Does a defender suffer the Target Hidden (Blind Fire) penalty if the attacker is invisible?

I realize that this modifier is intended for an attacker to suffer if the defender is invisible, but it seems to me that the reverse should also be true. That is, that it's harder to defend against an attack that you can't even see coming.

If this penalty does not apply, does the attacker get any kind of benefit for being invisble? Maybe a surprise test each Turn? Something similar? How do you handle it?

Suprise test, if target does'nt know theres someone invisible there they roll opposed test?

For the first combat turn at least, I'd definitely say a surprise test is in order. Yes, it is an opposed initiative test, with special modifiers.

But, after the first turn, then what? Hidden (Blind Fire) modifier? More surprise tests? Nothing?

I'm wondering if it might be a surprise test every turn because the opponent doesn't necessarily know where the invisible character is. Yeah, you just got slugged in the face with a fist, but you still don't see the invisible character. I don't know how powerful invisibility is supposed to be in this game, which is why I'm asking these questions.

If a defender is unaware that he's about to be shot he gets no reaction roll to defend at all. Thus being shot by an invisible guy is the same being shot by a sniper you unaware of.

At our table we let everyone roll Reaction (+Full Defense) though as soon as combat has started since we assume the dodging and weaving to be something you do continuously to prevent being shot at, instead of literally dodging the bullet.

What about in melee combat? Reaction + Parry or Dodge? Or still just Reaction?

For melee we allow reaction + dodge (or Reaction + Gymnastics), since melee parry or melee block seem like they'd need you to see where the attack is coming from.

A person could argue the same applies to Dodge. Let's say you dodge left. What if the attack was coming from the left? The defender doesn't know. If you always dodge by moving back because you can't see your opponent and don't want to risk dodging left or right into the attack, then your opponent will adjust his attacks accordingly and lunge with each attack to hit you.

I can easily see keeping a melee weapon in motion before you as having *some* effect against an invisible attacker's attack, just as randomly dodging would have *some* effect, but I would think neither would be as effective as if you can see the attacker. The house rule you use implies that you can still dodge perfectly well even though you can't see the attack coming.

That's why I am wondering if the Hidden modifier should apply to defense tests. That would simulate a reduced ability to defend without excluding any method of defense.

use the force you must!
have to feel the attack, not see!
every time i read the thread title i think of lolcats <.< . .
i'd probably go with just blind-fire, because you can see the effects the invisible man has on the surroundings(foot prints, things falling down, things moving) and can maybe hear his foot-steps, his breathing and other such things . .

Yeah, you could argue that and you'd be right. We simply have lots of running around going on and track positioning only loosely, so this rule works well for us.

lolcats, great.

Yeah, I'm thinking I'll house rule it that way.

@sma: If that works for you, stick with it. Thanks for your input, though. It's still good to hear other opinions even if I ultmately don't use the ideas.

Possibly use intuition instead of reaction, but that's getting dangerously close to messing with the fundamental system. I prefer to keep things simple, and to be honest if I was running a mook who survived the first hit, he'd be running away, as he was clearly outclassed.

wouldn't intuition and reaction be more "realistic"? you guess with your intuition where he's coming from and react to it? o.O

I was going for intuition + skill, so as not to completely rearrange the system as it stands.

This is a reasonable idea, since that makes it synonymous with the Hidden (Blind Fire) rule for attackers: Intuition + weapon skill.

Although, Stahlseele has an interesting point, too. Afterall, I don't see how you can practice dodging or parrying attacks that you don't even know are coming.

You may have some inkling that he's there. For example, what happens if the spell is cast right in front of you? You know he's there, you may even be able to hear him some or notice other traces of his location. What do you do then?

Unless the spell has a visual or aural byproduct, you wouldn't know that the magician cast a spell since the magician doesn't have to speak to cast.

In any event, I don't understand why you're asking that question. You seem to be implying that I (or someone) stated that you have no way of knowing the invisible person is there. I never made such a claim.

That said, the simple answer is you either attack where you think the person is, or you move behind cover.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Mage sees you, decides to cast Invisibility on himself or the melee samurai in the group.

Person fades out right before your eyes.

Now, you know an invisible attacker is there-- should he still get the Surprise bonus on you in melee? You know he's going to attack you, but are you still surprised by it? What happens if you put your back to a wall, or otherwise improve your position without seeking out cover?

would invisibility even work on you?
let's not go into improved invisibility and the bending of actual light . .
but shouldn't you get a test to resist the spell immediately in that case?

I interpreted it that you make a resistance test. You're being influenced by magic wouldn't that mean you make a magic resistance test to see if you beat the invisibility?

yes, kinda like that . . i think it's even mentioned there that if you're subject to some sort of illusion and you get evidence to the contrary you get another try to shake off the effects of the illusion . . for example the big nasty dragon being halfway through a wall without major structural damage to one or two parties of the unfortunate incident would mean you get another go at resisting the illusion of the dragon *g*

Still, it's not a SEP field where you suddenly forget that the invisible person even exists. You're perfectly aware that he's around *somewhere*, you just can't pinpoint where thanks to the spell.

Ahh, I got you. In this case, there's no surprise and the opponents may attempt to resist the spell immediately. The Invisibility spells state, "Anyone who might perceive the subject must first successfully
resist the spell." Clearly, the people in front of whom you just disappeared have a chance to perceive you.

One of my players came up with a unique situation that's somewhat related to this topic. They wanted to know what would happen if they quickened an invisibility spell on their weapon focus sword and then later used it in combat. After thinking about it for a bit, I figured that the trick would be equivalent to getting the "superior position" bonus as if they were always attacking from behind even when they aren't. The logic being that seeing some guy swing their arm but not seeing the sword itself would result in about the same level of limited situational awareness that being attacked from behind would be.

The player thought it should have been worth more advantage than that, so in the end, they never implemented this scheme. Did I shortchange the guy? What other bonuses if any, should such an "invisible sword" trick warrant?

I think you made the right call. The weapon is invisible, not character. Therefore, an opponent can see the character making an attack, even if he can't see the weapon. The opponent knows something is coming, so it's not surprise, and it's not even close to the same as being attacked by an invisible character.

On the other hand, I wonder if the Invisibility spell was intended to be cast on an object rather than on a creature. I can't find proof either way.

Edit: I meant to type, "On the other hand, I wonder if the Invisibility spell was intended to be able to be cast on an object rather than only on a creature. I can't find proof either way."

It seems to me that SR4 already covers the eventuality of an invisible attacker, at least by my reading.

Here's how I'd do it, and I'm fairly certain it's by the hymnal. The target and the attacker make an Opposed Surprise Test¹, with the attacker getting a +6 dice pool bonus². If the attacker wins, the target does not get a defense roll. Otherwise, the defender may defend as normal.

¹Surprise Tests are not limited to the beginning of combat in SR4.
²I would rule that the invisible attack counts as an ambush.

I assume you were responding to my post, and not RunnerPaul's side question.

Are you saying that the two characters then make surprise tests each turn? Or, are you saying that in general the invisible attacker gets a benefit when attacking only at the start of combat when the initial surprist test is made?

Before I give you an answer, I need to ask a question. By what mechanism is the attacker invisible?

I believe that he's saying everyone potentially affected by the Invisibility spell has to make an opposed surprise test, regardless of when it occurred in the Initiative pass. Which makes sense, but also adds a bundle of extra tests to make each round.

Surprise tests happen when the surprising character springs the ambush, which usually marks the beginning of combat, but can happen during combat (for example, the invisible character could join combat while the security guards are already fighting another teammate). But the invisible character will generally only get the one surprise test, and after that the defender will use the normal rules for blind fire for attacking and defending.

However, that assumes an invisible character who stays on the attack. An invisible character who uses hit-and-run tactics could surprise an enemy multiple times (a non-invisible character using stealth and good tactics could do this, too). After the first time, though, the defenders will be more alert.

So, let's try a more specific situation.

1) Everyone rolls initiative.

2) Mage goes first, or someone holds his action until the mage can cast Invisibility on him.

3) Person fades from sight.

Now, do we make Surprise tests here? Or do we continue on?

4) Everyone takes free actions (or not) related to character disappearing.

5) Invisible character makes his attack, based on how people have reacted to his disappearance.

If I read Glyph correct, this is where he says the Surprise test should take place. Right?

6) Everyone takes their actions as normal.

7) Invisible person takes an action to reposition himself.

8 ) Everyone takes their actions as normal.

9) Invisible person makes second attack.

Should he get a second surprise test here?

If it's the Invisibility spell, then in that case I'd have the target make a Perception + Intuition Test against the threshold set by the spell, per the rules for that spell. If he succeeds, he gets to roll defense.

The only time (I think) it's come up in my games was when an elevator opened behind one of the characters. I called for a Surprise Test between the character and the NPC in the lift.


So ... a -6 to defense? I don't think there's precedent set in the rules for that, but GM fiat always wins, regardless.

@Cain:
If everyone sees someone turn invisible, then I wouldn't roll a surprise test. I would simply use the rules for blind fire. They aren't going to be surprised when they already know they have an invisible enemy. Surprise would only apply if someone already invisible attacked someone. The invisible character could always sneak away, and try to surprise them later, but they would be alert for an invisible enemy, so it wouldn't be as easy as attacking completely unsuspecting foes.

@Aaron:
I wouldn't call it GM fiat, but a logical extrapolation from the rules. Other GMs might rule differently. I feel that allowing no defense against invisible characters makes them too powerful, but someone who can't see his opponent should suffer penalties for it.

By the way, I think it's incredibly poor editing that they have invisibility, and no rules for defending against invisible attackers. This is really something that should have been covered.

what i am wondering about right now(yes, took me some time):
why the hell would a mage try and attack someone like that ? x.x
use a gun, end of story O.o
either that or sling some spell or send some ghost . .

Potato, potato.

doesn't really work when written neh?
but really, if it is a mage, who cares about him trying to hit you?
most mages have body and str as a dump-stat, and close after that agility . .

The mage, sure, but the mage can cast invisibility on other people, too - like sammies or adepts.

yeah, that's kinda how it's meant to be . . and because of that, everybody geeks the mage first too *g*

We're kinda assuming that he's already failed the spell resistance test. Are you suggesting that the victims should get a second test, just because the spell was cast successfully in front of them?


That brings up the question of what happens if the invisible person backs off and sets up a fast ambush that only could work if he's invisible, or backstabs someone who's focused elsewhere. Also, there are no blind fire rules for melee. We're trying to work out plausible and balanced house rules to correct that oversight.


Complete agreement here.

The more I read this thread, the more I think Intuition should play a role.

As was pointed out, Intuition is used for blind fire by attackers, so why not just swap out reaction for intuition when defending against an invisible attacker? Typically, you're average combat specced character will have a lower intuition than reaction, so there's your advantage right there, although it is not certain.

Whether to allow a full defence option is another matter, or possibly only allow a defence check if the defender is taking a full defence action. There are many options.

I think surprise checks every round would slow everything down by requiring a hell of a lot of extra dice rolling, but perhaps if you were well organised it might not be a problem.

Hmmm... Mystic Adept? "Most mages" isn't quite the same as "all mages". I know a few who can slash pretty well...