Reminds me of a situation we came across during a SR3 game: a bug hive was hidden behind an illusion of a wall that blocked the way.
The GM ruled that since the illusion also applied to touch, we couldn't get through it even if we knew it was an illusion, as long as we didn't resist it.
I don't know if that was correct, but it was rather strange.

SR3 Argument on Invis and Improved Invis

In SR4, there is an additional caveat to Improved Invisibility. There is the "actual warping of light aound the subject that affects technological sensors as well". In this case, the GM has to decide how he wants to interpret this "warping of light".

In SR4, it is not explicit that this "warping of light" provides LOS to objects that would normally be hidden by the subject of the spell. However, a GM may rule that a mage may cast Improved Invis on a subject so as to gain LOS to targets beyond. But remember that this spell does not make the subject transparent, it warps light around the subject, not warp light through it(this point has been brought up earlier); also extrapolating from Optical Devices(SR4 p324), the GM could impose a similar negative dice pool modifier since the mage is using Improved Invis to mimic the function of these devices.

On the other hand, the GM may rule that "warping of light around the subject" simply means that the light around the subject is warped such that an illusion of the invisible subject is presented to viewers that fail to resist the spell.

Improved invisibility can be resisted.

It'd be nice if we could get a call from Synner or someone on this much like he did for ultrasound/echolocation.

Lol. Strange that I return to the DS forums at about the same time this old discussion gets dragged-up. I remember a long discussion me and Dr. F. had sometime around 2003-2004 on the subject. That was obviously a discussion using the 3rd edition rules, under which I was probably the loudest opponent of the idea.

Looking at the definition under the 4th edition rules, I would have to rule that the description of improved invisibility (that it works by warping light) probably does allow it. That does leave a lot of questions, however, like how does it work when there's no possible physical path for light around the object?

Now we have the headache that is the laser weapon. If I cast a low-force invisibility spell, it can't affect technological sensors. Let's say I stand on one side of a wall and cast the spell on it. On the other side of the wall there is a guard with a laser weapon. Let's say we both pass the resistance, and the guard shoots the laser weapon at the wall. Does it hit me? Now let's say we both fail our resistance, or that one of us passes and the other fails. When am I lasered, and when am I not?

I'd say the laser hits the wall, because it is never affected by the low force imp invis.

With a high force imp.invis, I'd rule the same as for casting through the imp invis. ATM I'd probably go with a group vote of yes or no, and then casting/lasering through invis would work or not.

Personally, my vote is with no.

I should probably make it clear that, although I do agree that it might be raw, I wouldn't allow it in my games. This is because in my games Improved Invisibility is an illusion, and as such has predefined boundaries. It doesn't physically alter the subject at-all, instead acting on the sensors of that view it (eyes, cameras, etc). A laser would appear to fire through the object, and would appear to strike something on the other side, but the damaging effect actually hit the object.

It would take a manipulation spell to bend the light and, although a lens or mirror spell would allow you to see around an object to get LOS, you're not going to have a realistic invisibility spell any more easily than you could get with normal mirrors and lenses.

Gah! That makes no sense! How do you resist the bending of light around an object over there?! Does everyone have latent psychic powers that force the light that's going directly to their retinas to 'un-bend?'

jsbcnksd

/cry

Improved invisibility as written should be a manipulation spell, but there are already so many....

Chris

Platinum, I would say that since Physical illusion spells are resisted using Intuition, you "resist" the effect not by making it not happen. Rather, your resistance is you noticing the flaws in the effect and realizing that it isn't real.

Platinum Dragon it's an illusion spell, and all illusion spells get resisted. If there was no resistance to them illusion spells would be insane. Illusion spells are again illusions even if it bends light around the target. I feel that if it truly bended light around the subject it would be a manipulation spell and not an illusion. I may be wrong on this but I feel the authors made it an illusion spell so that it could be resisted against if you cast it on yourself or allies, so that you couldn't just cast it on yourself and do whatever you felt like since no one will ever be able to see you.

So since improved invisibility can be resisted against I believe that my previous argument is still valid on 'if a mage can chose to auto fail resisting against his own spells.' If this is not the case then that means if a spirit uses any form of power or spell to aid you/your allies then it means that it will effect everyone including allies trying to see what other people on your team are doing. If a spirit with your sig uses conceal should the rest of the party be able to see each other with this power on or do they have to make perception checks to see what everyone else is doing at minus the spirits force? Should a mage be able to look through his own illusion and cast spells at the enemy if he made a wall in front of himself? One way or the other the bigger picture is that it can't always just work to the mages advantage. The mage either resists his own spells, auto fails his own spells, or always sees through his spells. You don't get all three just because you want it to.

I think I just keyed on the illusion. It gives the illusion of bending light, but doesn't actually bend it, as bending light would be a manipulation spell not an illusion spell. Resisting the illusion makes you see the object.

(As opposed to noticing the imperfections in the invis of the object).

If (and i dont like the idea) a laser can pass i.invisible objekts then i.invis is the perfect defense against laserweapons...


*ups, try to hit me again, i know u can see me, but the laserbeam cant*


[x] against it

Well, when it comes to combat spells; if a mage cast a fireball and is in the radius, he has to resist it at the strength in which it was cast. Seems to me that line of thinking should carry over to all spells.

So, cast one vote for: the mage must resists his own spells.

---
As for the 'laser V. improved invis.' debate; IMHO, the illusion of light bending is certainly not able to affect a laser weapon. Illusions cannot directly affect things after all.

Kurious, your example is flawed because you are using an area spell, which explicitly affects all targets in the area.

Which is why I said, "Seems to me that line of thinking should carry over to all spells."

And why shouldn't it?

When you cast a spell you are effectively using your 'Magic' to manipulate the mana in a region at a strength of 'Force'. There should be no reason you can arbitrarily lower the 'force' against some (including yourself) while maintaining its full strength on others... Magic it is a 'blanket effect' and an 'equal opportunity effector'.

Yes, but in this example, the mage WANTS to be affected. Since he knows the spell effect, and when it happens, and is most likely skilled in counterspelling, why can't he choose to not resist this mental effect?

As far as I can tell, if he wants to be affected by his own spell he has two options: he can forgo counterspelling (the conscious aspect of spell resistance) and he can cast spell stronger (i.e.: at a higher force).

Conversely, with the 'illusionary wall' trick, he wants the spell to be weaker; so he can see though it (while hoping he enemies can't).

The spell strength is dictated by the force used, and all parties who want to bypass it (or be affected by it) are regulated by it. Caster and mundane alike.

If you are getting shot at, you can choose to not dodge and not roll reaction and just get shot.

If you know there is a spell being cast, and you want to be affected by it, why can't you not roll your attribute and just be affected?

Because magic works differently then mundane...

When getting shot at you get the option of jumping out of the way, (or not).

With magic, (save with direct spells) you don't get the option to jump out of the way.

Magic is regulated by force completely. Once the force is chosen for a spell, that's its force, and all who are affected by that spell have to resist it equally. Including the caster.

Also, resisting magic is considered an 'unconscious effect'. You will resist magic around you instinctively. There are 'conscious' things you can do in the rare instance that you want a spell to affect you, like forgo counterspelling... but there is always a level of resistance to all magic, including your own.

You still have not explained why someone who knew it was going to happen could willfully accept the illusion. There are some spells that require voluntary targets, which implies that you can voluntarily accept a spell.

I was editing that, lol...

To reiterate:

IMHO, Resisting magic is an unconscious affair... you have no control over it.

When you cast a spell you have conscious controls to help a spell 'affect yourself', you can cast it at a higher force, you can forgo counterspelling it, or both. But there is always some level of resistance... hence you almost have to do one or both of the above if you want to 'see through the dumpster'.

(By relation, I think all resistance is 'instinctive' and 'unconscious'... if you choose to forgo your dodge when someone shoots you, do you get to forgo your armor and body to resist the damage? I say, absolutely not. Even if you want that bullet to strike you down, unconsciously you will resist as best you can).

There is not a level of innate resistance against spells. That is what the magic resistance quality is. SR4, 79, "A magically resistant character cannot choose to lower his magical resistance; it affects all spells and magical effects, good or bad. A character with Magic Resistance is never a willing subject for spells that require a voluntary subject; such spells automatically fail when used on magic resistant characters."

Example: SR4, 173, "Spells cast on living or magic targets are often resisted, and an Opposed Test is required."

Also, SR4, 195, "Some spells require a voluntary non-resisting subject; unconscious characters are considered to be voluntary."

I think I've proved to myself at the least, that yes, characters can voluntarily lower their spell resistance, if they know about the spell beforehand. Only those with the magic resistance quality cannot.

I believe you are twisting words here.



Spells they are referring to are spells like 'heal', where you have to basically lay hands for a few rounds in order to heal- and to which a character must relent if they wish to receive magically healing. (If they fight back in any way, the spell is broke).

Spells that hurt you, or trick/control the mind are invasive by nature and the body rejects such magic unconsciously. Now, people who have the 'magic resist' Positive quality are better at it then others... so good in fact that they even resist healing magic.

But, if invasive magic was not unconsciously resisted, why can you not snipe someone with a spell?
-You cast on a person and they are unaware they still get to roll their body or will to resist it.

Consider the following as additional proof:
If you opt to not dodge a bullet, do you opt to forgo your armor and body?

-NO

Same with invasive magic.

Quotes to back up your position please.

Heal is actually NOT a requires a voluntary target spell. You can quite simply run up to an enemy, succeed in an unarmed (touch attempt) attack, and cast it on him, and he will be healed whether he wants to or not. In fact, since healths spells explicitly are success tests he can't resist against it at all. Also, you only have to touch them at the time of casting, once cast, you merely sustain the spell, and could then proceed to jump into a plane and fly away, while still sustaining the spell for permanent effect. No need for continuous touching required.

I'd call it as spells are usually resisted, per SR4, 173, "Spells cast on living or magic targets are often resisted, and an Opposed Test is required." but can be willfully accepted instead, if the target is aware of the spell and wants to allow it to affect him fully.

Sorry man, but your wrong on this one:





[Emphasis mine.]

There is no such thing as a 'drive by heal', you have to be voluntary to the affect and stay put while the healer works their mojo.

Health spells are 'non-invasive', so you don't have the natural unconscious reaction of resisting them like you do with invasive spells. As you said, it is a 'success test', not an 'opposed roll'.

You're just flat out wrong about Heal. Yes, it doesn't require a voluntary subject. Yes, you can run up and cast it on them if you succeed in the Touch component of the spell. But in no way, shape, or form does that remove the target's ability to resist it or any other spell you cast upon them. Touch range is a limitation of the casting not a benefit to it (excluding the benefit of giving the spell less drain, which is the whole point in making a spell a Touch spell; you exchange ease in casting for lesser drain).

Thus if you run up to some guy and throw your hands on him to cast a spell, he can resist if he wishes to. And in most cases he will. I know I would if some lunatic just came out of nowhere to do so. And if you have any kind of trait such as Magic Resistance, Arcane Arrester or Astral Hazing, you have to go through the resistance procedure.

No. You only have to meet the Range requirement for the actual casting. Sustaining the effect can be done from any range and between any obstacle. The target is free to leave and do whatever as you sustain it.

I disagree.

The duration of heal is not P&S; it is only P. And logically, that makes no sense, you are tending someones wounds.

Can you slap a med-kit on someone and run away for first aid?

Good lord.

SR4 p. 195. "Permanent spells must be >>>sustained<<< for a short time, after which their effects become “natural� and no longer require magic or concentration to maintain. The time required to make a spell’s effects permanent is equal to twice the Drain Value in Combat Turns."

Emphasis mine. There is no requirement that you must maintain the Range on the spell for a permanent spell anymore than there is for a sustained spell. It's a limitation of casting a spell, not sustaining one. Just like you don't have to maintain LOS when you cast Invisibility on someone. Because, you know, they'd be invisible and thus it would be impossible for you to do so.

The FAQ supports the notion that you need to maintain contact for the effect to become permanent. Regardless of resistance, that doesn't allow for any "drive-by healing".

EDIT: Here's the quote:

Health spells are not resisted. SR4, 199, "Health spells are handled as Success Tests, with hits providing specified bonuses." There is NO resistance test for health spells. Period, ever.

The FAQ contradicts the books entirely then. The books should be errataed to state specifically that LOS/Touch must be maintained during the entire duration of the sustaining for permanence with the spell, as currently, it is not in the rules anywhere.

If you apply a little logic, it doesn't contradict at all.




That's not entirely true... 'negative health spells' do have resist rolls. After all, they are invasive.

(PS: TY for the FAQ Eryk; do you have the link to that? I would love to review it).

Specific health spells state they have a resistance test, otherwise, they don't. Better?

It does contradict the books. There is no distinction in the books that says you must keep LOS/Touch for permanent spells to make the permanent. Nothing even hints at it. It was arbitrarily decided in the FAQ, with no basis whatsoever in the rules.

If you feel there is a basis in the rules, please, feel free to quote it. But good luck finding it.

I guess the text for things like Magic Resistance are nonsensical and irrelevant then. I mean, Heal doesn't have a resistance test according to you, so even though Magic Resistance "works even against beneficial spells like Heal," it's complete jibberish. The Spell Resistance adept power has a similar comment ("...does not interfer with spells that you choose not to resist.") Arcane Arrester and Astral Hazing are similar, too.

Spells like Heal don't talk about it because the writers, being less than insightful as they usually are, didn't assume anyone would ever want to resist them. You can choose to resist any spell cast upon you, beneficial or not. Hell, by your logic -no- Health spell can be resisted because "Health spells are handled as Success Tests" even when the spell itself tells you targets get to resist.

However, feel free to find a rule that states you can't resist a spell cast upon you. Being automatically considered voluntary when unconscious doesn't count.

I will agree that it is not 'spelled out' per se... but again, just apply a little logic.

If you are casting a spell that takes multiple turns to cast, logically if it is a touch spell, you have to continue to do so until it is cast; and if you need LOS, you logically need to watch them the entire time you cast the spell.

Like I said above about the healing spell:


I think a lot of arguments about Shadowrun... hell, all RPG games, is that many rules are not 'spelled out'; they are written for the player and DM to take with a logical mind- but that also makes for 'interpretation'. And unfortunately, the inner munchkin in all of us, will sometimes come out and say... 'well, it doesn't explicitly say XYZ' so that means I can do this, or I am not prevented from doing that. AKA: creative interpretation.

I know I have done it in other games (just starting Shadowrun, but it may happen in this one too)... hell, (long ago) I did a "Jedi Teleport" once because the book said 'there are other powers not known', and with 8 dice, one being exploding, rolled like 81 on the roll. Fun and bad ass, hell yeah! Munchkin? Big time.

The specific always overides the general. Generally, heal spells are not resisted, because the health spell section says so. Magic resistance states it works on spells such as heal, and arcane arrester and hazing are similar to that also. The spell descriptions also state if you get a resistance test with that specific spell.

Following the rules, even an unwanted heal cannot be resisted unless you have one of the above qualities/powers that mentions being able to resist even beneficial spells.

The spells that require voluntary targets. If you always resist a spell cast on you, the you can't be a voluntary target.

It takes one complex action to cast, not multiple turns. All you are doing during those multiple turns is sustaining the spell. You could run over to your friend who just went unconcious behind a desk, kneel next to him so your leg was touching his torso, and cast heal. Then, during the next few turns while you sustain the spell, you could shoot your gun at the people who shot him, and take cover behind the desk, sing, juggle, whatever you want really, and he would still be healed. Also, the healing is done the instant the spell is cast, not once its made permanent.

A very creative interpretation you got there, and one that should be cleared up by the FAQ.

When you are casting a Permanent spell, sure, you 'cast the spell' in one complex action; but you continue to focus on and manipulate the mana afterwards for- many turns- as you make it permanent... hence, you must keep LOS or continue touching the target until done. You are focusing your Magical skill with the intent of having that spell remain on them without your needing to 'Sustaining' it. If you get interrupted before the spell is permanent, it does not take hold either, (i.e.: if you kneel down to heal someone and it take 4 turns to heal them, but you are forced to move away from them on turn 3... no healing has occurred- you did not finish focusing the mana and the effect did not take place).

The problem here is that the word 'Sustained' is a Duration type, but the same word is also used in the description of making a spell Permanent. A slight oversight by the developers of the game, but one that can be overcame if you simply apply logic.

If a spell requires a voluntary subject, a subject may then choose to be voluntary. An unconscious subject is always voluntary. Is there a rule that states a voluntary subject chooses not to resist an opposed spell? Logically it would be an assumption that a voluntary subject does not resist a spell, especially an opposed spell.

No matter how a permanent spell is to be made permanent, is there a rule that states a spell can or cannot be chosen to be resisted if it is an opposed spell?

There is no 'written rule' that I am aware of.

But there is reading between the lines and applying logic (and balance).

In a nut shell, as I have talked about this a lot today in this thread; I feel that any spell that has an opposed roll is invasive and therefore resisted by victim and caster alike on an unconscious level. You cannot relent to an invasive spell, even if you are the caster of said spell. (But, you can make conscious efforts to better be affected by forgoing your own counterspelling).

Non-invasive spells are spells that deal with 'success rolls', to which there is no 'unconscious' resist… but, that is not to say you could not consciously resist such a spell- though, realistically, that would almost never come up.

I go through the logic of my reasoning mostly on page three.

When talking about RAW, there is no such thing as logic or balance. It is or it is not. If the GM needs make an interpretation due to ambiguous wording of the RAW, he should be then guided by the GMing rules.

You know, if you're not into drive-by healings of people who don't want to be healed... could you use the spell design rules to make lower-Drain healing spells by taking the "voluntary target" modifier for them?

On the subject of voluntarily accepting illusions, I might note that that's all hypnotism basically is - the subject willfully ignores what their senses are telling them and lets their subconcious feed them 'sensory input' - usually at the behest of the hypnotist. Conversely, you cannot be hypnotised into doing something you don't want to do.

It makes a lot of sense, then, that even if you know that the spell being cast is creating an illusion, and you trust the mage enough that you're willing to suspend your natural mental defenses (wether you realise that's what you're doing or not), you could, indeed, choose not to resist the spell. The key point however, is that unless you're practiced at meditation and willfully altering states of conciousness, you'd have to trust the mage who was casting - choosing not to resist would be a subconcious choice, not a concious one.

So, if a mage you've worked with for years whom you trust implicitly says to you 'I'm going to make that dumpster invisible so that you can see through it, but I need you to accept that and trust me or it might not work' your character would be unlikely to try to resist the illusion at all. If someone you've never seen before says 'I can make walls transparent! Watch this...' you'd roll to resist.

Purely by RAW, on the other hand, it seems more than implied that you can, indeed, choose to resist or not at your lesiure(sp?).

Edit: also, if an Adept who has lots of experience with meditation see's the enemy mage casting a force 1 invisibility on the table he's hiding behind, and correctly identifies the spell, he could theoretically decide to accept, for the moment, that the table is invisible and voluntarily fail to resist, thus seeing through the table to the cowering mage behind.

Where the hell does it say in RAW that you can choose to resist or not resist your own spell? I would love to see the page number where it gives the mage whatever the hell he/she wants. The rules state that if a spell is cast on you and you are a voluntary subject then you don't roll resist. When you cast on an object you have to beat the Object Rating of the object. The spell works when you cast on the trashcan and has nothing to do with voluntary subjects or not. The fact is by RAW it is not mentioned either one way or the other if the mage gets to choose to see through their own spells or not is valid.

All of your "I trust you implicitly" doesn't have anything to do with the rules. If choosing to auto fail on these kinds of spells or not is just stupid. It makes the magic in SR even more broken, and on top of that it is an ILLUSION SPELL. Not a manipulation spell. It manipulates nothing, it gives the illusion of everything. Illusion is totally different then manipulation and I think there is a big difference in the wording. It talks about fooling the senses not changing things to create LOS on targets (BBB p. 172.) Go and read page 202 of the BBB for manipulation spells and what they do for more clarity on the difference between them.

Then look up illusions on on page 201 of the BBB (172 is also good to check out.) Page 201 explains everything. It refers to subjects not objects, talks about resistance tests and says and I'm quoting the BBB when I say "the subject might remain unnoticed if she wins a Shadowing or Infiltration Test." Why the hell would that be mentioned if it didn't consider it to be a person?

Fine even if you completely throw out the first part of my argument on if a mage can just choose to auto fail or succeed on casting their own spells there is nothing in the RAW that lets a mage get away with using illusions in such a way. Says subject and refers to the subject by gender, and is an illusion spell.

In closing..... this thread is a dead horse and I'm tired of beating on it.

*edited*

It doesn't need to say anything. The restriction for LOS if that you have to be able to see the target and only technological visual mods fail to achieve that. LOS works just fine against transparent objects, including windows, sunglasses, and logically, invisible objects.

I'm not sure if SR4 goes into it, but illusion spells also have both targets (who you cast the spell on) and subjects (who are affected by the spell). I may have the terms backwards though. But that doesn't matter. You cast Invisibility on the dumpster, which is what the initial casting rolls are based upon. Then anyone who comes across the invisible dumpster makes their resistance tests to see if they're affected or not.

"Invisible" and "bending light around a target" are not always one and the same. Things can be invisible w/o having to bend light. I am going to make a new thread so hopefully it will allow for some clarity on this matter and end this conversation once and for all.

There is talk of bending light around the target, but I wonder what the authors intent really was for this spell and how it can be used. Me thinks it was created so that a security system couldn't just double check for discrepencies in the system when dealing with an illusion based spell, but this is speculation and speculation will get us nowhere.

Incidentally, the 'bending of light' comments came from the spell description for Improved Invisibility. I never tried to imply that normal invisibility could be cast through.

Note "warping", not bending. It might be taken to mean that the light around the subject is affected such that the subject appears to be invisible.

I for one would never let any mage be fooled by his own illusion spells, he knows they're not true, he made them...

I'm just curious, can you quote ANYTHING from the books that supports the FAQ in that you need to keep los/touch on a target for permanent spells?