So, an interesting question has come up in my game. Mostly because I brought it up while designing a magical threat.

If you cast invisibility on a container, then place something inside, is the thing inside invisible?

Or can you see through the container normally to whatever has been placed inside after the spell was cast.


Think about it carefully. If the thing inside is invisible, casting invisibility on a sheet becomes the perfect way to hide a car or something in a car. Just wrap it in the sheet or cover the car in the tarp. If the thing inside is not invisible, we come to the topic of the thread. Invisible arms and armor. reloading might be a bitch, but melee weapons? Full combat armor at all times? It will probably get you in trouble if they mad scan you and find weapons they can't see. Ultrasound and radar get around this as well. There are plenty of ways to GM-screw someone who does this. But the question stands

Invisible car, or invisible armor?

Aside from the problem, that if the heavy armor is invisible, you're naked (no, you aren't able to wear decent clothing BELOW full combat armor)... Wouldn't it be much easier to simply cast an armor spell on yourself instead?

Given that Standard Invisibility is more of a "Your mind doesn't see this" effect, I'd allow what ever was covered to be invis, but every on-looker gets a save and cameras see right through the magic.

Improved invis works on cameras as well as people, in effect bending the light. That would be a item becomes transparent effect, but with all on-looker including sensors making a a resist test.

You're telling me you cant wear clothes under armor? I find that dubious at best. I've heard many arguments and recall (no book in front of me) rules on layering armor. Unless that full combat armor is attached to your skin (which is not unheard of)

a 8 force armor spell vs a 4 force invisibility spell

Sustained spells aren't dynamic or intelligent unless they specifically state otherwise (such as with the Chameleon or Phantasm spells).

If you cast Invisibility on a suit of armor, poof, that armor is invisible. If you put the invisible armor, poof, you're wearing invisible armor. But you're not invisible. Instead, you'd probably just look ridiculous as you walk around looking like something is dishelving your clothes and making you move pretty ridiculous. It's even more goofy if it's full combat armor, where you're hovering an inch or so above the ground and walking not too unlike Frankenstein's monster.

Here's how it works, IMO:

Sure you can cast Invisibility on a weapon or cover it with ruthenium polymer to make it invisible, but MAD scanners and millimeter wave radar scanners are going to spot it instantly anyways. So feel free to blow your resources on Invisibility and ruthenium polymer weapons, it won't get you into a night club or meeting room undetected.

As to casting Invisibility on armor or a cloak (sheet) and then becoming completely invisible when you put the armor/cloak/sheet on, sure why not? It's exactly the same as just casting the spell on the person, so what's the difference game-balance-wise?

There is absolutely nothing broken about any of those scenarios.

Really stupid question...

Will Physical Mask allow you to do essentially the same thing? That is, put on armor, and then mask yourself so that you look (and feel) like you're just wearing normal clothes?

For that matter, won't Physical Mask hide things like chrome, and potentially even weapons (e.g., as long as the gun was slung on your back when the spell was cast, and stays there, you're good)?

The interpretation of the Physical Mask and Improved Invisiblity spells all comes down to what you think is meant by the term "vision". I think the intention was that it affects normal/low/thermal and even ultrasound "vision" but not radars or magnetic sensors.

Therefore Masked and Invisible equipment and cyber is completely obvious to MAD and millimeter wave radar sensors. Since every night club and office building has those sensors, Mask and Invisibility (even physical versions) don't get you far.

...NM. Already beat to the punch on this one by Buster.

As to using the armour spell, it's one drawback is that it makes you glow.

"This alters the subject's voice, scent, and other physical characteristics as well."

That line concerns me, although I'd certainly accept a ruling that says that today's magic can't stop radar, period.

As for the weight and feel, it would still feel the same to the wearer (thus no max wearable armor cheats), but couldn't it feel like a sweater to somebody else (although, if you tug on it, and it doesn't react like a sweater, you'll know that something's up)?

IIRC, per previous edition(s), if someone reaches out and touches the subject of the physical mask spell, they feel what's really there. So your bouquet of flowers looks nice, but it still feels like a sawed off shotgun. Likewise, if you reach out and poke an invisible character, you can still do so, because he's still physically there.

Don't ask me where to find that though, I can't recall the specific reference.

Hmm. Maybe I'm just remembering a house rule from ages ago, then.

The answer you are searching for is "House rule territory."

Personally, if I would allow a pre-existing invisibility spell to render an outside object invisible if the added object was able to be completely contained within the invisible object. That's based purely on an ease-of-play issue that was brought up in one of my games, back in 2nd edition.

This is how I reason it:

You are invisible.
You go stand in a pool up to your neck.
The invisibility continues to make you invisible, despite the fact that you are obviously displacing a large amount of water.
You continue to be invisible when you get out, despite water being on you. There will be a circumstatial penalty to it being easier to see you for a bit. But you're not gonna be 100% visible (like a total body film of water should be, given that it's pretty recognizable).

Case 2:

I make my car invisible. It and my 3 friends are invisible.
I step into the car, into the driver's seat, and close the door.
I should logically be rendered invisible rather than a floating guy in the front, because the alternative is to set an invisibility 'state' upon casting that cannot be deviated from even slightly, and I feel that breaks the theme of magic in the game.

In the case of total-body invisibility via an armor suit, sure. Sans the boots? No. Just because I gotta draw the line somewhere, if any part of the interior object sticks out, I figure it's not gonna be rendered invisible.

As to Dr. Funk's argument, yes. Funk is very vocal about what he believes. He'll let you know how things are as he sees them.

I know. It also means he's not neccessarily right every time he's sure of something, which is all I was pointing out. In this particular case, he has an opinion, as do I: the rules are mute on what exactly happens in this case.

There are advantages to Funk's interpretation

aside from the whole invisible container thing, there's one big problem with turning your weapon invisible: you can't see it. that means you can't look through the sights, obviously, so invisible non-smartlinked weapons are going to impose a huge, huge penalty on trying to shoot anything (yes, even at close range). and even invisible smartlinked weapons should impose a penalty, since you can't see the weapon to be sure that you're holding it correctly. you'll likely be able to get a proper stance with your weapon simply by touch, but the fact remains that humans get most of their information visually, which means that no matter what, trying to use an invisible gun is going to cause problems. same goes for invisible melee weapons.

With my take? No. You cast invisibility on the tarp. The tarp -- and only the tarp -- is invisible, no matter if you have it folded neatly in a corner, thrown over a car, or completely wrap a body in it.

You'd have to recast Invisibility to "change the specs" as it were, at which point you're casting it on the object as a whole ("the car with a tarp over it"), not part of it. At which point you might as well just skip the tarp completely, unless you just want to protect your car from the rain or something.

bummer

At the risk of being attacked for bringing him up... My take on this is the Harry Potter Invisibility Cloak Method for Invisibility ™.

That is to say, the invisibility - for all intents and purposes - acts semi-intelligently, and is driven at least partially by intent. Magic does, after all, get driven a great deal by intent and symbolism in the SR world! So. Lets go back to our invisible cloak example. You invisify your cloak, and put it over a statue on the pedastol. The cloak almost certainly partially drapes over the pedastol; but the statue and not the pedastol will be invisible, because of the intent. If the cloak is wrapped 3/4s of the way around the statue, it's invisible from the sides where it's covered, but not from the other bit.

As a rule, something contained by an invisible container will be invisible. Someone who gets into a car becomes covered by the car's invisibility. If you eat something while invisible, the food is not now a visible target in your invisible stomach. I'm thinking "enclosed entities", as were referenced by the old barrier rules - a person riding a motorcycle that hit a mana barrier would be in for a world of hurt, but a person driving a car that hit a mana barrier wouldn't be affected at all.

I admit there's a lot of room for beating on my take of it, but it's the interpretation I like the most.

This is my take on it. If we agree that an item placed inside an invisible container is rendered invisible (because it is wholly within the item), then a character wearing a full suit of armor would actually become invisible. Now if that character is not wearing a helmet or gloves, then those body parts would be visible to everyone looking in that direction. It kind of goes along the Harry Potter invis cloak...whatever's covered is invis, what's not is visible. There would not be rumpled clothing underneath, etc, because of the above assumption.

I think it would draw far too much attention to have a head and hands moving around with no body attached...not to mention the mere fact that a simple astral perception check will reveal everything anyway.

As to wearing clothing underneath, SR4 states that a padded undersuit is worn underneath full body armor.

SR3 states: Such armor features a padded undersuit over which
extensive armor plates are attached.

SR1 and 2 say the same thing.

For any of the editions, I would say that normal clothing could not be worn under full body armor.

My take is that magic, as weird as it is, is still deeply based on people's beliefs and traditional considerations... Both in-game and metagamingly speaking (most spells are variations of usual fantasy spells).

So when you cast an invisibility spell, you'll get that invisbility effect that we're used to seeing in movies, cartoons, comic books, video games... The effect that the tradition of the formulae (and the caster) will instinctively think Invisibility is.

Because there has to be more than just one invisibility spell and each invisbility spell formulae will work differently. To make things simpler, we don't consider each variation, just like we won't consider the differences between an Ares Predator and a Beretta Rhino (name made up on the fly) even if both guns won't be exactly the same. Maybe the intent of the spell caster can even bend the effect of the spell.

An invisibility spell based on the invisible man paradigm won't make clothes invisible as well. An invisibility spell based on the wonderwoman's plane paradigm won't make the passengers of the vehicle invisible.

But there are rules that no paradigm can break, such as casting invisibility on a car to make all passengers invisible in one spell, because it'd be cheating and it doesn't mix well with the intent of the invisibility spell.

Of course, this is just my own take, as many have pointed out we're in house rule territory here.

Perhaps some one with more search-fu can find it, but I recall one of the devs saying on DS that a closed invisible door allows LOS for spells because it is now see through.

If thats correct, then invisible items don't invis covered items.

I agree with Doc Funk on this, though I don't think there's a true proper way to play it. As long as the ruling is consistently applied, then play it how ever you want.

edit: I think this is the post I was talking about, but there may be one from synner about it also

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=18685

that's at least partially a failure on a Clarity in Writing roll, since you did in fact say "yes on all counts".

Nope, I read it. Just pointing out that you couldn't even remain consistent in your opinion in a single post. As well as pointing out the absurdity of it all.

How exactly does your method work again? I still can't figure it out. You cast Invisibility on a tarp and now you have a portable super Invisibility spell that can make anything and everything invisible just by... holding it up? And the spell somehow knows what to make invisible (on BOTH sides, mind you)... how exactly?

(Nevermind that you're secretly agreeing me without realizing it. You know, regarding the whole "you cast invisibility on a single object, and everything related to that object is invisible" bit. But we won't mention that because you're just too smart and surely you knew you were agreeing with me.)

i don't think he's agreeing with you, actually. at least, as i recall, according to your view a visible gun picked up by an invisible man would not turn invisible.

That's part of the problem. He's agreeing in some areas and disagreeing in others, and changing his view from one paragraph to the next. For example:

The same reason you feel the need to hide an insult behind a smiley emoticon, then act aghast and outraged by the response? Or what, should I add a big to the end of my posts to make it all all right?