IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> improved invisibility, question
gamemaster
post Jan 31 2005, 01:41 AM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 7,033



hey guys ,fortune wrote questions into shadoqfax ,one of the questions was about improved invisibility and turning objects invisible.and did the force have anything to do with fooling cameras ect....

the answer was basically this only time the force is important is when your trying to turn an object invisible ie...like a camera you have to beat the o/r of it by the force to actually turn the camera invisible.

thats all good we dont run around turning cameras and stop signs invisible even though that could be usefull.my question is this [do you have to beat the o/r of the items your carrying to turn them invisible? i mean lets think ....your carrying a gun,credstick,armored clothing,sunglasses ect...do you have to beat those o/r to turn invisible ? i hope you all understand what im trying to ask....it would put a limit on the improved invisibility spell that everymage runs around with at force 1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lycan
post Jan 31 2005, 01:53 AM
Post #2


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 24-January 05
Member No.: 7,012



If you want an official position just go the FAQ in the shadowrunrpg.com. There is a question/answer about sensors and improv. invisibility. Hope that helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarantula
post Jan 31 2005, 02:47 AM
Post #3


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686



Lycan you misuderstood.

ShadowFAQ answered stating that in order to turn any OBJECTs invisible, the force of the spell has to exceed half the objects OR rating.

No, because of this, if you are wanting to make yourself invisible, does that mean the force of your imp invis spell has to exceed half of any items you are carring on you in order to turn them invisible as well. (Glasses, vest, clothes, boots, shades, foci, fetishes, armor, gun, ammo, etc etc etc). Otherwise, will say you turn invisible, except now you only look like a floating armor jacket with a holster and pistol with a few foci sticking out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gamemaster
post Jan 31 2005, 02:47 AM
Post #4


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 7,033



i understand what it says on shadowfaq ,blaa blaa blaa........but if you can cast invisibility improved onyourself and all your gear goes invisible regardless of force ...what keeps you from strapping a large combat drone on the mages back help with a levitate spell if its too heavy and then cast a force 1 improved invisibility on himself and the drone is also invisible.....anyone see a problem with this ,wouldnt the force of the spell have to beat the o/r of whatever gear the mage is carrying?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gamemaster
post Jan 31 2005, 02:49 AM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 7,033



so tarantula ,whats your answer you do need to beat the o/r of your gear or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Jan 31 2005, 03:27 AM
Post #6


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

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



QUOTE (gamemaster)
so tarantula ,whats your answer you do need to beat the o/r of your gear or not?

Yes, you do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Jan 31 2005, 06:44 AM
Post #7


Immoral Elf
**********

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



I would say no, the spell's Force does not have to be at least 1/2 of the OR of everything you are carrying, because you are in fact carrying them. Magic works on intent, and your intent in turning yourself invisible intrinsically includes your equipment.

If you were trying to turn only a car (or pocket secretary, or stop sign, or camera, or whatever) invisible, independant of everything else, the the Force restriction would then apply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eyeless Blond
post Jan 31 2005, 08:23 AM
Post #8


Decker on the Threshold
******

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



QUOTE (Fortune)
I would say no, the spell's Force does not have to be at least 1/2 of the OR of everything you are carrying, because you are in fact carrying them. Magic works on intent, and your intent in turning yourself invisible intrinsically includes your equipment.

If you were trying to turn only a car (or pocket secretary, or stop sign, or camera, or whatever) invisible, independant of everything else, the the Force restriction would then apply.

Okay, magic works on intent, and intent can bypass OR, right? So now I tie a computer to a tree, and hit it with a Deadly damage Force 1 Toxic Wave spell. Is the computer melted, because it's being "carried" by the OR 3 tree, or is it fine because it's OR 10 and my wimpy Force 1 Toxic Wave spell can't harm highly processed OR 10 objects?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Jan 31 2005, 09:20 AM
Post #9


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



Is your intent to destroy the computer? If yes, then you need to overcome the OR. If not, it is not destroyed anyway.

I deal with the clothing and armour and other stuff for invisibility like targeting fully clad people with combat spells.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedmondLarry
post Jan 31 2005, 10:59 AM
Post #10


Senior GM
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,406
Joined: 12-April 03
From: Redmond, WA
Member No.: 4,442



My character's intent is to go back in time and teleport into Chicago to rob banks before the Containment Zone wall is put up. Since I'm a spellcaster, and I'm sure my magic works on my intent ...
:S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Jan 31 2005, 11:00 AM
Post #11


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,021
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



Canon says you can't. :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarantula
post Jan 31 2005, 02:08 PM
Post #12


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686



QUOTE (toturi)
Is your intent to destroy the computer? If yes, then you need to overcome the OR. If not, it is not destroyed anyway.

You say that if your intent isn't to destroy the computer, it is fine anyway, because a wimpy force 1 toxic wave can't destroy objects with 10 OR.

Is your intent to turn yourself and all things on you invisible? If yes, then you need to overcome the OR. If not, it is not invisible anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CanvasBack
post Jan 31 2005, 04:37 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 18-August 03
Member No.: 5,513



Why would you want to destroy the Computer? The Computer is your friend! *ZAP* *ZAP* *ZAP*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Jan 31 2005, 05:04 PM
Post #14


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

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



But in [game] reality magic does not work on intent. That's a myth. Magic has a set of rules that determines what it affects and intent has nothing to do with it.

[]=edit :P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gilthanis
post Jan 31 2005, 05:16 PM
Post #15


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 19-September 04
From: Charleston, IL
Member No.: 6,676



Oh no. He said in Reality. :eek:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarantula
post Jan 31 2005, 05:18 PM
Post #16


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686



Reality meaning a bunch of guys following rules for playing a game called shadowrun in which magic is defined by a set of rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cochise
post Jan 31 2005, 05:43 PM
Post #17


Mr. Quote-function
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,315
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Germany
Member No.: 1,376



Some thoughts here again (previously stated in similar threads, but nonetheless my opinion:
  • The errataed text regarding the minimum of OR/2 for minimum spell force is located within the section for target numbers of the spell casting rules => The direct application of that rule is restricted to spells that actually use OR as target number, just by the wording. Spells with other TNs (like the aforementioned indirect illusions or elemental manipulation spells) pose some serious problems when trying to apply that OR/2 rule ...
  • Usually whenever this discussion concerning objects and invis (or any other indirect illusion) arises, people tend to forget, that by the wording of indirect illusion spells it's impossible to even cast such spells onto single objects.
  • While I do understand people arguing for the OR/2 being applied to spells like improved invis as well, in order to prevent a force 1 version being enough to deceive any sensory system that operates on "sight", it's rather dubious to apply that rule to spells like Levitation (the spell restricts itself via weight and at least to me it looks rather funny when a mage needs a force 5 spell to levitate a cyberdeck [OR 10] but levitates the same cyberdeck held by a decker at TN 4 with any spell force 1+), Fling and various others.
    As for secondary effects of elemental manipulations: The secondary effects already are influenced by damage level (that's why I usually prefer using the chosen base damage level instead of staged damage codes on individual target through spell successes) and already involves OR (the 2d6 roll must meet OR of any given object to cause a secondary effect) => Doubling the effect of OR in that regard doesn't look too good to me, especially when looking at the often (not rightfully) critizised 1 D fireball: This spell has a 5D Drain code and on the secondary effects roll (which can be made for any individual target within the area of effect, but usually is only made once, due to reasons of convenience) needs to be high enough to ignite objects with OR 8 and higher in most surroundings where the common shadowrunner operates. More then selfbalancing enough to me.

As always: YMMV
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Jan 31 2005, 05:51 PM
Post #18


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

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



QUOTE (Tarantula)
Reality meaning a bunch of guys following rules for playing a game called shadowrun in which magic is defined by a set of rules.

Um yes, thanks. That's what I was trying to say. It hadn't even occurred to me someone might pick that out... :P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Jan 31 2005, 07:28 PM
Post #19


Shooting Target
****

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



QUOTE (gamemaster)
.my question is this [do you have to beat the o/r of the items your carrying to turn them invisible? i mean lets think ....your carrying a gun,credstick,armored clothing,sunglasses ect...do you have to beat those o/r to turn invisible ? i hope you all understand what im trying to ask....it would put a limit on the improved invisibility spell that everymage runs around with at force 1.

We've always assumed that if somthing is part of your person (or you can carry it) then it become invisible when you do. So as you stop carrying it, drop it, whatever, it become visible since the target of the spell was a person. We don't require the OR/2 rule unless that object is the direct target to be effected.

BTW, Invis 1 isn't even a good idea, since the most pool you could add is 1 (the force of the spell) and at best the resisting targets would only ever need 2-successes to try and beat it. For Improved Invis, R=4 is the most useful lowest rating since cameras OR=8.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cochise
post Jan 31 2005, 07:30 PM
Post #20


Mr. Quote-function
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,315
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Germany
Member No.: 1,376



QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
BTW, Invis 1 isn't even a good idea, since the most pool you could add is 1 (the force of the spell) and at best the resisting targets would only ever need 2-successes to try and beat it.

Plain wrong under SR3 rules. The spell's force nowhere limits the number availible number of spell pool dice. You're either talking a house rule there or SR2 ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gilthanis
post Jan 31 2005, 07:31 PM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 19-September 04
From: Charleston, IL
Member No.: 6,676



QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
QUOTE (gamemaster @ Jan 30 2005, 06:41 PM)
.my question is this [do you have to beat the o/r of the items your carrying to turn them invisible? i mean lets think ....your carrying a gun,credstick,armored clothing,sunglasses ect...do you have to beat those o/r to turn invisible ? i hope you all understand what im trying to ask....it would put a limit on the improved invisibility spell that everymage runs around with at force 1.

We've always assumed that if somthing is part of your person (or you can carry it) then it become invisible when you do. So as you stop carrying it, drop it, whatever, it become visible since the target of the spell was a person. We don't require the OR/2 rule unless that object is the direct target to be effected.

BTW, Invis 1 isn't even a good idea, since the most pool you could add is 1 (the force of the spell) and at best the resisting targets would only ever need 2-successes to try and beat it. For Improved Invis, R=4 is the most useful lowest rating since cameras OR=8.

Are you sure you are not thinking of second edition here. The pool is based off of the skill in SR3, not the force of the spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Jan 31 2005, 07:40 PM
Post #22


Shooting Target
****

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



Damn, sorry, I read my SR2 book the other night a further tainted my brain, doh. :pumpkin:

Right. You can't add more Spell Pool dice than Socery Dice allocated for the Sorcery Test. Spell Rating functions alot like weapon power, where it only really comes into play when it's time for the Target to resist. So yeah, L1 invis (or Imp Invis) is still a bad choice! :D

Thanks for catching my mistake!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cochise
post Jan 31 2005, 08:06 PM
Post #23


Mr. Quote-function
***

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,315
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Somewhere in Germany
Member No.: 1,376



QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)
Right.  You can't add more Spell Pool dice than Socery Dice allocated for the Sorcery Test.  Spell Rating functions alot like weapon power, where it only really comes into play when it's time for the Target to resist.  So yeah, L1 invis (or Imp Invis) is still a bad choice! :D

Wrong again. In terms of game mechanics the force 1 invis / improved invis is a rather good choice (and that's why people argue for using the OR/2 rule there as well):

The usual spellslinger comes with a sorcery skill of 6 and spell pool usually equals that value (as sad as I tend to find that fact) => 12d6 vs. a TN of 4 (not too many modifiers usually apply here, so I'll go with the default TN) => On average we're talking 6 successes there => Only opposition with an Int value of 6 and higher stands a chance of piercing the illusion. And when having more than above average results on their resistance tests (in case of Int 6, none of the dice must show a 1 to beat the average result of our mage) ... Let the mage score above average and invis 1 is a darn good protection against any living being and without the OR/2 rule it's dead sure against normal cameras in case of the improved invis ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GrinderTheTroll
post Jan 31 2005, 08:17 PM
Post #24


Shooting Target
****

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



In my group we frown at Spells with force <3, so it's never really been an issue. From a game stand point what we are talking about a few thousand nuyen an 2 Karma Points? Well there is the whole legal/illegal argument vs. Force too.

Check this thread for some other thoughts on "OR or not OR", this was my comment there:
QUOTE (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 or at a recorded section of the moment.  Since the spell "beat" the camera, they would show nothing. Interestingly, the number of successes generated are not as 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tarantula
post Jan 31 2005, 09:39 PM
Post #25


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,664
Joined: 21-September 04
From: Arvada, CO
Member No.: 6,686



So Grinder, by your logic to affect a doberman drone you would need a force 13 imp.invis and thus it would almost never be fooled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th July 2024 - 05:19 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.