Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: So my mage wanted to turn the van invisible
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
ShadowDragon
In the last game I GMed for my group, the party mage wanted to turn the van he was riding in invisible to aid their escape from a persueing helicopter. He has improved invisibility, so I ruled on the fly that it would be possible with an arbitrary force 8 casting of the spell. I also ruled that it would be more difficult for the helicopter to follow (though not impossible because they had a mage with them) and imposed a -6 dice pool modifier on the rigger of the helicopter for contested driving checks, but at the same time, I increased the threashold of the van's driver by 1 because traffic wouldn't see him.

It feels like there are better options for this situation, but I'm not sure what. How would you rule it if you were GM?
Lord Ben
-2 driving checks. -1 doesn't seem enough. And frequently put up stop lights, if he stops for one then he WILL get rear ended.

Also, it just bends the light. So if the helicoptor has other types of sensors they'd work normally. Thermographic, ultrasound, radar, etc.
Mr. Unpronounceable
By the RAW, thermographic cameras are ineffective against improved invisibility.

Radar, Ultrasound, tracking a commlink, etc. would work normally however - and should be well within the capabilities of the (presumably rigging) pilot of the police helicopter.
Lord Ben
Why would that be? Have a page #or know what section that's in?

At any rate the "rigger/pilot" of the helicoptor could just make a sensor test since they don't really specify what source it comes from. Give him -2 or whatever from the invis.
hyzmarca
If you make the van invisible then you make the van invisible. The people inside it, however, are obviously driving along in an invisible van unless you cast invisibility on them, as well. As area-effect version of invisibility is helpful for this if you allow custom spells.

Also, the spell has to overcome the OR of cameras or it fails against them. This means that you'll need about 4 hits.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
If you make the van invisible then you make the van invisible. The people inside it, however, are obviously driving along in an invisible van unless you cast invisibility on them, as well.

I would think that this is debatable. If the spell "bends light" as it claims to, then light bent around the van would also be bent around the things in the van.
I could easily see a group ruling either way, and short of a FAQ, I don't think there's a clear answer.
Mr. Unpronounceable
QUOTE (Lord Ben)
Why would that be?  Have a page #or know what section that's in?

Well, I'll just have to go with the actual spell description:

QUOTE (p. 201)

This spell makes the subject more difficult to detect by normal visual senses (including low-light, thermographic, and other senses that rely on the visual spectrum).


(bolding mine)
Lovesmasher
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
If you make the van invisible then you make the van invisible. The people inside it, however, are obviously driving along in an invisible van unless you cast invisibility on them, as well. As area-effect version of invisibility is helpful for this if you allow custom spells.

Also, the spell has to overcome the OR of cameras or it fails against them. This means that you'll need about 4 hits.

Nah, invisibility spells are never that limiting. You're not going to make someone's cyber-parts stay visible when the spell is cast on them, nor the stuff in their pockets, so why make an exception for the van?

An invisible vehicle has its own serious disadvantages, traffic being the major one, pedestrians being another. Unless you're doing a high fatality 'gotta break 13 dozen eggs to make an omelet' type of game, the group will have enough to deal with in just those two aspects.
ShadowDragon
Just to clarify, I increased his THRESHOLDS by 1, I didn't lower his dice pool. So since the PC driver was trying to do a "break off" chase stunt, his threashold was 3 instead of 2. The helicopter had 6 less dice for the opening sequence for determining engagement range. Reference page 161.

As for the whole bending light debate, I considered making just the van invisible and the characters visible, but I didn't think that would make sense for the same reason why clothes/gear turn invisible on a person.

My real concern though, was putting a limit on the size of objects the spell can affect. Can a mage turn a building invisible next?

I was thinking of houseruling a threshold modifier based on the object and having it working similar to first aid - maybe people/animals have no modifier, drones have a threashold of 1, cars have a threshold of 2, larger vehicles have a threshold of 3, etc. Once a mage meets the threshold, remaining hits apply to resistance tests. What do you all think of that?
Fortune
Too late now, but just tell him next time to design an Area Effect version of the Spell. Then you'll have no problems determining just how large an area can be affected.
hyzmarca
Clothing and passengers are very different in respect to targeting. You can't target someone's clothes separate from the person with magic or with weapons. Choosing "I shoot his shirt" because his shirt can't dodge but he's always behind it and it has a low barrier rating is not a valid tactic. Likewise, choosing "I hide behind my shirt" is not a valid defense against being targeted by a manabolting mage. Worn clothes are considered to be part of the individual for the purposes of targeting and are effected by any spell targeted at the individual if possible (manabolts won't damage shirts but powerbolts will).

On the other hand, a passenger is not considered to be part of the vehicle. A direct combat spell targeted at a vehicle will never damage the passenger and a direct combat spell targeted at a passenger will not damage the vehicle.
Lovesmasher
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Clothing and passengers are very different in respect to targeting. You can't target someone's clothes separate from the person with magic or with weapons. Choosing "I shoot his shirt" because his shirt can't dodge but he's always behind it and it has a low barrier rating is not a valid tactic. Likewise, choosing "I hide behind my shirt" is not a valid defense against being targeted by a manabolting mage. Worn clothes are considered to be part of the individual for the purposes of targeting and are effected by any spell targeted at the individual if possible (manabolts work damage shirts but powerbolts will).

On the other hand, a passenger is not considered to be part of the vehicle. A direct combat spell targeted at a vehicle will never damage the passenger and a direct combat spell targeted at a passenger will not damage the vehicle.

Sure, but your examples are all aggressive actions and invisibility wouldn't be. I'm blissfully unaware of how magic works in SR because I'm busy filling my head with hacker whatzits and prefer for my non-magey characters to just assume mages can do whatever they want. I hate the temptation to tell people in my group in any game 'oh, yeah, cast blachblah's magic blahdoo, that'll do the trick'.

My point being, if you can turn a van invisible, the stuff inside should follow suit. If you can turn an unworn shoe invisible, the key under the insole should follow suit as well. What? You don't keep your keys in your shoe?
eidolon
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Dec 4 2006, 04:43 PM)
If you make the van invisible then you make the van invisible. The people inside it, however, are obviously driving along in an invisible van unless you cast invisibility on them, as well.

I'm sorry man, I know you're attached to that particular ruling, and more power to you, but that's still the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. wink.gif

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
On the other hand, a passenger is not considered to be part of the vehicle. A direct combat spell targeted at a vehicle will never damage the passenger and a direct combat spell targeted at a passenger will not damage the vehicle.


Is the spare tire part of the vehicle? The jack? What if neither of those were bolted down last time the rigger tossed them back in?
Lord Ben
I think in street magic there is a spell that turns vehicles invisible. I'd just have them use that instead of invisibility.

Increase the device rating based on the size and occupants too, that should do the trick.
hyzmarca
The limits and conventions of invisibility have always been a divisive issue.
One could interpret it other ways, but I prefer the flavor of this interpretation for reasons that can only be explained with this.
Lovesmasher
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
The limits and conventions of invisibility have always been a divisive issue.
One could interpret it other ways, but I prefer the flavor of this interpretation for reasons that can only be explained with this.

cyber.gif Alright, kinda. I'll grant you this: Vehicles that don't CONTAIN the passenger fully do not make passenger invisible... thus the invisible motorcycle is brought from the 1970's into the 2070's.

If you don't know who the Hair Bear Bunch was... then I'm just too old or obscure or both.
Apathy
Yeah, invisibility leads to so many wierd questions.
  • If I have a kitten in my pocket when you cast invisibility on me, is the kitten affected?
  • Does the kitten get to resist the spell? (being non-sapient, it can't be willing)
  • How could the mage target the kitten at all, since he couldn't see it until after my jacket became invisible?
  • What if I take the kitten out of my pocket and set it down? Is it still invisible then?
  • The inverse question - what if I have an invisible backpack, and I start filling it with stuff that wasn't part of the original spell target. Are the new items visible through the backpack, or does the invisibility of the backpack cover the items inside until they're taken out?
  • Can apply the same question to the kidnap victim stuffed into an invisible duffle bag, or thrown into the invisible van, or whatever.
  • What if I'm tooling around in my invisible van and I roll down the window? Can people see into that part of the van now?
ShadowDragon
QUOTE (Lord Ben)
I think in street magic there is a spell that turns vehicles invisible. I'd just have them use that instead of invisibility.

Increase the device rating based on the size and occupants too, that should do the trick.

You're thinking of Vehicle Mask.

I think I'm going to use that spell as precedent and tell my players that the van turned invisible due to a lucky mana surge during the casting (he did use edge for the spell afterall), and that future attempts to turn anything invisible but people and animals (including limited gear carried) will most likely fail. However he can tap into that experience to invent a "Vehicle Invisibility" spell that works on vehicles/drones if he'd like.
FrankTrollman
Casting spells on a non-living target requires you to meet the threshold of the object's OR before the spell takes effect. Observers of an indirect illusion get to make a success test against the net hits of the spell to see hrough it. Non-living "observers" such as cameras automatically see through such illusions unless get a number of net hits as their OR.

So if you cast improved invisibility on a van (OR 3), your first three hits don't count because you haven't achieved threshold. A Drone Observer has an OR of 4, so you'll need 4 net hits to fool one.

To get 4 net hits when making a human or a drop bear invisible you need 4 hits - which also means that you'll need to be throwing it at Force 7. To make your Van invisible with 4 net hits you'll need seven total hits because the casting threshold is now 3. That means you'll need to be casting it at Force 7. Vehicle Mask and Vehicle Invisibility have a substantially lower than normal Drain code because you need to cast them at a stupidly high Force anyway - the drain ends up being pretty normal.

-Frank
eidolon
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
The limits and conventions of invisibility have always been a divisive issue.
One could interpret it other ways, but I prefer the flavor of this interpretation for reasons that can only be explained with this.

I knew you'd whip it out! rotfl.gif
hyzmarca
Vehicle Mask is a very restricted target and restricted effect version of Physical Mask (just look at the drain code). It isn't that Physical Mask won't work on vehicles, it will. The advantage is that Vehicle Mask has 3DV less drain than Physical Mask does.

Physical Mask is more versatile and will work on vehicles, but the +1DV drain is far less tempting than the -2DV drain is. By the same token, Slay elf will only slay elves, but manabolt will kill anything.

QUOTE (eidolon)
I knew you'd whip it out! rotfl.gif


Make a hawk a dove, stop a war with love, make a liar tell the trooooooooooth. biggrin.gif


QUOTE (Lovesmasher)
If you don't know who the Hair Bear Bunch was... then I'm just too old or obscure or both.
No one could forget the Hair Bear Bunch.
Thyme Lost
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
No one could forget the Hair Bear Bunch.

I had....
I saw them brought up in this thread...
I knew that I once knew what they were...
I just could not remember...
So... a google search later... and ... DAMN YOU!!!

I had almost completely forgetten, now I need to forget again... sarcastic.gif twirl.gif dead.gif cool.gif

Sorry for the OT.

Not really sure what I'd do and the Van and the people...


Thyme
Cheops
QUOTE (ShadowDragon)
Just to clarify, I increased his THRESHOLDS by 1, I didn't lower his dice pool. So since the PC driver was trying to do a "break off" chase stunt, his threashold was 3 instead of 2. The helicopter had 6 less dice for the opening sequence for determining engagement range. Reference page 161.

As for the whole bending light debate, I considered making just the van invisible and the characters visible, but I didn't think that would make sense for the same reason why clothes/gear turn invisible on a person.

My real concern though, was putting a limit on the size of objects the spell can affect. Can a mage turn a building invisible next?

I was thinking of houseruling a threshold modifier based on the object and having it working similar to first aid - maybe people/animals have no modifier, drones have a threashold of 1, cars have a threshold of 2, larger vehicles have a threshold of 3, etc. Once a mage meets the threshold, remaining hits apply to resistance tests. What do you all think of that?

As a general rule of thumb in my group if the spell affects an area without being an area affect spell we only let the mage affect a volume equivalent to that of an area affect spell. If you had imp invis as an area affect you would still affect the same volume as a non-area but everything within that area would be a target not just a single target.

If you wanted to affect a whole building without casting above force 12 (depending on size) you'd have to stack spells or increase the area of it--both those rules should be somewhere in the spellcasting section.

Hope that helps.
Big D
What happens in the same case if you instead summon a Force 6 spirit and have it run Concealment on the van?
Mr. Unpronounceable
A force 6 spirit should be able to use its concealment power on 6 targets simultaneously - a van and up to 5 occupants should go without debate.
Moon-Hawk
What if they have a bag of rats?
Mr. Unpronounceable
Well, then, the GM should be thankful SR4 didn't introduce the Great Cleave feat!

wink.gif
Protagonist
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
I would think that this is debatable. If the spell "bends light" as it claims to, then light bent around the van would also be bent around the things in the van.

I would go with that. I would think that regular invisibility would only turn the van invisible and leave the passengers viewable to all, while the improved one would affect everyone, because of the bending of light.
laughingowl
QUOTE (Mr. Unpronounceable)
A force 6 spirit should be able to use its concealment power on 6 targets simultaneously - a van and up to 5 occupants should go without debate.

Ok then:

Force 6 spirit: conceals a van (and 4 occupants).

Somebody does notice the van and jumps on.

1) Concealment breaks (unless another service used) since number of targets have changed.

2) People cant see the van (and the original 4 occupants) but the 5th is clearly seen zipping around a few feet off the ground a 80kmph.

3) The van (and everyone fully inside) the van is still concealed. since if you cant see the van you cant see 'inside' the van.


laughingowl
Another situation.


Group in a van driving along.

Mage (not in van) wants to kill somebody in the van.

Mage casts invisibilty on Van beats object resists. choses NOT to resist (himself) the spell).

Mage now has LOS to people inside the van and nukes away.
Mistwalker
Sorry, I strongly disagree

If the van is invisible, then everyone inside is invisible. You "bend light" around the object, not specific pieces of the object. If you can't see the object, you can't see inside the object, as the light is showing you what is on the far side of the whole object.

It would be like saying the reuthenium polymers, once applied to a vehicle, do not conceal the passengers inside. Or in Star Trek, a cloaking device is turn on, the ship disappears, but everyone on board, along with all the cargo, are visible.

If you cast improved invisibility on yourself, then take a drink of water (bottled water if you know what is good for you), do people see a stomach shaped pool of water hovering about a meter off the ground? I don't think so.

If you have improved invisibility cast on a van (or concealment) and someone else get's into the van, then they are no longer visible.
Mistwalker
QUOTE (laughingowl @ Dec 5 2006, 09:29 PM)
Force 6 spirit: conceals a van (and 4 occupants).

Somebody does notice the van and jumps on.

1)  Concealment breaks (unless another service used) since number of targets have changed.

No, the concealment is still in effect. Only one service was used, and that was to conceal the van.


QUOTE (laughingowl)
2) People cant see the van (and the original 4 occupants) but the 5th is clearly seen zipping around a few feet off the ground a 80kmph.


If the person is on the van, then yes, they can see that person zipping along at a sedate pace of 80 kmh.
If that person got into the van, then he would no longer be invisible.

QUOTE (laughingowl)
3) The van (and everyone fully inside) the van is still concealed. since if you cant see the van you cant see 'inside' the van.


Yes.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (laughingowl)
Another situation.


Group in a van driving along.

Mage (not in van) wants to kill somebody in the van.

Mage casts invisibilty on Van beats object resists. choses NOT to resist (himself) the spell).

Mage now has LOS to people inside the van and nukes away.

That is what the SR3 FAQ said. This is one of the many reasons people want to burn the SR3 FAQ.

First, the mage would not have to overcome the van's OR because the van is not the target of the spell. Second, LOS obtained by invisibility is only as valid as LOS obtained by clairvoyance. It isn't.

Whether or not the passangers in the van are invisible is debatable as is the meaning of "bends light" or where the bending occurs. While "bending light" is interesting fluff, remember that II is an illusion, not a manipulation. It follows illusion conventions no matter what the fluff says.

Concealment is different. Concealment isn't invisibility, it is camouflage. It makes that subject blend into the background in every way, not just visually. It makes perception tests to see the concealed subject harder. Invisibility denies visual perception tests and only visual perception tests. Likewise, Concealment is not resisted while Invisibility is.
toturi
It all depends on how you want to rule it.

If you rule that people in the vehicle cannot be seen, then you'd have to deal with it.

If you rule that people in the vehicle can be seen, then you'd have to deal with the invisible wall trick. Unless you want to do the GM handwave thing, you know like "they can see you, in this case" and "you can't see them, in this case".
James McMurray
IIRC Concealment only affects perception tests. That means that if something normall wouldn't require a perception test (like watching van drive through a parking lot) then concealment won't help. You'd still see the van, although you'd see it trying to be concealed.

No book handy though, and I haven't fully read Street Magic, so if there's a rule somewhere that invalidates this let me know.
James McMurray
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
While "bending light" is interesting fluff, remember that II is an illusion, not a manipulation. It follows illusion conventions no matter what the fluff says.

This is a very important couple of sentences. If you treat it like a manipulation and say that it bends light around the subject, vision from anyone inside the van is going to be horrific.
Lovesmasher
QUOTE (James McMurray)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Dec 5 2006, 10:49 PM)
While "bending light" is interesting fluff, remember that II is an illusion, not a manipulation. It follows illusion conventions no matter what the fluff says.

This is a very important couple of sentences. If you treat it like a manipulation and say that it bends light around the subject, vision from anyone inside the van is going to be horrific.

The current experiments being done with cloaking and invisibility (not counting the plasmonic cover) utilize the bending and acceleration of light through essentially a superconductor. This, of course, means that since light is going around the field instead of passing through it, it is dark within the field. Light from within the field, one assumes, would mess up the effect since the desired result is for light to avoid the target.

But this is just modern science. Magic doesn't have to be so limited.
James McMurray
I agree, which is why I don't bother trying to explain invisibility. But if you do start throwing science at the spell you wander down a dark and painful path.
Lividicus
Its an illusion. Its magic. The magic is convincing observers the van and its occupants are not there, thats why there is a resistance roll. Whether or not I agree on how it is resisted well, thats another story.

This is a good example of what could happen.
James McMurray
QUOTE (Lividicus)
Its an illusion. Its magic. The magic is convincing observers the van and its occupants are not there, thats why there is a resistance roll. Whether or not I agree on how it is resisted well, thats another story.

It's the bolded part that people disagree on, because of the bending light issue. It's an excellent candidate for the FAQ.
Lividicus
I hate you guys.
now i have a question about it too.

I was perfectly happy with a simple version of invisibility.

FAQ
James McMurray
If it's come up with your group, just keep doing what you've done. IF it hasn't come up, then what does it matter?
FrankTrollman
Holy crap, why is this still going on?

The book actually covers this. Concealment works on vehicles because it's a physical critter power. Since Concealment doesn't have a threshold normally, or an associated dice roll, it just happens. Perceiving a van is normally pretty easy, but hen you're trying to detect it from a long way away or have a huge penalty to your perception tests it might be more difficult.
  1. Casting a spell, ANY SPELL (except indirect combat spells, which this isn't)on a physical object, such as a Van, requires that you meet the threshold of the object's Object Resistance, which in this case is 3. That's on page 174.
  2. A drone outside observer sees through your invisibility unless you have a number of net hits equal to its Object Resistance (which is 4). That's on page 201.
  3. Net Hits are the number of hits you achieve in excess of the threshold. That's on page 56.
  4. Invisibility had better work on every living thing inside the target, because you have ten trillion living things inside of you, if only one of them is made insivible the spell does nothing at all. That's in the introduction to my old Human Physiology textbook.

Stop overthinking this problem. The rules are set up in a non-ambiguous fashion and can be followed in a linear fashion to solve all questions related to this particular endeavor.

A Force 7 Improved Invisibility with 7 total hits can hide a van and all its occupants from visual observation by drones - which means that you an probably sneak past the security rigger unless he's got some secondary system that catches you.

-Frank
Moon-Hawk
Why is the OR of the van only 3? Pg 174 states that vehicles are highly processed items, just like drones. I mean really, what's the difference, a seat?
So shouldn't that be a Force 8 spell with 8 hits?
Unless the van is circa 2000, then I could see an argument for dropping the threshold by 1, maybe.
ShadowDragon
I think FrankTrollman hit the nail on the head. This is already covered in the book. Thanks for the references smile.gif
laughingowl
Frank's is pretty much what I see as the 'correct' answer.

Though the question (which is obviously GM discretion) is where do the limits hit.


Mage is invisible.

The ZIpo lighter in his pocket is also invisble.

If he picks up a pencil, is it invisible (once pickedup); How about if he puts it in a pocket.

If he picks up a pistol? and puts it in his pocket?

If he picks up a Assult Rifle? And slings it over his shoulder?

If he picks up a 10' pole?

If he picks up one end of a 100' rope?



For me personally I see the limit being about the assault rifle / assulat cannon range.

Anything larger, will not be made invisble by the 'holder' being invisble.

And anything 'attached' to something else wont.

The 'pen' at the bank (if fasten with a security chain to the counter) wont go invisible if the invisible mage picks t up. Though if he yanks and breaks the chain... the pencil vanishes.
RunnerPaul
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Dec 6 2006, 12:38 PM)
Concealment works on vehicles because it's a physical critter power. Since Concealment doesn't have a threshold normally, or an associated dice roll, it just happens.

Oddly enough, after Frank posted, this particular issue was touched upon in the newly released FAQ:

QUOTE (SR4 FAQ v1.1)
Not all critter powers require a Success Test or an Opposed Test, so how do you determine their effect against nonliving objects like drones? For example, does the Movement power only affect living beings, or does it also affect vehicles?

To determine if a critter power that doesn't normally call for a Success Test or Opposed Test affects a nonliving object, have the critter make a Magic x 2 (Object Resistance) Success Test. If the critter does not score enough hits to beat the Object Resistance threshold, then the object is unaffected.


Of course, the FAQ only has as much weight as you want to give it, but that is the Line Developer's take on it, for what it's worth.
Glyph
I am assuming that the van in question was being driven by a rigger, who was rigged in, right? Otherwise, I think the driver would have more problems than pedestrians and traffic lights. Imagine trying to drive a van where the steering wheel and all other controls are invisible! Challenging, to say the least. biggrin.gif
noneuklid
Man. Now I want to develop the medical applications of a spell which makes selected body parts (such as the skin) invisible. Or just the freakshow applications of this sort of spell.
Mistwalker
QUOTE (Glyph)
I am assuming that the van in question was being driven by a rigger, who was rigged in, right? Otherwise, I think the driver would have more problems than pedestrians and traffic lights. Imagine trying to drive a van where the steering wheel and all other controls are invisible! Challenging, to say the least. biggrin.gif

Well, I think that if you are inside the van, you can see the inside of the van.

Even if you couldn't, I usually don't look at the controls of the vehicle that I am driving, as my feet know where the pedals are, hands feel the wheel, etc... I don't even look at the dash unless I am confirming/looking for something. The biggest problem with not being able to see the van, if you go with that interpretation, would be the lack of mirrors.
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