I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. As far as I can tell, a magician with a dice pool of 9 can, on average, expect to fool a camera a bit more than 60% of the time. Which is pretty good, but not exactly spectacular if it's what you're supposed to be good at.

That doesn't change the fact that a professional mage won't always have access to those tricks.

Take a starting special-effects mage. He needs a Magic of at least 3 under the current rules. Under SR4.5.1, he would have needed a magic of at least 4, if he wanted to be able to cast an illusion viable for the cameras without risking physical drain. Getting him to a dice pool of 12 would be difficult, especially for a legal wizard; that's shadowrunner territory.


This answers nothing. Let me put it this way: why is is that sometimes, a camera can spot flaws in an illusion that a viewer can't see... and sometimes, a viewer can see through an illusion that a camera cannot? Also, what happens if you score less than 3 successes on a Trid Phantasm (Obvious illusion) spell?

At which point it's clear that your average every day Joe Mage is actually quite a bit farther above average than, well, everyone else who's average. Which is a problem.

I suppose it falls into the same category as what (under SR4, not 4A) the Emotitoy does for con artists. Even at mediocre levels they start having more dice thrown around casually than anyone has to resisting even at shadowrunner levels.

Mages just have too many ways to get two to three extra dice to a task that most other people don't have.

And to fix it, you made the thresholds for success higher, rather than imposing limits on the dice pool bonuses.

The cheesed out are only minorly inconvenienced.

The "I'm good at this" are wounded and annoyed, but "good enough to deal with it."

The average start cheesing out or failing.

The one-trick-ponies (the spell-knacks) go from being useless to uselesser. Magic 1 + no spellcasting + never-specialize + never-raise-magic + never become a mage + 3 spellcasting foci is 4 dice. Maybe 3 if we give defaulting penalties. A Knack-caster can never ever perform their knack to any degree worth using (whee! Force 1 Imp. Invisibility go!).



Which means....what, exactly?

Mind telling me where, exactly, you got that from?


Yes, if 60.69% qualifies as 'very likely' (this is calculated as 4 or more - if for some reason you want exactly 4, reduce that to 23.85%)


Again, you are saying A) The camera is sentient enough to decide if something is real or not, or B) The camera has nothing to do with it - it's all on the observer - in which case there should be no OR threshold for the illusion to begin with.

Why wouldn't a professional magician have a specialization and a focus? It's been long established that magicians are in great demand and handsomely paid. When wouldn't a professional have access to these options?


I've since gone back and revised my post because I was playing down the dice pool, but I can repeat the revised version here:

What I was pointing out is that a professional (with specialization and foci which I didn't quantify) could actually have a dice pool of 12 easily (though not unexpensively). Your professional's dice pool of 10 (Magic 4, Spellcasting 4, specialization +2) becomes 12 for a 30k nuyen investment in appropriate tools (Spellcasting Focus force 2) or 13 for 45k nuyen (Spellcasting Focus force 3) - Spellcasting foci which incidentally augment all his spellcasting independent of spell categories. Note that this isn't counting potential dice boosts from a bound spirit's Aid Sorcery, mentor spirit boni, power foci, and other gimmicks that magicians have up their sleeves which could pump a starting professional magician's pool up to 16 and much higher at little additional cost. (And I'm chosing to ignore what Edge use might do to that boosted pool).

So to fall back on the oft-quoted Hollywood special effects wizard being disarmed by the new ORs, I'd counter by saying that it's not unreasonable for a non-Shadowrunning professional illusionist in the Sixth World (with or without a Hollywood budget) to be throwing around upwards of 16 dice to craft his Trid Phantasm for the director.


Several explanations have been offered, but basically cameras (and other sensors) were streamlined under a single OR threshold to make sensors more consistent than the human mind and eyes. In keeping with the system's intent to make technology more difficult to affect/fool/damage by magic this difficulty of crafting such a realistic Physical Illusion was set at a pretty high level (originally at a threshold of 3, SR4A originally raised it to 4, and it's now been revised to 3 again). The threshold of 3 (let alone 4) translates to significantly better results than a mundane human observer can hope to accomplish by resisting with Intuition. This can be chalked up to the fact that by 2070 a camera will record everything it views in extreme detail and flaws/inconsistencies/incompleteness of the illusion will be easier to detect (this of course is assuming someone on the other side of the camera feed is watching, which is why I've said that it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to roll Pilot + Clearsight to represent software analysis of the feed) than by a human eye and mind combo.


This has been explained. You end up with an illusion that is obviously an illusion and "not real". You might end up with a semi-transparent neon purple great dragon or a lensflare effect from the warping of light by the Physical Illusion spell (as opposed to a perfectly realistic neon purple great dragon and a picture perfect realistic image sans lens flare).

My bad. Should have been: "spellcasting independent of the spell in that category". I leave it as is and not edit in the correction so that your post makes sense to readers.


Again, these are basic dice pools and not maxed out and can be supplemented, boosted, in several ways at little cost. The intent of the threshold of 4 would be very likely to attain with preparation and planning, rather than by throwing up spells at an instant's notice.


I am saying (B). However, the second part of your statement assumes that the Physical Illusion is perfect and complete when it reaches the (final) observer. OR in this case represents the difficulty of crafting a illusion realistic and complete enough to "convince" a modern sensor (such as a camera), and the system assumes that the a living/human mind is easier to trick and will "fill in" blanks and minor inconsistencies as it so often does with real life illusions and slight of hand.

12 dice is a specialized, high-level spellcasting pool. You are looking at 4 Magic, 4 Spellcasting, Specialization, & Force 2 Focus to obtain that - beyond a professional, into the realm of highly specialized expert.

Except in this case, I am not trying to 'convince' the sensor of anything - I am trying to do so to the human watching the feed, making this an Opposed Test against that individual.

'Tricking' someone into filling in the blanks, so to speak, is basically not any different over video than it is in person. They are not going to say "wait, pause it - I think that is off slightly" anymore than they would do something similar in person.

I acknowledge the "specialized" though not on a high-level Spellcasting pool—since it'd be very easy for the same character (assuming Conjuring skills at 3 or 4) to boost that pool to 15 or higher without breaking much of a sweat (or expending more than 2000 nuyen). This would indeed be an experienced and specialized professional, probably with an initiation in his pocket. However, he'd be the special effects industry pro, rather than one in hundreds of equally-competent unspecialized everyday magicians capable of doing the exact same thing with the same degree of success.


I put the convince in brackets for a reason. To rephrase: illusion realistic and complete enough "that no flaws or inconsistencies or weird interactions are picked up" by a modern sensor (such as a camera) that would give away its illusory nature.


This is not entirely true, particularly if the "magic hologram" produces some weird effect that wouldn't happen when seeing the illusion in person (imagine the equivalent of photographic red eye). Additionally the viewer observing through the camera does have the option to zoom in, pause, rewind, etc which would increase the possibility of later detection if the recorded illusion has enough "flaws". As I noted previously I don't find it unreasonable for a GM to allow a Pilot + Clearsight test (or an Intuition + Perception test) after the fact to represent someone or some software processing the camera feed (who is in turn aided or hampered by what the camera actually picked up).

"Later detection" is the key phrase here. No one cares about "later detection." It's all about being detected now. Sure, not leaving your trace on the record to be examined later is important, but as it stands an illusion that does not beat OR3 (in the current case of cameras) means that anyone viewing the live feed or alternatively automated security measures is not fooled, thus completely negating the point of being fucking invisible right now.

Fine, they find out 3 days later after extensive video analysis that, yes, there was in fact an invisible dude in that corridor. Too bad we can't capture his mug. Too bad he stole our [stuff] three days ago. We couldn't catch him in the act because he was invisible!

If you're invisible, you're god damned invisible. Realizing that something is there is Intuition for people and Clearsight for computers/drones/cameras. Being able to figure out what that is is something else entirely.

No one cares if they find the flaw in the illusion three days after the job.

But a right-now can't-beat-OR3 invisibility spell means that they are (effectively) not invisible right-now when what it should be is invisible right now unless perceived by (actively) resisting the spell and open to observation in the future. Of which they likely won't get your identity, only that, "Oh, that's how the thief got in. He cast Improved Invisibility on himself."

I hardly think that's a direction many will take at charagen in the BP system.

MAG 5, Spellcasting 5 seem to be the norm.

A force 2 power focus is doable, but does require 12 BP allocated to it alone.



Apparently both of us are somewhat incorrect as Synner now states that "Sensors" are OR 3 and "Sensor Suites" (in drones) are OR 5...

So even if you can target the sensors separately, it does you no good as Sensor Suites are OR 5 anyway.




So basically nothing has been fixed and using Physical Illusions and Physical Manipulations on Drones means OR 5, and min 15 dice to be capable of something like a 50~60% success rate.


So we're back to drones and vehicles, which are ubiquitous in the setting, being extremely resistant to magic vs. Magicians who are rare and for whom (outside of spirits) are highly vulnerable to technology.

Unless Drones need to overcome a magician's MAG attribute as a resistance threshold to put bullets into him.


I was going to ask you how you felt about the side debate on Magicians targetting the sensors on drones and where the RAW or RAI stands on the issue. But it's apparently irrelevant if Sensor Suites are OR 5+ as well.

This has to be some April Fool's joke you have been working on for a few weeks now. This cannot be real.

I mean, I get your point, but then come along the rules, which you seem to say work as you intend them to work... but they don't. What. The. Fuck.

Has anyone seen my sanity? I need to have a word with it, since obviously I seem to detect a contradiction where some claim none exists.

Your sanity is intact. My sincerest apologies; it was a long night and that came out as the exact opposite of what I wanted to say. The line should have been:

"This is where we're at odds. I believe that the setting calls for everyday magician to be unable to do this on a regular basis, and that magicians should require more specialization than they did under the basic SR4 rules."

Your sanity might be ok, but your common courtesy? LONG gone.



Here's how I would do it: if you succeed against the guards in person, but fail against the cameras, you have a shimmery kind of outline like the Predator. Your invisibility works, only it's more like a chameleon suit than true invisibility. The guards, however, don't notice it because they aren't paying close enough attention. However, a camera is able to pick it up much more starkly because it has better contrast with the surroundings, and anyone viewing you on the camera would instantly spot the flawed illusion. It shouldn't be just about later detection, I agree that the person watching the cameras should be able to spot you right away if you fail to fool the cameras. It shouldn't be some minor flaw that's not very noticeable, it should be something major which people in person could still overlook, but that a camera would show with much more clarity. It's only when you roll 5+ hits that you'll be well and truly invisible, unless there's a mage around with counterspelling which lets them use their magical skills to pierce the illusion.

Based on what I have read...

Physical Illusions do the following:

1. If successfully cast, they appear and overlay on top of the target.
2. May not be accurate enough to fool a camera / sensor due to imaging issues (tearing, clipping, refraction, reflections, etc)
3. While unable to fool a camera, may fool the person observing.

The above implies the cameras / sensors have some sort of imaging processor and control software. Here's why I say this...

For the camera to determine the illusion is fake, there must be some sort of controller in place. Otherwise, what exactly is enabling the camera to indicate the illusion was detected?

That, I think is where everyone is getting wrapped around the axle. Synner is saying (in a roundabout way) OR encompasses the software interpreting / controlling the camera. If this is the case, then it makes sense the video output / display would have an overlay of some sort which would indicate various detected parameters.

In fact, the camera software would need such control software otherwise, it'd faithfully replay exactly what it detected which would leave the meat eyes watching the screens to make the determination it was fake / real.

I still think putting Rating + Clearsight against Illusion spellcasting successes would have been faster / better / easier. But to each, their own.

Synner just explained it several times: it's not control software, it's the level of contrast and detail on the camera. Cameras pick things up that normal human vision might overlook, and it's easier to see on the camera feed because of the increased definition and contrast, as well as the fact that you're just looking at a screen and factors like glare from other light sources or distractions from out of frame aren't at issue. I mean, the poor guy has said the same thing like 10 times, but everyone assumes he's saying the opposite. Just what is going on here? We're not talking about hidden meaning, he flat out said it, and now everyone's twisting it to mean the total opposite. He specifically said, over and over, that cameras are not smart, they don't edit their feeds. They just pick up discrepancies that humans might miss, hence needing to beat their threshold to make an illusion that's good enough to not be spotted on their feeds. They don't "indicate" that the illusion was detected, someone has to be watching the screen. But if that person is paying attention, then they will see that the camera picked up problems with the illusion that humans might have missed. Maybe we need to use bigger letters, I'm afraid these eensy weensy normal sized letters are to small for certain folks, because they don't seem to be reading them very accurately.

That's a very good point. Given the available sensors and other security measures (retina scanners, pressure pads, etc.), why are people so hung up on invisibility and other illusions? Do you really expect to defeat a security system with those spells?

Hey Larme...

I'm going to have to borrow a page from some of our more caustic posters. Why the hell didn't you READ ALL OF THE POST rather than just single out one small tidbet and then proceed to berate me on it?

I'm fairly certain I got 'it'. But it's quite apparent to me that you did NOT. Otherwise you'd have addressed the rest of the post which is saying the control pieces of the camera / sensor are rolled into OR. Otherwise, the camera is nothing more than a freaking mirror.

The mechanical pieces of that camera have no intelligence or image processing pieces. They do nothing but pass the image on. In order for a camera system to determine the illusion is fake, there MUST be control / image processing going on. That would have to be in the electronics of the camera itself or in the master control system running the cameras. All I said was that it appears Synner / Devs is/are rolling that processing into the OR of the camera or the suite. Thus, a higher OR means it's more technological (which means more processing and verification for many electronics).



And perhaps you should take your own advice and get some glasses? It's readily apparent by your admission that you didn't read.

Considering that they have higher drain, and are specifically designed to defeat technological systems, yes I do expect a mage to be able to beat a Security System with them.

So, you'd expect to defeat a retina scanner, backed up by pressure pads and sensors (not just visuals) with a single spell? That explains a lot.

No. He expects not to be seen while the hacker hacks the retina scanner while he Levitates them over the floor.

Nicely said.

I don't want the mage to cast a single spell and defeat a maximum security system, but I don't want the spells to function as advertised without mages needing to min max every last die into their dice pool.

Fix for the OR

All spell that have to beat the OR, get a resistance test instead, where the object gets a dicepool of 2*OR + counterspelling

Problem fixed. Also the part about the mage not being able to protect the riggers drones from magic.

Low Force spells do have a change to affect the objects albeit at a very low change.



Else the mages should get a automatic dodge of MAG hits

Reason: it is MAGIC, they are mages, thus are able to defy the laws of physics and dodge bullets like Neo.

So let's just be clear about what you're attempting to say here: If a character wishes to use an illusion spell to "fool" a camera they need 4 successes (in the initial printing of SR4A) if they wish to fool a drone they need 6. I fail to see how this could possibly be considered a useful rule. First, you want the GM to distinguish between sensors and sensor suites (and not just drones/computers and electronics as the book lays out) but you also claim that this is what the book says. Given that "sensor suites" and "drones" are so common (since you apparently prefer this term over prevalent) are physical illusions supposed to be useful at *any* time?



Actually, I didn't so much "miss" your reference as believe that it is totally nonsensical and decide that you couldn't possibly mean something that directly contradicts what you have said and what the book says. First, your example is ridiculous. An Improved Invisibility spell affects only sight. If you gain enough successes to beat someone (or something) they cannot *see* you. But any other sense still works fine. This is exactly the same for a drone as for a human target. So, if you score enough successes to beat the drone's OR then the drone cannot use visual sensors to find you, but its other sensors will work perfectly fine. I'll note that this is the advantage of having a "sensor suite" and not this completely made up rule that you've been claiming.

Now, if you were simply a regular poster on these forums I'd assume that you hadn't read the rules correctly, or felt that the rules needed a few changes for some "realism" that you perceived was lacking. However, as a former developer making these claims, I'm left believing that either you don't know your own rules (which is hard to believe) or that you've decided to make up some ridiculous excuse for your mistake instead of admitting that you didn't actually think this through properly.



As has been pointed out, this statement is just flat out wrong. A die pool of 9 means that you can expect to succeed 60% of the time. This does not mean that on average you can expect to succeed all of the time no matter how much you wish it did.



Your replies have addressed questions that I have not asked and claims that I have not made while being addressed to me. That's not quite the same thing. They aren't to my satisfaction because they are either poorly supported by the facts (even where you make them up), or they address issues that aren't in question.

The camera system doesn't determine it's fake, it just give's you a high resolution image. From witch you can spot the small mistakes that you would be aple to spot with your bare eyes, unless the spell has 3+ successes to beat the OR. Beating OR of the camera means that the illusion was so good you can't spot any mistakes even from the high resolution camara image.

As opposed to the hacker? There's always edge for critical rolls too.

The generalist should even consider 29 BP for a power focus 4 (restricted gear). Would a samurai think twice about a "+4 to everything you do" implant for 145k¥ and no essence cost?

I´d personally go for mentor bonus + specialisation in one category (a mere 7 BP), and build the power focus ingame.

A very high resolution image displayed on a very high resolution screen means that tiny flaws are, well, tiny.

Not even counting the fact that you're shrinking a 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot chunk of space (we'll say 64 square feet of area because we're looking in 2D) onto a 1 foot by 1 foot screen (for trid you might assume 1 foot of depth as well).

So flaws are 1/8th the dimensions (1/64th the area, 1/512th the volume) that they are in real life.

Lets assume that all detail is faithfully preserved with a pixel (or voxel) density measuring in the millions per square (cubic) inch. So even a detail as small as a grain of rice is visible on your screen.

Though how visible IS a grain of rice on our 1 square foot monitor?

1.5mm x 4mm
Divide by 8
0.1875mm x 0.5mm

Wikipedia:
Observing a nearby small object without a magnifying glass or a microscope, the usual distance is 20–25 cm. At this close range, 0.05 mm can be seen clearly. The accuracy of a measurement depends on the experience (0.1 to 0.3 mm). The latter figure is the usual position accuracy of faint details in maps, and also of technical plans.

In other words, that grain of rice displays as little more than a spec of dust: even more easily looked over than the rice grain is in real life.

So...that means our flaws are much more obvious than a grain of rice (or several).

How about a full cubic foot of the illusion is blatantly wrong? That works out to being a square inch or so on your monitor. Decently obvious on the monitor.

But it's not obvious in real life? We're talking a cubic foot of space. That's the size of my CRT monitor.
How glaring would that be, to have someone invisible except for their chest?

Pretty fucking obvious, if you ask me.

Here's an example of how this "cameras make it obvious" is a failure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubNF9QNEQLA

Of cource it's bloody obvious if there is a flying chest moving around, but that has nothing to do with the subjeck at hand.

Why are the guards using such small monitors. I would use much bigger AR screens.

Name something that is not obvious to the in-the-flesh observer, but blatantly obvious to the observer of a camera feed.



...you've obviously never seen a security room. They have hundreds of feeds to monitor. They can't have each and every one taking up a 4 foot by 4 foot section of wall. The local quick-e-mart to my old apartment (a building that has all of 4 short isles of shopping and a deli) has 7 feeds, all of them displayed on the same 20" TV.

If it's in AR then it depends on your AR overlay, which has same effective "wall space" size, even if it's projected directly into your brain.

Is it reasonable that all objects have effective hardened armor against all spells?

An OR of 6 means that the opponent of a spell gets 6 automatic hits on a spell resistance test.
This translates in a dicepool for buying hits of 24-27
Way to large

I propose a rating system for camera's

A camera sensor rating system
Camera Rating
- low res black/white camera 1
- low res color camera 2
- high res color camera 3
- vision enhancement (1-3) +rating
- low light enhancement +1
- thermovision +1
- vision magnification +1

Max rating camera 9

sensor + clearsoft = More diversity ==> Good for roleplaying

Marduc:

I love that. What I'm trying to figure out is why Synner feels so strongly that RAW is correct when it's obviously not.

This is exactly what I took away from your post, and it's exactly what I'm responding to. Synner said over and over that he is not assuming that the camera is doing processing. It' just projecting a high quality image that shows flaws that human eyeballs wouldn't pick up. That's it, 100%. You're basically accusing him of lying about his own ideas, which is nonsense. I understand what you're saying, and you're wrong. I don't appear to have missed anything at all.


As for the idea that cameras wouldn't pick up non-obvious things, the idea of contrast is being completely ignored. Cameras can pick up greater contrast than human eyes, I think, and this could account for outlines being clearer, shadows being more distinct, and disjointed lines coming more highly into focus. Also, the human eye has a focus field the size of a dime, everything outside of that is largely a blur to us. When a wavy outline of a person sneaks past you, you might fail to spot them simply because you're not looking exactly at them when they move past you. But a camera has the same focus for the entire image, they do not suffer from poor peripheral vision. A person viewing that screen would benefit from both the wider contrast and the improved focus. And since they'd probably be viewing it in AR or VR, the data could be fed directly to their brains, bypassing the normal limitations of human vision, perhaps.

Regardless, Synner is doing a very nice thing by trying to provide a plausible explanation for how RAW works. But almost everything about the magic rules is gamist in nature. The dice mechanics are intended to place certain benefits and limitations on magic spells, in order for them to be fun and balanced. They have never made a lot of sense realistically. Neither have the combat rules, or the skill rules, or almost anything about Shadowrun. The world can't be effectively simulated by D6's, but D6's can create a fun game. If the rules don't make a fun game for you, then you need to change them. Debating about real world explanations of the rules gets you nowhere, because at the end of the day they're still fun for you or not, irrespective of whether they have some kind of rational real world explanation. For this entire system, you must suspend your disbelief to a certain degree. When you home in on this particular rule discrepancy, you ignore the fact that the entire system is one big giant discrepancy that creates a grossly unrealistic picture of the real world. This discussion is like carefully examining the right hoof of a dead horse. Whether or not his hoof is fine, he's already dead so it doesn't matter. You can't use the Shadowrun ruleset and come out with an adequately simulationist product. It's designed to let you play an enjoyable game, and the fact that its weird mechanics are unrealistic is wholly beside the point. It was nice of Synner to spend so much of his time trying to provide you guys with a rational justification of the RAW. I wonder, though, whether you have any shame for the childish, hostile way you behaved in return.

Thanks

I would like to see such a system, as it would be able with this to actually use the spells at low force, which is IMHO the right way to aproach this, and not by raising the bar. Its like saying everybody is able to get regularly A's and B's, but anybody who don't get atleast B's are screwed and kicked out of school.

If you feel this doesn't cover the whole range of visual sensors
then:
Camera Rating
- low res black/white camera 1
- low res color camera 3
- high res black/white camera 5
- high res color camera (military grade) 7

Voila Max sensor rating 13

It would be nice if the OR was transformed into a resistance test (couterspelling applicable) at OR*2 or OR*3 if OR*2 still gives a to high succes rate. At least this way low force spells have a way to succes, as most spells which have to beat the OR are specialy designed to affect technology. It is illogical to say that spells that are specialy designed to affect technology require a high force to affect it. This should be added in the drain code of the spell. The rate of succes is what is determined by the force. Want to repair something. Go ahead. Force 1 you remove dents out of your drone. Force >6 you repair the burnout drone.
Force 1 ignite, you scourge the car and ruin the paint job, Force >6 what is that inferno. ect

Picture a mirror. Your reflection does exactly what you do.

You get from me what you give to me. Thus, slinging snide comments and personal attacks gets you treated in the same manner. Why? 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Your actions told me you wanted to be treated in such a deplorable manner as that was how you treated me with your insults.

Up until you started in on me, I was polite, courteous, said nothing mean/hateful, and made a good faith effort to explain what I was seeing / interpreting.

You would not be the first person I've pissed off or offended for treating them like they have me. You likely won't be the last either. You want me to be nice to you? Play nice with me.

=====

As for Synner's explanation, I do appreciate it and his efforts. I simply think it's wrong. It doesn't pass the sniff test. You go on describing the focus over the whole image which is then viewed by a person who has focus over a dime. How exactly will that help?

Whether a person sees the illusion first hand or via camera, the PERSON viewing is still going to have to make a determination as to whether or not they see something wrong. That is the control piece. You can have meat do it or you can have tech do it. Regardless, there MUST be some level of control / review in place otherwise all that fancy hardware is worthless.

Going with a strict interpretation of what Synner is saying would mean the meat watching the viewscreens automatically detects all illusions that failed to overcome the OR of the cameras. You could use an illusion spell for something innocuous (change your hair color for instance) and under the revised rules, the camera operator automatically knows it's fake if the spell didn't beat OR. Doesn't matter what it is. He automatically knows. That idea has a pretty ridiculous level of suspension of disbelief attached to it.

I know there's some logic rule about using the interpretation that makes the most sense. But there's also the rule to use the Rules As Written. Following RAW will lead to illogical things occurring which defy sense, common or otherwise. That situation should be avoided when writing rules.

After having read over the whole thread so far, I'm firmly in the camp the metric should have been made into a resistance test of OR+Clearsight (or operator's appropriate skill) vs Illusion Spell. Yes, I know it wasn't a move that Synner wanted to do but honestly, it would have eliminated most of the bitching about the whole OR change with regards to illusions.

This way, the spell is still hard pressed to beat the system. It also allows for variable ratings of equipment (variety is a good thing). It also prevents automatic knowledge as described above. Unless an image is interpreted, no amount of OR will help determine if an illusion is fake or not.

I cannot buy into the idea that an inanimate object will allow the user gain automatic knowledge. To my knowledge, no such animal has existed in SR before. I don't see a need for one now.

This also means that anyone who straps a Lone Star iBall to their forehead and uses the video and audio feed from the drone instead of their own vision is virtually immune to illusions, yet, somehow, implanting cameras in your skull strips them of their ability to filter out illusions.

Unless I'm mistaken, the user would still need to interpret the image. Just because there is a flaw in your field of view doesn't mean you consciously see it or that you even recognize it's fake.



With your quoted post above, it implies the camera user automatically knows it's an illusion (if it was one).

This is one area where I like how D&D through the editions handled Illusions. You had to have reason to disbelieve an illusion in order to save against it unless you had an incredibly high intelligence or other magics operating that blew the whistle for you.

I'm reminded of an old John Wayne movie where he was walking through a saloon at night without lights. Prior to entering the saloon, he had a lantern. Inside the saloon, he had a flashlight. I pointed it out and my grandfather disagreed. Said he had a flashlight. I rewound the VCR tape and replayed the scene. Sure enough, it was a flashlight. My grandfather said I wasn't supposed to see that.

Looking back at that movie, it was the pattern the light made. It wasn't round like a lantern but cone shaped like a flashlight. That's what clued me in. The light was wrong. But my grandfather saw a lantern. Why? Because that's what he expected to see. He had no reason to save vs illusions. I saw something wrong and looked closer.

This reinforces my point above. Even with a picture that has flaws from an illusion, you still have to have reason to believe there *IS* a flaw or illusion. Simply viewing an illusion through a camera cannot automatically give you knowledge of all illusions that failed to beat OR.

But in SR, apparently that is the case.

If you are referring to cybereyes, that would be because you paid Essence for them, making them part of your whole being. IOW, they get subsumed into your aura and are vulnerable to the failings of flesh.

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief over the whole "implantation makes them failings of the flesh" or whatever that causes cybereyes to be no mechanically different than "meat eyes" with regards to magic, it's the whole "strapping an iBall camera to your head and being immune to illusions" that irks me.

It simply doesn't make sense. There's no damn good reason for it. Magic invisibility already fails against the right sensors, why do we have to jump through hoops to avoid being seen on camera?

If I'm invisible I should be, well, invisible. None of this BS about cameras making the security guard watching the feed go "OH MAH GAWD! DERE'S AN INVISIBURBLE MAGE IN TEH HALLWAYZ!"

I've been going over some of the changes and I have a question about the Arrows.

normal arrows you have to buy at ratingx5 capped at 8 same as bows. But with the injector arrows they are not rated but do the "same" damage. Now I know that these change are coming to Arsenal soon too. But is my conclusion correct or close in that you are buying a arrow shaft at the rating then buying an arrow head, like a regular broad head, injector, or the like from Arsenal? In reality that makes sense to me cuz you do have to buy an arrow heavy enough for your poundage or you run the risk of the arrow exploding on the arrow rest as you shoot (not a good thing). Plus you do have a butt load of options with broad heads these days.

Thanks,
Brent