As an add on, to keep the OR mechanic in place, you can just add the OR to the Sensor + clearsoft roll for illusions.

Again, it's about altering reality. If the spell gets enough hits, as far as the drone is concerned the illusion is, without question, real. It's dog brain will now have to determine how to react to he REAL data it is receiving.

IF however, the spell doesn't get enough hits, the dog brain "sees" that there is a flaw in the data it is receiving and thus it ignores this 'garbage data', just as it would ignore static or noise on the line.



No, but the later analysis would not show any disrepencies if the mage got enough hits. As far as the camera/sensor/etc. is concerned the dog was real. Magic altered physical reality for the camera.

Because magic is intimately entwined with the living world. Every living thing in the Shadowrun world is, by its very nature, "magic." This is why a living target gets a chance to resist, but it is also why the present and living target may be more easily fooled. It's the same reason healing the cyberzombie with magic is pretty much impossible.

Another important point is that his twin in the other room is not a target of the spell. He is witnessing the magic from afar via an electronic device. As a result, that device serves as an intermediary as IT (the camera) is the target.

How?



Neither twin is the target of the spell! The target is the floor!

And this is massive problem if all sensors/cameras are OR 4 and automatically act as intermediaries for the viewer.

Really what's to stop a corp/lone star/insert criminal organization/joe average shadowrunner from arming security personnel with micro sensor packages to deal with mages?

The funny part is, I hadn't really given this a thought until this issue came up over the new OR table, but even in SR4 this problem effectively existed at OR 3.


The more I think about it, the more I dislike the OR mechanic when it comes to Physical Illusions, and the more I think it should be a Sensors+Clear Soft opposed test.

Otherwise, anyone smart enough to equip themselves with sensors is basically running around with 4 automatic successes vs. Physical Illusions.

Hackers. If you've got something on your camera that you don't see with your eyes, it's either something that is there but magically invisible or something that isn't but has been added by a hacker.

An "intelligent" system (which the Pilot program is) of any kind needs to have some way of filtering out what it considers "garbage" data. Otherwise the slightest glitch would down every airplane, crash every car, and stop every monorail.



No one is trying to fool the floor, although frankly if it were sentient, the floor will be fooled (OR 2). The true "target" of the spell are the observers. So the local twin IS the target. The area is "under the influence of magic" and thus, anyone LOS in the area (in the case of an AOE illusion) is "targeted." The remote twin is neither in the area nor LOS. He is not targeted.



If the meat body is there, the meat body/spirit of the sec guard is fooled. Even if his AR sensor package is not - HE is. So later, when he reviews the video feed from his headset, he can clearly see that it was an illusion BUT what he saw, at that time, was as real as anything.

Which suddenly makes a remote rigger/spider + a well trained team, hugely useful. The entire team gets metnally duped but the remote "overwatch" commander gets the feeds from their cameras which are NOT duped (not enough hits to top the OR) and can see through the illusion. He shouts out the command to "Shoot that chair!" and the well trained team responds without hesitation despite what their eyes tell them. BAM BAM BAM. The mage, disguised as a chair, goes down.

Well, if that's the intent...then what was with all the "we want the hacker/rigger to be with the team" stuff they fed us with at SR4's launch?

I wish they'd just state what they were actually trying to accomplish - odds are whatever they were trying to fix either wasn't a problem or was already houseruled out of existance for 90% of groups.

As it is, we're stuck looking at the end results: raised ORs requiring a >15dp to have a 50% chance of affecting a drone and a new drain mechanic that punishes you for using skill over raw power, and thinking "what was this supposed to solve?"

Pff. I'm simply gonna use a manipulation spell then.


Bend Light
(physical manipulation, area effect, sustained, restricted target (willing subject), environmantal, major)
F/2+2 Drain

The spell bends the light around a single willing target, making it practically invisible to the onlooker unless he beats the hits scored by the caster with an intuition+counterspelling test. Objects roll sensors+clearsight instead.
As a side effect the subject may add the spells hits as a positive dicepool modifier to dodge attempts versus light based attacks.

You are using the rules in a reverse way... there is no rule in RAW about the targeting needing to have LOS of a spell... LOS is a relationship between the caster and the point(s) of effect, since you can be hit by any spell, even if you can't see it. Even a illusion spell, like Chaos, can be used in against a blind man. Physical Mask can be used against a deaf and blind man (since it's alter you smell and even your physical form).

The illusion is a special case, since you need to "see" it to acknowledge it. But since RAW states that Improved Invis. ir a physical spell that really affect the light, a camera (since it's a device that capture light), should capture the light affected by the spell.

That is the way the spells work on the description... too bad is that the rules don't work in the same way.

I had forgotten to list Indirect Combat Spells as an exception. Nothing indicates that this 'may' is an exception to Manipulation spells.

Again, this does not show that some spells are not required to overcome OR. Levitate has a threshold - always. Shadow does not. That some specify they must overcome OR and others do not is not in any way proof that they are not subject to OR - all it shows is poor writing.

Once again, show me where it says Levitate is not subject to OR.

Yes. That'd be the Clearsoft software. This is a physical illusion, crafted from light, not a mental illusion. Those don't have to ever worry about OR since living things don't have it. The Clearsoft (the intelligent bit which analyses for anomalous data and says, "Ahar. Someone with cammo-gear, or possibly a low quality invisibility spell") analyses this and determines the nature of the glitch.

To take the simplest possible example, a mage creates a physical illusion of a red, featureless sphere levitating above his hand. The target is the sphere and it's an entirely illusionary construct. Does it appear on film if you use a 1950s camera? Yes, not because it beats the object resistance but because there is red light there. Does it look like a real red ball? No, because it's quite clearly a featureless red ball. Could it have been added later with photomanipulation software? Yes. Does this mean this is the sort of thing software should look for to determine what's going on, and if said image is magically created or, indeed, added by an Hacker after the fact? Yes.

A physical illusion of a painting covering a different painting. What would you see on camera?

To take another example, let's take the simplest possible drone - a turtle which follows a white line on the floor, beloved of school students everywhere since the BBC micro came out. A mage creates a physical illusion overlaying the floor, with the white lines now in different places. The sensor (in this case, a couple of photodiodes, and therefore pretty complex semiconductor stuff) sees ... the white lines the mage has put there, since those are the lines of light allowed. The more advanced example would be an SR drone and an illusionary floor covering a pit. The drone will not see the pit. The drone will see the floor the mage has created. Whether or not the drone recognises that the floor is an illusion depends on the drone's sensors, and the drones programming. A dumb drone will not see the illusion as anything unusual and fall. A smarter drone will note that the floor is odd, but still go across it because it can't see the pit. A very smart drone will have multiple sensors, know that the floor level is not the same as reported by its different sensor suites and realise that there is a reason not to cross the floor.

In none of these cases is the object resistance of the camera or drone an issue - they are never targetted by spells. If you try to wrap the drone in mana and make it look like a fish, or burn or fly apart in a cloud of sparks, then yes, the tech is the target. They're completely different situations.

Round and round in circles we go.

See my point yet Endroren?

No. We have text that says spells are sometimes subject to Object Resistance and sometimes not and we have spells that are explicitly stated to be so. You show me where it says Levitate is subject to OR. The part you quoted is general to spells and says they "may" need to overcome OR. Until you find something stating that this applies to Levitate needs to overcome it, you're playing a house rule saying that it does. And therefore you shouldn't be using it as an example of how the RAW doesn't make sense.

To back knasser up (because he's correct).

From pg. 201 under Illusion spells.

"Physical illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold"

This is under a sub-heading for Physical Illusion spells, and covers all Physical Illusion spells, none of the individual spells actually mention this mechanic in their description.


Now, for Physical Manipulation Spells.

You'll notice there is no stipulation under Physical Manipulation spells similar to Physical Illusion spells.

The only mechanics mentioned are needing to hit a certain threshold, or the opposed test mechanics for Mental Manipulations.

Continuing with this, only Ignite specifies in it's description a need to beat the OR of the inanimate target. None of the other physical manipulations have that listed.

The same is true for all Physical Manipulation spells in Street Magic.

Certain spells have the need to beat the OR of the target, others have no such stipulation.

It seems that the strongest arguments against the illusion rules are based on the belief that magic is just technology with foci. In other words, an old school SR trid screen projecting a 3D image is doing the same thing as an illusion spell - only one uses magic and one uses technology.

If you go with this interpretation of magic, then yes - the illusion rules don't make sense. I mean, either you've bent light or you haven't. Period.

BUT if you drop the idea that magic is just mana technology, and go with the idea that magic is non-physics based, twisting the rules of the physical world (usually on a local level), you end up with something supported very well with the rules as written. From this perspective, if you aren't in the AOE, you aren't affected. Some folks see the effect. Some folks see through it. Machines are hard to fool. People are easier. A man looking through a video recorder might be fooled, even though the video recorder is recording an image that, if he watches it later, is clearly false. All of this makes sense if you treat magic as something that falls outside the normal physical laws.

If you take this interpretation, the biggest challenge I see is that while the rules seem based on an non-physics interpretation of magic, the descriptions sometimes wander into a "physics based" concept of magic which creates some confusion.

NOTE: I absolutely agree with the logic of the arguments people are making - I just think that isn't how the rules were meant to be understood, and that part of the confusion is that "someone got physics in my magic!" in the rules.

I have no problem with magic allowing weird stuff which breaks physics provided its self contained. It's once it's outside that then the problem starts. If the spell bends light then light is bent. If the spell creates fire then things burn. If the spell moves things then we need to know how fast. We don't need to know how the light is bent, where the fuel required for incandescent flames comes from or anything about the motive force.

Mind you, I also break at "machines are hard to fool". Machines are easy to fool, unless they've got AI. ::shrugs:: The rules and fluff do not mesh. The fluff is more fun than the rules.

Even then they're easy to fool if you give them the right data which to a human is clearly bullshit. The reason the AI doesn't know its bullshit is because the human is unable to methodically quantify WHY its bullshit.

But that's the opposite of self contained. In the case of illusions, that's a semi-permanent, very real alteration based on physical laws that impact anything anywhere that comes into contact with it. My argument is that illusions aren't physical light being bent (despite some unfortunate lines in the text), but rather the temporary alteration of reality for targeted individuals/objects. If they WERE light being bent, then the entire illusion system has to go. It fails.

As for fire, the fire created by magic is "real" but limited in how it can interact with the world. Now the change to the physical world it creates (like the burned skin on my face OH GAWD THE PAIN) is VERY real and on-going process of burning that it begins IS real. The fire from the spell is just a temporary alteration of local physics.



Again, you're coming at this from physics rather than magic. It is hard to "break" reality for a machine because they are SO founded in reality. It is easy to break reality for a living creature (a magical being by nature in SR). "Fooling" a machine is just a side effect of the succesful alteration of what is real.



Human: A dog smoking a cigarette? What the hell? Send a team down there!
Computer: Logging dog smoking cigarette in C:\Logs\Security\Archives\Log.sgh

Spells table on Street Magic, Pag. 189.
It states Levitate as a Success Test spell, but don't mention (OR), that would mean Object Resistence.



...and, ignore the spell description.

If I have a machine that senses the world around it with touch sensors and stick it in a maze it can and will eventually find the way out (given successful maze solving software).

But if I start poking it with a stick I'm fooling its sensors into thinking that there is a wall somewhere where there is NOT a wall and in so doing I can actually make the program fail to find an exit. Now. If a spell were used to simulate the stick, how real does that stick have to be? Not very, all you need to do is cause an electrical impulse in the touch sensor long enough to get the bot to turn around. There are in fact, several spells in ShadowRun (not all of which are illusions!) that could cause this effect, some require OR and some do not (fling for example could be used to fling a small rock at the sensor, which if not properly calibrated to ignore pressures that last very short durations, say 1/10th of a second then the flung rock will trigger the program's incorrect behavior).

Expanding this to an optic sensor is no more complex than expanding a maze from 2 dimensions to 3, but requires a sustained output of illusionary visuals capable of being detected (e.g. Improved Invisibility not just Invisibility, as Invis isn't light-altering, but mind-altering).

In pre-SR4 times, few people took on the role of Decker or Rigger because of complex rules, so the SR4 developers lumped the two roles together, irrespective of their compatibility.

That not only didn't answer the question, but the rules are still terribly complex such that no one wants to play them.

Making the number of hits now needed to reliably fool a good camera now what exactly?
Somewhere around 8...

Use the old OR, not the new (and Clearsight is rolled). Or you can oppose the casting with a Sensor Rating + Clearsight roll.

Which makes far more sense, and anyone who argues OR thresholds in this case is only proving my point.

You're using the description of Invisiblity, not Physical Invisibility there. The whole point of physical illusions is that machines can see them. That's why they exist. Mental illusions affect minds. Physical illusions are, by their descriptions, actually manipulation spells. The categories, however, are crudely thematic rather than related to actual "mana-physics" laws. The two types of illusions are, explicitly, different types of spells with different rules for interacting with reality or they'd be pointless.

The light-shaping/creation is real. You can photograph the illusion. With few successes, however, it's not a very good illusion and humans and machines with relevent software can see through it. Or at least, that's what the fluff says, and if I recall correctly (it having been ages since I read my 3rd ed books), how they used to work by the rules too.

Invisibility can never fool a computer-based drone. It should, however, work just fine on a brain-in-a-jar, albeit with the usual penalties for low essence applying.

Once again.

Neglecting to mention a requirement to overcome OR in a spell/category description does not override the rules for spells targeting non-living, non-magic objects.

Unless the spell or category in question states it is an exception to the rule, then it follows the rule, by RAW. This may not be RAI, but it is RAW.

Personally, I disagree with this & rule all Physical Manipulations not subject to OR. That, however, is a house rule. As is saying Levitate is not subject to OR.

No... not at all. Its a physical illusion, the "Target" is the space the illusion itself occupies. Given that the effect of the spell is to bend light, create light, muffle or generate air vibrations, or any number of effect immediately in and around the illusion itself. The spell extends no further. Once its created or bent that photon, that photon will behave like very other photon on the planet.



For a mana based illusion this would happen, for a physical illusion, this could not.

Again, neglecting to mention a rule covering all spells in the individual description (or in this case, table) does not override that rule. Mentioning it, saying it is not subject to that rule, does; which none of the Manipulation spells do.

I do agree with this for a writen rule description... thinking this way for the kind of table that there is on the end of Street Magic just defeat the very purpose of that table and render it useless.

raphabonelli is right. Other physical manipulation spells which need a success test to overcome OR state so in the table. levitation does not!

All of the ones that require a success test to overcome OR on that table, are also all of the ones that have it written explicitly in their individual spell descriptions.

So that settles that one at least.

Again, failing to mention [Insert Specific Spell or Category Here] must overcome Object Resistance does not make it an exception to the rule that spells targeting non-living, non-magic objects must overcome Object Resistance.

Specifically mentioning that [Insert Specific Spell or Category Here] is not subject to Object Resistance is what overrides the OR rule. None of the Manipulation spells do this. Assuming that because some mention they are subject to OR & some do not, that those not mentioning it are not subject to it is an error.

The spell table on pgs. 187~189 of Street Magic disagree with you.

They label, quite clearly, what kind of test each spell listed must make.

I THINK that this is the reason why it states that the GM MAY use the OR. It is his to decide if the playstyle of the round he leads uses the OR or not for these spells.

You are missing the point entirely. The tables do not say Levitate must overcome OR, correct. They also do not say Levitate is exempt from the Object Resistance rule - a rule that covers all spells. As there is no text anywhere saying it is exempt, then the spell is subject to OR.

Well then, my argument is that Illusions do not roll vs OR (despite some unfortunate lines in the text). Also, when your condition monitor fills up, you don't fall unconscious (despite some unfortunate lines in the text). I can go on like this until I have fucked up every ruling in the book, but it will not be a very vaild argument, will it?

so why then are there spells stated that their success tests need to overcome the OR?

The context in which I used that phrase was referring to what strikes me as color text to describe the spell rather than actual nuts and bolts rules. I was also illustrating that the rules make sense if you come at them with a certain world view in mind, and in that case it is poor wording used to describe the spell that is causing the problems rather than an actual flaw in the mechanics of the rule.

So no, obviously I'm not suggesting one write off whatever rules they don't like. Please don't insult me because you disagree with me. I just think that in order to embrace the ideas about illusions people are pushing for, you need to completely rethink the entire magic system - which frankly has some merit I think - but THAT has nothing to do with the SR4A changes.

Poor writing - unnecessary redundancy. This is merely one of many areas with such poor writing. It also indicates, but does not prove, that it was intended for Manipulation spells that do not say they must overcome Object Resistance are not required to do so. This is not what is written, however.

You also could simply be wrong by interpreting the rule THAT narrow.

Firstly, several other people have pointed out that the table at the back of Street Magic explicitly lists which spells must overcome OR and which need not (a table I had forgotten about - thanks everyone). You cannot dismiss this and pretend that it isn't RAW.

Secondly, you have actually stooped to cutting out segments of paragraphs above to omit context. The above passage is from SR4A, pg. 183 or SR4, pg. 174. The full passage begins by stating that some spells simply require a Success Test whilst others are resisted. It then goes on to say that non-living targets don't get a resistance test but instead an OR threshold must be reached.

When you figure out how to put complex ideas in a single statement, then you'll be allowed to build a case on lines removed from their context. Until that happens, you'll have to accept that the meaning of something is sometimes spread over more than a few lines and that chopping just a part of it out in order to make a point is dishonest.

I would probably be kinder if you hadn't chosen to bolster your case by putting blame on the "many areas of poor writing" etc. Criticism isn't deserved on this. It's pretty clear.

K.

Please do not assume I insulted you, just because I disagree with you.
Choosing to ignore parts in the BBB that do not fit or contradict your logic is a no go. I does not really matter if it's actual mechanics or the text that puts those mechanics in context with the world.

Yet again, spells targeting non-living, non-magic objects are subject to Object Resistance unless stated otherwise. Neglecting to mention OR in a spell description or table is not the equivalent of saying it is exempt from the rule.

I have gone over this exact argument before. I am not cutting out sections of a paragraph - I am cutting out separate paragraphs that are not relevant to the discussion. The first paragraph of the section does indeed state that some spells are resisted & others are success tests. The section then (in separate paragraphs) goes on to explain which type of spells are resisted, & which are success tests. Spells targeting non-living, non-magic objects have a threshold of Object Resistance. No exceptions (at least, in this section).

Except it is one of many areas of poor writing in the book. It is redundant. It leads people to draw conclusions not supported by the rules (regardless of if it was the intended functionality or not). I was not 'bolstering my case' by putting blame on it - I was answering a question as to why it was there.



For the final time:
There is text clearly stating that spells targeting non-living, non-magic targets are subject to Object Resistance.
There is not text saying Manipulation spells are exempt from this rule.

Rules as Written, Levitate (among many) is subject to Object Resistance.

You're missing several things, Muspellsheimr.

First, yes, you ARE omitting a relevant paragraph. The "Step 5: Determine Effect" section begins with a paragraph that states:

It then goes on to delineate the different types of possible targets and how they resist spells. Living or magical targets get an Opposed Test with Willpower/Body + Counterspelling. Nonliving, nonmagical objects get a default OR. Astral objects get their Force.

Note how the rules clearly state (under your interpretation) that every single spell with a target (ie, every single spell) is resisted? Note how, in addition, no targets are listed that allow spells to just use a Success Test, but how every possible target is covered?
By your interpretation of the rules, a player would be forced to resist Heal. No Success Test for you, sammy boy - having a high Body is gonna make it even harder to heal your low-Essence self. Too bad, so sad.

Furthermore, in the Resistance section of the Street Grimoire, it states very clearly that not all spells targeting nonliving nonmagical objects have a threshold to succeed. There are no spells in existence from official sources that state they do not require OR thresholds - instead, they state if they DO require OR thresholds. This is consistent throughout every book with spells in it.

No. Actually Muspellsheimr is quite correct. The rule certainly says that all spells, such as levitate, do require one to beat object resistance. If you have been reading carefully, he also states that he does not play this way.

and

Yes. Everyone else is certainly correct in their interpretation of the intended rules. Could the authors have been more clear? I leave that for the reader to answer. None-the-less, the book in one sentence makes a blanket statement that is neither consistently supported nor, I believe, intended to be absolutely universal unless stated otherwise. I believe that the intent of that statement is only to elaborate on the Object Resistance mechanic.

It has been my observation that many people dislike qualifying every statement that is not a definite fact with words such as "usually," "often," "many," "most," or even "certainly." You'll note that my posts (on better days) are riddled with qualifiers, as is my speech. Many people go to the opposite extreem with statements such as, "You always do that." The fact that no qualifier is in the sentence, "Spells cast on non-living objects require a Success Test with a threshold based on the type of object affected (see the Object Resistance Table)," does not convince me that there should be none. I presume Muspellsheimr feels similarly. This would account for his house rule. I hope you all have enjoyed arguing semantics. That is all that is happening.

Muspellheimer, I'll be blunt. I do not believe that you can't see that you are deliberately ignoring the several parts of the rule book that prove you are wrong.

If you willfully ignore a table that states which spells are subject to OR and which are not, if you insist on cutting one paragraph away from its context in the bizarre belief that the rest of us can't go back read the full passage and see that the statement applies to spells where a resistance test would be allowed for a living target, if you can't see that your own bizarre selectivity would (as Zurai interestingly points out) mean that every spell cast on a living person would be subject to a compulsory resistance test, if you can't accept that the spell descriptions themselves state whether a spell is subject to a resistance test, if you deny that the words "may", "many" and "most" don't mean "always", then I draw three possible conclusions:

1. You have a pre-existing desire to see something wrong in the Shadowrun rules for whatever reasons of your own.
2. You can't bear to be corrected by someone
3. You are driven to seek attention by making silly arguments.

The RAW says what it is supposed to say. You play that way anyway. You are going through idiotic contortions to show there is a discrepancy. How much sense does this really make to you?

And just a debating point, repeating things in bold and saying "final time" doesn't convince anyone of anything. Reading criticisms and responding to those points makes an argument. All you've done is back yourself into a corner where you're too embarrassed to admit you were wrong and the more you defend it, the greater your cognitive dissonance will grow.

K.

I guess those quotes could help.

@raphabonelli: Thank you. You put it better than I did.

K.

Well according to my BBB Levitate looks like this:

Levitate (Physical)
Type: P • Range: LOS • Duration: S • DV: (F ÷ 2) + 1
Levitate allows the caster to telekinetically lift a person
or object and move it around. The caster must achieve
a threshold on the Spellcasting Test equal to 1 per 200 kg
of the subject’s mass. The subject of the spell can be moved
anywhere in the caster’s line of sight at a Movement rate
equal to the spell’s Magic x net Spellcasting hits in meters
per turn.
Objects flung into other things should be handled as a
Ranged Attack Test (see Fling), inflicting a number of boxes
of Stun damage as decided by the gamemaster (especially
sharp or dangerous objects may do Physical damage at the
gamemaster’s discretion).
If the caster is attempting to levitate an item held by a
living being, make an Opposed Test between the spell’s Force
x 2 and the holder’s Strength + Body. The caster must have
at least 1 net hit to levitate the item away. If the caster is attempting
to levitate an unwilling living being, the Opposed
Test uses the target’s Strength + Body. You can use this spell
to levitate yourself, if desired.


and it was errataed in this way:

p. 203 Levitate spell
Movement rate equals the spells Force x net Spellcasting
hits in meters per turn.

an in the tables at the end of Street Magic (that hasn't been errataed as far as my knowledge goes) is stated as "S" for Success Test and not "S(OR)" for Need to beat OR.
So I guess I'm disagreeding with you.