Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Invisibilty
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Kavok
Just a question about improved invisiblity


Question 1:

Do you set a force for this spell?

If the opposing character uses intuition + counterspelling to resist against a spellcasting check (magic+spellcasting??) then what good does the 'force' of the spell do?

Do you add the 'force' to the overall resistance threshold for that spell?

Lets assume this:
Magic 5
Spellcasting 5

I cast improved invisilibity at a force of 5 (So im rolling 5+5 dice).
I get 4 hits.

Is the number to resist 4 or 9?

QUOTE

Anyone who might perceive the subject must first successfully
resist the spell. Simply make one Spellcasting Test and use the hits
scored as the threshold for anyone that resists at a later point.


Thats the part that is confusing me. A spellcasting test is just magic + spellcasting right? Where did force go?

Question 2:

Does astral perception reveal invisible targets?

Question 3:

This came up in a game test run. I threw Imp Invisibility on myself and our sneaky guy. Plan was for me to stay in the elevator the entire time while he snuck in and stole the goods, didnt end up that way.

Well to cut a long story short I had to levitate down a stairwell shaft being chased by about 7 guards weilding automatic weapons while the sneaky guy was stuck up there fighting with Invisiblity on.

I had failed to resist my own spell that I placed on him (can this happen?) so he wasn't "visible".

I decided I wanted to throw a fireball up the shaft to take out the guards.

Is my 'friend' a valid target? He is invisible, which means he IS NOT visible.

Thanks.
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Kavok)
Question 1:

Do you set a force for this spell?

Yes. You set a force for any spell. (See Step 2 of spellcasting)


QUOTE
If the opposing character uses intuition + counterspelling to resist against a spellcasting check (magic+spellcasting??) then what good does the 'force' of the spell do?
"The hits scored on the Spellcasting Test may not exceed the spell's Force." p.174,SR4. (See also the description of Force on the bottom of p.171 and top of p.172)


QUOTE
Question 2:

Does astral perception reveal invisible targets?
Yes.



QUOTE
Question 3:
This point was being debated last week, and I don't think any hard conclusions emerged from the discussion.
Kavok
@Paul:

So is it force + spellcasting test hits(capped by force) to set the threshold for resistance?

EA:
QUOTE

Lets assume this:
Magic 5
Spellcasting 5

I cast improved invisilibity at a force of 5 (So im rolling 5+5 dice).
I get 4 hits.

Is the number to resist 4 or 9?


Is it 4 or 9?
Liper
Invisibility works on the mind, not the light, unless it's a different invis spell then the standard one, you'd still be invisible to a astrally percieivng character to my knowledge.
blakkie
QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Nov 19 2005, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE
Question 2:

Does astral perception reveal invisible targets?
Yes.

But only if an Assensing Test succeed in identifying the presense of the spell, which by my understanding of the Flexible Signiture metamagic, means that a high grade Initiate using Invisibility could fairly easily be fully cloaked from a novice mage even on the astral plane.


EDIT: The exact text, from page 201.

QUOTE
Th ough manabased
illusions can be created on the astral plane, their magical
auras give them away as illusions to anyone who makes a successful
Assensing Test (see Astral Perception, p. 182).


Note that the Assensing Threshhold table doesn't mention spells at Threshhold 1 at all. The first is at Threshhold 2 where you gain the knowledge of what kind of spell it is (illusion), though i assume at Threshhold 1 you'd notice the presense of something magical.
Liper
even if you see the illusion on the astral (which you can, just not the person) you still end up with the blind fire rules.

only thing adventagous is things like grenades and ae stuff = )

TeOdio
To answer question 1. You want to set a decently high force for the spell, because you can only have a number of hits equal to the force of the spell. For example: you have Magic 5 + Spellcasting 5, but only cast the spell at force 3. If you get 5 Hits on the roll, you only count 3 of them, wasting 2 hits. After casting the spell, the person resisting (with their Intuition, as it is Physical, + Counterspelling dice if they have them) must achieve a number of successes that you had on your casting test to resist the illusion. If you set it at Force 4 and get at least 4 hits you pretty much can guarantee most mundanes will be fooled (Average Intuition between 2 and 3).
nuyen.gif nuyen.gif nuyen.gif
Kavok
Nobody has yet clarified if or if not you add force to the overall threshold of the spell? I know it determines max possible hits.

With combat spells force is the base damage, is force always a base threshold starter for illusions?
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Kavok)
Nobody has yet clarified if or if not you add force to the overall threshold of the spell? I know it determines max possible hits.

No it doesn't, so in the above example the number to beat is 4.

QUOTE
With combat spells force is the base damage, is force always a base threshold starter for illusions?

No, combat spells are somewhat unique in that force does double-duty for them, determining base damage and max hits (thus max staging level). Illusions don't have a base threshold; if you resist the spell then you resist the spell.
MaxHunter
I concur. (eyeless blonde beat me to it)

the threshold is 4.


Cheers,

Max the slow typer
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Liper)
even if you see the illusion on the astral (which you can, just not the person) you still end up with the blind fire rules.

only thing adventagous is things like grenades and ae stuff = )

And for detecting intruders. Invis was mainly good as an infiltration spell, but these days it's tough even to get around a normal OR3 camera, something that used to be child's play. Ironically it's far more of a combat protection spell now; most people won't have the intuition to beat a threshold of 2 so casting it for the blindfire penalty is more practical.
Liper
in sr3 at least there were two invis spells one that works on just people and one that worked on electronics and people....
Azralon
QUOTE (Liper)
in sr3 at least there were two invis spells one that works on just people and one that worked on electronics and people....

As in SR4. Invisibility and Improved Invisibility, respectively.
Dranem
QUOTE (Kavok)
Just a question about improved invisiblity


Question 1:

Do you set a force for this spell?


I decided I wanted to throw a fireball up the shaft to take out the guards.

Is my 'friend' a valid target? He is invisible, which means he IS NOT visible.


To answer question 1: You set a force of the spell as that's the marker for resisting drain. (I found that interesting that no one mentioned that yet)

Your running mate is a valid target if he's in the spell's area of effect. Fireball has is an area of effect spell, targeting all items withing the spells range, visible or not. It's merely your target that needs to be visible. (failing that, you can cast in the vicinity of the target in hopes of hitting it.)
Oracle
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond)
[..]so casting it for the blindfire penalty is more practical.

What blindfire penalty? If you have no other way to localize your target than vision you are not even allowed to shoot at a target under invisibilty.
Eyeless Blond
QUOTE (Oracle)
QUOTE (Eyeless Blond @ Nov 20 2005, 02:25 PM)
[..]so casting it for the blindfire penalty is more practical.

What blindfire penalty? If you have no other way to localize your target than vision you are not even allowed to shoot at a target under invisibilty.

Well you'd naturally know something's there because your drone with its OR 4 Sensor package tells you, or the projecting mage/watcher/spirit who sees the spell's aura tells you. The pressure sensors on the floor, the ultrasoind emitters, etc etc. Seeing invivible people with meat eyes is hard, but knowing that an invisible person is there is relatively easy, especially now that OR is so much stronger against indirect illusions than it was in SR3.
Lord Ben
If you're seeing through the image link on someones goggles they'd have to beat object resistance on the spell right?
blakkie
QUOTE (Lord Ben @ Nov 21 2005, 09:28 AM)
If you're seeing through the image link on someones goggles they'd have to beat object resistance on the spell right?

The Spellcaster would have to had rolled 5 hits (at least i'd likely call the normal sensor-Image Link a Threshhold 4). But if they roll the 5 hits then the person viewing through the Image Link gets no resistance check of their own. Although they might get a Perception check, likely of horrendous Threshhold/penalties depending on conditions, to notice the presense of something via indirect observations.

EDIT2: Incidentally if the Image Link displaying Ultrasound sensor info the Ultrasound info would NOT be affected by the spell. You could then attack the target with the appropriate penalites for attacking Ultrasound only.
Hasaku
QUOTE (RunnerPaul)
QUOTE
Question 3:
This point was being debated last week, and I don't think any hard conclusions emerged from the discussion.

I'm still gonna say yes, if he's within the area, he's getting burned. The flickering golden god does not care if you can see your friend or not. It will feast on him.
blakkie
QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Nov 19 2005, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE
Question 3:
This point was being debated last week, and I don't think any hard conclusions emerged from the discussion.

You sure about that? I thought the only thing still open with Indirect Combat spells was whether the fireball (for example) filled out to the entire radius if it part of the radius was not seen by the mage?** An area seen by the mage is still filled with fire and therefore the an invisible character can still potentially getting fried for roughly the same reason that the caster does not need to overcome OR to use Fireball to a set fire to a puddle of gasoline fuel (instead objects resist with Armor x 2).

As for having the caster having to resist their own Improved Invisibility spell, i don't recall the specific discussion on this. You definately don't have to for Invisibility:

QUOTE (page 201)
Some mana illusions aff ect the target’s senses directly,
others aff ect the senses of anyone perceiving the subject of the
spell (though the spellcaster is not aff ected by her own spell).


However i suspect the caster would for Improved Invisibility, just haven't gone though it to make sure.

** BTW i happen to thing this is bogus, I myself as GM have ruled otherwise, to great benefit of the players in that instance. As i see it the mage would never fry the far side of someone and this would lead to wierdness like different rolls for people in the group (the front protects the back) and people walking around with cardboard cutouts in front of themselves to be protected from fireballs. Well maybe something a bit stronger than cardboard to survive past the first blast. rotfl.gif
Hasaku
Indeed. The easiest and most sensible answer was the blast fills the area regardless of what the mage can see.
RunnerPaul
Oh, I agree. Too bad the book never comes right out and says that.
Demon_Bob
QUOTE (blakkie)
QUOTE (Lord Ben @ Nov 21 2005, 09:28 AM)
If you're seeing through the image link on someones goggles they'd have to beat object resistance on the spell right?

The Spellcaster would have to had rolled 5 hits (at least i'd likely call the normal sensor-Image Link a Threshhold 4). But if they roll the 5 hits then the person viewing through the Image Link gets no resistance check of their own. Although they might get a Perception check, likely of horrendous Threshhold/penalties depending on conditions, to notice the presense of something via indirect observations.

Eh? Mongo confused?
If you roll enough hits to defeat the electronic sensor then why would you need any more? The guy on the other end might get a perception roll to notice something odd like footprints appearing in the mud, but the camera is sending him a false image so why should he get a chance to overcome the spell.

If you are wearing a camera on your shoulder pointing a an invisible guy.
Your eyes do nto see him but the camera feed shows him plainly. Would you still suffer blind fire penalties?
Lord Ben
You can use the camera on your smart link to fire around corners. I'd just close my eyes and use the visual overlay on my contacts to see through my gun. It should work, but would probably give other penalties.
Lilt
I'd expect force 4 invisibility to become fairly standard after the first few runs, once characters can get ahold of higher-power sustaining foci.

At chargen I'd expect the best stealth available to a magician character to be sneaking around under the effects of the concealment power. A force 6 spirit subtracts 6 dice from perception tests to see you, practically guaranteeing you won't need to even roll stealth against your average mundane or any drone printed under the SR4 system so far. It also works against ultrasound, which is potentially very common in the 6th world.

A force 6 spirit takes on-average 3 succeses to summon and on-average takes 4 successes to resist the drain from. A force 4 casting of Improved Invisibility takes 4 successes to cast properly (usefully) and 3 successes to resist the drain from. 7 successes in each case, but the spirit does not need to be sustained and can conceal the entire group (6 targets concealed with one summoning versus multiple castings of invisibility). Given that the spell gives you a -2 dice penalty to virtually all tests whilst you're sustaining it, using the spell makes you more likely to take drain from subsequent drain tests (including those to cast invisibility on other party members who need it) and makes you less compotent at moving around quietly (people can still hear you, as invisibility doesn't make you any harder to hear) thus more likely to be detected.

The best thing is that you can give your spirit buddy (if it's a spirit of man) the innate spell (Invisibility) power and request it to use it on 'us' as a second service. Hey-presto, now you're potentially invisible on the astral too if your observers fail the assensing test, and doubly guarded against being detected by other characters.
TheScrivener
QUOTE (Lord Ben)
You can use the camera on your smart link to fire around corners. I'd just close my eyes and use the visual overlay on my contacts to see through my gun. It should work, but would probably give other penalties.

2 reasons it won't:
1.Your contacts probably don't generate light (even having those sensors working is a bit of a stretch for me) so they'd be invisible if you closed your eyes.

2.This is the less nitpicky one - the invisibility spell doesn't work on your eyes, it works on YOU. If you have LOS to the mage, he's invisible to you, even if you're watching him on a camera, even if you're throwing paint at him, whatever. Your mind edits him out. Think the SOP field from H2G2 - it doesn't matter that that runner is walking by me, it's obviously Somebody Else's Problem. The Improved invisibility version, of course, works a little differently - you notice the warping-light effects and you can see them well enough. But plain vanilla affects your mind, and there's no getting around that.
TheScrivener
Other issues -

II does NOT work against ultrasound, if I read the rules right, since it's a 'non-visual' means of detection(such as hearing). By the same tack, invisible characters still need to make sure they're stealthy, either with Infiltration or the Stealth spell, since invisible tapdancers still make plenty of noise, and you don't want those blast doors slamming down to contain 'that invisible guy.' CorpSec may be bored but they're not stupid.

Earlier stuff: Can you 'see' through another guy's image link? I thought image link 'ware mainly projected stuff so YOU could see it, not recorded it so others could. Cybereyes with their nifty new 'everything gets recorded,' sure. But I'm pretty sure you'd need a camera installed (by the sensor rules) in order to see through someone else's goggles.

And by the way - how did you levitate down that elevator shaft, shooting the fireball upward, while still maintaining the Invisibility? Range is LOS, so I'd assume *you'd* be able to see him (if you couldn't you couldn't affect him, and mages falling prey to their own illusions is like a con man talking himself into believing his own fake ID papers.) But all that said, how did you maintain LOS for either of those spells while flying away? Just not getting the mental picture, here.
Azralon
QUOTE (TheScrivener @ Nov 22 2005, 12:12 PM)
Your contacts probably don't generate light (even having those sensors working is a bit of a stretch for me) so they'd be invisible if you closed your eyes.

Since you can get lowlight installed in your contacts, they're very likely capable of generating light for your HUD.

SR4 contact lenses as a concept are a huge stretch for me. Superthin, supersmall, hypoallergenic, transparent wireless optical displays with cameras built in? You can handwave a lot into existence by invoking the magical word "nanotech," but even in the context of the other stuff out there contacts are pretty friggin' miraculous.
blakkie
QUOTE (TheScrivener)
2.This is the less nitpicky one - the invisibility spell doesn't work on your eyes, it works on YOU. If you have LOS to the mage, he's invisible to you, even if you're watching him on a camera, even if you're throwing paint at him, whatever. Your mind edits him out.

Nope, although the SR4 BBB isn't as clear on this as it should be. The magical path of vision via the camera is broken by the sensor, no magic influence goes past it. You are looking at the camera screen, and unless there is another illusion specifically acting on that -different- sight, you see what the display shows stripped of magic influence. Even when looking at the output of the sensor while looking directly at the spot with your native eye. You then have to decide which is true and which is not (is it a hacker or a mage messing with you).
TheScrivener
So anybody with any vision enhancement whatsoever (cybereyes, goggles with low-light active, glasses with electronic vision mag) is utterly immune to Invisibility? I find that somewhat... broken.
blakkie
QUOTE (TheScrivener @ Nov 22 2005, 10:48 AM)
So anybody with any vision enhancement whatsoever (cybereyes, goggles with low-light active, glasses with electronic vision mag) is utterly immune to Invisibility?

That isn't fully bought with Essense, yes. When implanted it becomes your 'natural' vision (though external sensor feeds would again defeat it).

QUOTE
I find that somewhat... broken.


*shrug* Such has been the way, although it is somewhat exasperated by them new fangled contact lenses.

EDIT: Note that it isn't a total defeat. You only see them on, for example the infrared, unless it is a total override of all vision (not done HUD style) like an electronic vision mag. As well any mage wearing such devices would not automatically have LOS to the Invisible person (unless they cast the spell themselves).
Azralon
If you've paid for the vision enhancements with Essence, then it could be said those cameras are a part of your mystical whole, and can therefore be fooled.

But yeah, it looks like that if you use your goggles/glasses/monocle/contacts as a pass-through, you might be immune to normal Invisibility. Improved Invisibility, no, since it tricks sensors too.

I recall an SR3 character that a buddy of mine had who specifically rigged up his cybereyes to have a .1 second delayed image buffer for exactly that reason. There were no official rules for it, of course.
blakkie
QUOTE (Demon_Bob @ Nov 21 2005, 10:21 PM)
QUOTE (blakkie @ Nov 21 2005, 09:37 AM)
QUOTE (Lord Ben @ Nov 21 2005, 09:28 AM)
If you're seeing through the image link on someones goggles they'd have to beat object resistance on the spell right?

The Spellcaster would have to had rolled 5 hits (at least i'd likely call the normal sensor-Image Link a Threshhold 4). But if they roll the 5 hits then the person viewing through the Image Link gets no resistance check of their own. Although they might get a Perception check, likely of horrendous Threshhold/penalties depending on conditions, to notice the presense of something via indirect observations.

Eh? Mongo confused?

You need 1 net success which is 5 hits to have it act on Threshhold 4.

Actually i'm a bit confused on this part myself. Normally a Success Test against a Threshhold just needs to match the Threshhold, but with spells....ah, here it is:

QUOTE (173)
Some spells simply require a Success Test, with hits determining the level of success (as noted in the spell description). The Magic + Spellcasting test must generate at least one net hit to succeed and may need more if the effect has a threshold for success. The spellcaster can always choose to use less than the total number of hits rolled in a Spellcasting Test.


Ok.....hrmmm, i might have misunderstood that part. Next page...

QUOTE (174)
Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold
based on the type of object aff ected (see the Object Resistance
Table,).


Then flipping back to Success Tests...

QUOTE (56)
Hits represent a measure of achievement on a test. In order
to succeed completely on a Success Test, you must meet or
exceed a gamemaster-determined threshold with your hits.


Ok, so you only have to -meet- it. So you do only need 4 hits. I understood it correctly to start with, and got turned around in this thread. Doh!

QUOTE
If you roll enough hits to defeat the electronic sensor then why would you need any more?  The guy on the other end might get a perception roll to notice something odd like footprints appearing in the mud, but the camera is sending him a false image so why should he get a chance to overcome the spell.


Because they are checking to notice things that are not the target of the spell, in the same way they could try listen to detect. Perhaps the GM could have the net hits should come into play here, but there are no real rules for that. *shrug*
Kavok
QUOTE (TheScrivener)
Other issues -

II does NOT work against ultrasound, if I read the rules right, since it's a 'non-visual' means of detection(such as hearing). By the same tack, invisible characters still need to make sure they're stealthy, either with Infiltration or the Stealth spell, since invisible tapdancers still make plenty of noise, and you don't want those blast doors slamming down to contain 'that invisible guy.' CorpSec may be bored but they're not stupid.

Earlier stuff: Can you 'see' through another guy's image link? I thought image link 'ware mainly projected stuff so YOU could see it, not recorded it so others could. Cybereyes with their nifty new 'everything gets recorded,' sure. But I'm pretty sure you'd need a camera installed (by the sensor rules) in order to see through someone else's goggles.

And by the way - how did you levitate down that elevator shaft, shooting the fireball upward, while still maintaining the Invisibility? Range is LOS, so I'd assume *you'd* be able to see him (if you couldn't you couldn't affect him, and mages falling prey to their own illusions is like a con man talking himself into believing his own fake ID papers.) But all that said, how did you maintain LOS for either of those spells while flying away? Just not getting the mental picture, here.

It's my understanding that you don't need LoS to maintain sustained spells, they just have to stay within a certain range of you.

I didn't cast the fireball WHILE levitating, I cast it once I had landed on the ground.
Vaevictis
QUOTE (Azralon)
SR4 contact lenses as a concept are a huge stretch for me.  Superthin, supersmall, hypoallergenic, transparent wireless optical displays with cameras built in?  You can handwave a lot into existence by invoking the magical word "nanotech," but even in the context of the other stuff out there contacts are pretty friggin' miraculous.

*chuckle*, ask a guy from 1940 what he thinks about the computer you're using right now, eh? That is, after all, the time delta we're talking about. Keep in mind that they hadn't even invented the transistor yet; they used vacuum tubes or relays instead. ENIAC was still something like 5 years away. Today, something with the same computing power would probably easily fit in a 1/2 millimeter square area.

Yeah, it's a stretch given what tech we currently have and what laws of physics we currently understand, but in 65 years, who knows? smile.gif

I'm quite happy to buy almost any feature they want to stick onto contact lenses 65 years into the future. (Actually, with one exception -- power. I don't think they can manage to cram much power onto them, even in 70 years. Power tech doesn't change that fast. It's not photovoltaic {they function in no-light, low-light}. Might be wireless, but there's no mention of that as a requirement. Must just be technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic, eh?)
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Azralon)
SR4 contact lenses as a concept are a huge stretch for me. Superthin, supersmall, hypoallergenic, transparent wireless optical displays with cameras built in?

No Camera - Sensor Packages are something else. wink.gif
Azralon
QUOTE (Vaevictis @ Nov 23 2005, 08:22 AM)
I don't think they can manage to cram much power onto them, even in 70 years.

Presumably they're based off of the real-world PAN technology, where the components don't actually hold power sources themselves. They just leech off of the data transmission field running through your body.

Microsoft already has the patent on it, I kid you not.

I still love the picture.
Azralon
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)
QUOTE (Azralon @ Nov 22 2005, 06:32 PM)
SR4 contact lenses as a concept are a huge stretch for me.  Superthin, supersmall, hypoallergenic, transparent wireless optical displays with cameras built in?

No Camera - Sensor Packages are something else. wink.gif

Hrm, then where do the contacts get the input for thermo and lowlight data?
Rotbart van Dainig
IIRC, SotA64 'specified' it as 'direct' amplification...

Nanites that feature a receptor and an emitter spread across the contact might do the trick.

Edit:

Actually, its 'magneto-plasmic gel' that amplifies incoming light, declared similar in function to plasma television flat screens... indifferent.gif
Azralon
I like it.
blakkie
QUOTE (Azralon @ Nov 23 2005, 09:35 AM)
QUOTE (Vaevictis @ Nov 23 2005, 08:22 AM)
I don't think they can manage to cram much power onto them, even in 70 years.

Presumably they're based off of the real-world PAN technology, where the components don't actually hold power sources themselves. They just leech off of the data transmission field running through your body.

Microsoft already has the patent on it, I kid you not.

I still love the picture.

The torso is an AND gate rotated 90º. rotfl.gif They drew it with a logic stencil. You can even see on the feet where it shifted a bit as they went around a second time. Doesn't get much more old-school 'digital geek' than that. smile.gif
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (Azralon)
Hrm, then where do the contacts get the input for thermo and lowlight data?

Or for that matter, how does it know what you're looking at to know where to put all those visual AR Overlays so they line up with the meatworld objects they're supposed to?
Azralon
Dangit, Paul, here I was all conceptually reconciled with contact lenses and you go & start injecting sense back into it.


Vaevictis
QUOTE (RunnerPaul @ Nov 23 2005, 03:24 PM)

Or for that matter, how does it know what you're looking at to know where to put all those visual AR Overlays so they line up with the meatworld objects they're supposed to?

That one is easy. When you first put in the contact lenses, you calibrate the lenses somehow (line up the dot with a certain point in your field of view, for example) and using an internal motion sensor (modeled after organs like flying insects have, which are certainly small enough to fit into a contact) it detects the motion of the contact to keep track of which way it's pointing.
FrankTrollman
Indeed. Being attached to your eye, it could even sense your own lens flexing in order to change focus. So it could even plausibly know whether you were looking at a barrel, or a toy monkey in front of the barrel, and give you pop-up text appropriate to your visual target.

-Frank
Liper
just think of it like stereo, two signals a left and the right. all you need is something to calculate distance and the brain can figure the rest out.

Considering a world where cyber eyes cost less then two weeks pay, you can consider the effort of making a AR system under the "not so difficult" header.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012