Transmogrifying Invisibility, What to do with it? Options

[Crimson Jack]

The FAQ/Invisibility issue is something that I've been paying close attention to on DSF the last couple of days. The FAQ answer sort of bugs me (regarding creating LOS through a wall). This poll is not intended to halt discussion on the original post, but I'm curious at to how people view the spell now and if they are planning to do anything about it.

Personally, I'm considering working out a Manipulation version of it if its truly supposed to be able to create LOS through walls. I'll put it to a vote with my group before monkeying around with it.

[Kagetenshi]

As usual, I'm ignoring the FAQ on this one.

~J

[Edward]

2 points

First I don’t see hy it works better as a manipulation than a illusion

Second if you ignore the FAQ what do you see behind something that is invisible. You could say “what you expect to see” but what about casting improved invisibility on a door and pointing a camera at it, the camera doesn’t have any expectations.

If you can’t see threw an invisible wall/door you wind up with an interesting situation of a dwarf hiding behind an invisible troll, and having it work. I find the FAQ answer maintains the most consistency, (its also fun to cast invisibility on the floor of a skyway connecting 2 buildings)

Edward

[Kagetenshi]

It maintains no consistency. Unless you'd like to explain why Invis can extend LOS while Clairvoyance cannot?

~J

[Clyde]

Manipulation spells are not resisted by bystanders. If you're going to make a manipulation version of invisibility, be darned certain that it does not affect living objects or you'll have balance issues.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing this one spell over and over. It seems to cause nothing but headaches, right up there with Ruthenium. I've had fewer problems with APDS ammo, frankly.

[fistandantilus4....]

Of course it would effect living objects. Manipulation effects every damn thing. It 's less powerful, because it's up to +8, where invisibility is just flat out +8.
Yes, there is no chance to resist, but how many mages out there have a lower sorcery than 6. Target numbers only 4. With spell pool, that's an easy 6 success.
How many gaurds have you seen get 6+ succeses against it?
+8 is a lot more balance IMO because you get open tests for perception.

Besides, just throw a grenade. Don't realyl have t oaim so darn much. Make it a super flash , and everyone's blind. Every security company should have those things! Seen up to 3 km off! hell of an alarm!
Let's see a mage get LOS after being hit with that!

[Kagetenshi]

[Clyde]

And this is the kind of pro-invisibility doublethink that always comes up! I'm sick of putting that much time and effort into one spell when there's a whole world I've got to keep running. Instead of sitting around asking myself how many angels can dance on the head of an invisible pin I'm dumping that portion of the FAQ. As far as I'm concerned, (1) Invisibility and Improved Invisibility only affect normal sight, (2) "normal sight" does not include thermographic vision, (3) no spells extend line of sight. Game balanced, coherence preserved, world continues, end of story.

[BitBasher]

[ShadowGhost]

[The Jopp]

The simplest solution to the invisibility spell is to limit it to living beings. I know this will limit the spell a lot but that could be alleviated with a lower drain for a specifik target. I DO believe that the main purpose/intent of the invisibility spell was to make PEOPLE invisible, not guns, doors, pots, pans, vehicles etc - well, perhaps vehicles, especially drones.

The difference with making an elemental version of invisibility is that it would be SEVERELY limited compared to the illusionary one due to one fact, physics.

The only way of making invisibility is (AFAIK) A: Bending light around an object AKA predator camouflage or perhaps B: Create a plasma shield of some kind that does not reflect light (the latter was some new invention they had a theory of for making "stealth" planes)

Problems with a physical invisibility spell. 1: Elemental effect, higher drain. 2: Easier to spot. The spell relies wholly on natural vision and ignores ultrasound, radar, astral vision, and basic sound. The point with the illusion invisibility is to make people BELIEVE there is no-one there, that SHOULD include sound, up to a point, like the sound of someone walking. Physical invisibility would be spotted almost instantly by a sensor test or ultrasound and astral sight.

:talker: :talker: :talker:

[Edward]

[ShadowGhost]

I'd like to see the original clause enforced, with one minor change, from SR3 (not MitS) concerning Indirect Illusions "They must be cast “around” a person or subject"- (Italics are my words to be added to the phrase).

Since a wall or a closed door would act as it's own barrier to being "surrounded" by the Improved Invisbility spell, it eleminates the possibility of firing spells, or shooting at targets through an invisibile wall, as you can now, under the FAQ.

Either that, or rule that you can't turn part of a subject invisible - you must make the entire thing invisible. So no making walls or doors invisible as they are parts of a building, just as you cannot use magic to target part of a car or other vehicle. Elemental Manipulations that are not area effects would be an exception, as they are treated as ranged combat.

[toturi]

The nice thing about the FAQ is, by admission of ShadowFAQ, he is not a line developer and is offering his opinions on the matter. While I respect the fact that he is willing to take up the responsibilty, I am disappointed with the quality of the answers and solutions offered by the FAQ.

As far as I am concerned, the FAQ is non-canon.

[ShadowGhost]

[BitBasher]

I'll tell you what. For free I will keep the FAQ maintained. Myself. Then I'd agree with all the answers, and problem solved! :D

[Crimson Jack]

Who voted to have it removed altogether?

[John Campbell]

IMAO, the FAQ ruling is not just silly, but flat-out WRONG.

There's some fuzziness in the rules, but I do not believe the FAQ ruling to be a valid interpretation of the text as written. It's not a clarification, it's an outright change in the rules.

Of course, FanPro is free to do that. It's their rules. It's beyond the purview of the FAQ, though. And, in this case, I think it would be a Really Bad Idea to make this an actual rules change, because it's inconsistent with the way magic has been presented as working since day one, and opens a whole can of worms that should really be left closed.

Let me take the rulings one at a time:

1. Eh. Good and bad.

Friendlies should clearly be affected by the spell. SR spells don't discriminate in their targeting. However, the person who is creating the illusion should not be fooled by the illusion, because, as the creator of the illusion, he knows exactly what it is that he's covering with illusion. The caster, therefore, shouldn't be affected. But I'm not particularly wedded to that ruling... it's a personal feeling, not a hard logical necessity of the rules, nor something that could be terribly prone to abuse (unless combined with 2, below, in which case it's bad craziness). If a GM told me that it worked as per this ruling in their game, I wouldn't argue.

2. Oh, Bloody Shambling Zombie Jesus. Tell me that they didn't make that official. This is a terrible, terrible ruling, inconsistent with the existing rules, illogical, and it opens the door wide for brutal abuse of the system.

Illusions cannot produce line of sight for casting. It's been clearly established since the beginning that the caster needs to be able to see the original photons that bounced off the target, possibly reflected or refracted, but not artificially repeated in any way. Illusions do not provide access to those photons.

As per the description of the workings of illusion spells, mana illusions don't provide any physical sensory input at all... they merely trick the mind into thinking it's receiving the illusionary sensory input. With mana illusions, you're not seeing the things behind the invisible barrier at all... you just think you are.

Physical illusions create actual sensory input, but this is explicitly created input. Again, you're not seeing the things behind the invisible barrier at all. You're seeing a false image that's being generated at your eye.

In either case, the subject, the barrier, isn't being altered at all. It isn't made actually transparent, nor are photons being bent around it or any other such thing. It's still very much present and opaque, and the original photons necessary to establish LoS for spellcasting are striking it and stopping. That the target is being provided with a false image, either a pure hallucination or actual false input, is irrelevant. It's still a false image created by the spell, not made up of those all-important original photons, and therefore cannot be used for targeting spells.

I'm not going to bother outlining the potential abuses of this FAQ ruling... I'm sure you can all fill those in yourself.

3. Uh... I don't think this one is even internally consistent.

If the spell is being cast on the (inanimate) subject, as is implied by having to beat the subject's OR, then it should require the physical version of the spell, because mana spells can't affect inanimate objects. If the mana version works, then it's clearly not being cast on the subject, because mana spells can't affect inanimate objects, and therefore shouldn't have to beat the subject's OR.

Since the rules are clear that the division between mana and physical illusions is ability to affect inanimate viewers, not inanimate subjects, and the ruling even acknowledges that, I'm going to assert that even internal consistency requires that it's the viewer's OR that the spell must beat, not the subject's.

And since it's the viewer that the spell attacks, and the viewer that has to resist the spell, it's only reasonable that it's the viewer's OR that should be considered.

I think this ruling is a product of the same broken thinking that produced 2. It only makes even the slightest bit of sense if you assert that the illusion is somehow physically affecting the thing to be made invisible... making it transparent to light or something like that. However, that's obviously wrong for mana illusions, and less obviously but still clearly wrong for physical illusions.

4. Got one right. Well, one out of four ain't bad.

Oh, wait, that's only 25%. That's terrible.

[BitBasher]

That's a good point, the mana invis can only turn living things invisible according to this ruling. That's completely worthless. I hadn't even considered that.

[Eyeless Blond]

[Crimson Jack]

[John Campbell]

[BitBasher]

That was my point actually, that this new ruling completely disregards internal consistency. With this ruling it shouldn't be able to affect inanimate objects, as that contradicts the nature of magic. Of course, it already contradicts the definition of "Target" as defined by the spell and in the section on spell targeting. The FAQ's batting 0 for a whole lot.

[hahnsoo]

[Kagetenshi]