some hefty modifiers, or perhaps only roll half the Sensor dice. Keep in mind that even if the drone detects the invisible character, it still won't be able to "see" him, so it may get confused or otherwise not act the same as if it had actually detected something walking by.

Fortune

Jan 9 2005, 05:09 AM

Post #45

Immoral Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486

Note to ShadowFAQ: The answer to the Magic Loss from Implants question is out-of-date.

From the M&M Errata ...

QUOTE

p. 78 Bioware and the Awakened [4]
Replace the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs with the following:

In game terms, bioware reduces an Awakened character's Magic rating in a way similar to Essence loss. Magic is reduced by the character's Bio Index divided by 2 (round down).

The effects of Bio Index and Essence reduction on Magic are cumulative, so the two should be combined before determining how Magic is affected. Magic has a starting value equal to the character's Essence minus (Bio Index ÷ 2), rounded down. So a starting magician with Essence 5.8 and a Bio Index of 1 begins with a Magic rating of 5 (5.8 - 0.5 = 5.3, rounded down to 5). Further increases in Bio Index (or reductions in Essence) may also affect the Magic rating whenever the total falls beneath a whole number. If the same magician later acquires more bioware, raising his Bio Index to 2, he will lose an additional point of Magic (5.8 - 1 = 4.8, rounded to 4).

Magic reduction from bioware functions like other forms of Magic loss-adepts lose some of their powers, for example. Geasa can be used to counteract magic loss from bioware and a character can still initiate to raise his Magic rating.

Club

Jan 9 2005, 05:46 AM

Post #46

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 190
Joined: 24-October 04
Member No.: 6,787

QUOTE (Glyph)

It kind of boggles my mind that Night Vision is a resisted spell... so you can see in the dark, but might not be able to see everybody in the aforementioned dark. Okaaaay.

I manabolt the darkness

Adam View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 05:53 AM Post #47
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51	Hey - Just a note that there's an upcoming Shadowrun FAQ update; I'm just waiting on Rob to finalize some stuff, and then the fun of converting a heavily-revised FAQ to HTML. I don't have a timeframe, but it's "soon."

Fortune View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 06:00 AM Post #48
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	In retrospect, I probably should have emailed that correction (there are one or two others) to ShadowFAQ, but this is specifically a thread on Shadowrun's official Q's and A's. I'd do the grunt work, but I don't know too much about html. Bsides, you should have more time now. ;)

Adam View Member Profile	Jan 9 2005, 06:06 AM Post #49
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51	You'd think that, but I'm not so sure it's true. [Although I am getting to spend more time working on Shadowrun stuff.]

mfb

Jan 9 2005, 06:15 AM

Post #50

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (bitrunner)

but back to my question - if everyone is so hard and fast on the rule that a non-living thing cannot have a Resistance Test, then why do sensors???

as others have noted, sensors include non-visual means of detection. why they chose to make this a resistance test, instead of a simple sensor test against a higher TN, i don't know. it may have something to do with the fact that everything in SR that involves vision in any way also involves stark, raving madness. smartlinks, invisibility, visual magnification, spell targeting--if it's vision-related, and it's in SR, it's got deep-seated flaws.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »