In another thread, something came up that I thought was interesting enough to be worth a dedicated thread:

Fooling a camera with an illusion spell requires overcoming an Object Resistance Threshold target number of 3.

That means you need to cast at least a F3 spell, because you may only keep a number of hits up to the spell's Force. That's a relatively achievable number, even for low-to-mid level Magicians.

On the other hand, affecting a drone requires a F5 spell, because the OR target on a drone is a 5.

Now, that higher threshold makes all kinds of sense when you're trying to kill the drone or directly affect it somehow. But, unless I've misread the rules, that means that anything F4 or lower for physical illusions will automatically fail to fool the drone. That's a dramatically more difficult proposition. It also suggests that rather than having cameras in locations, a better sollution would be simply to have dozens of tiny camera drones that simply report in when they see something amiss and the the spider can just jump in and verify the problem is genuine.

Somehow, I'm not certain the Devs had that in mind when they set up the new OR Thresholds.

So my question is this:

Do you think the new OR thresholds apply because the drone is a drone, or would you say that since the spell isn't DIRECTLY affecting the drone you use the lower "technological device" OR Threshold?

Why not make the OR Threshold of sensors (on drones or otherwise) equal to 3 or Sensor rating, whichever is higher? Or 3 + 1/2 Sensor rating? Seems like the problem (aside from the fact that some people believe sensors on a drone have OR 3, because you're not targeting the drone, you're fooling the sensors) is that there's some weirdly fundamental difference between a camera mounted on a wall, and one mounted on a drone; ergo, making it possible for either to qualify as "highly processor objects" would seem a reasonable solution.

It all depends on which illusion spell you want to cast.

An invisiblity spell has to beat the drones visual sensors which are OR3. But that does not stop the drone from using the other sensor which will of course cumulate themselves into an OR of 5.
If you want to affect a drone with chaotic world you will have to beat OR5 as the drone will try to compensate the false sensory input with its full bandwith of sensors.

So the question is: What sensors is a drone using to get it's input. If you have a surveillance drone with camera and micro it will be fooled with an invisiblity spell which has to beat OR3. If you try to slow down a full fledged combat drone (with different visual mods and radar etc.) from acquiering it's target and shooting the target's ass off you will have to beat OR5.

I agree that a non-visual sensor like ultrasount or millimeter wave radar is going to find the Mage, but it's also going to find lots of other random objects. When it comes right down to it, the visual (and near-visual) spectrum offers the most useful data when doing a general search pattern.

Example: I am on a rooftop under cover of a F3 Improved Invisibility and I got my 3 Hits. Generally, the should (in principle) be ehough to cover me against a wandering drone, especially if I am covered in something that breaks up my infared (which I think is covered anyhow) and radar/acustic silhouette. The condition of items on a rooftop change constantly and relying on non-visual sensors primarily is unreliable in a case like that.

Another Example: A car with a Pilot Rating and visual sensors is technically a drone, so do I show up as I walk by covered by the same spell? Does it make a difference if a Rigger is jumped in?

Actually, the power of a drone's (non)visual sensors depends on it's sensor rating(s) and it's sensor autosoft. So there should be at least some sort of test to decide if the drone is capable of identifying the mage cowered against the rooftop/the buildings on it.

That's why I let drones do specific sensor tests against passive illusion spells while I use the flat out OR5 against active illusion spells eg. chaotic world.

*smacks head*

What I have been looking for is a way to lay down a ruling or at least a consistent HOUSE rule to handle the obvious disconnect, and the way you just characterized it is perfect. So Improved Invisibility is OR 3 and Chaff is OR 5. Wonderdful!

I always wondered why there was no distinction between them.

My problem with tech vs magic is the rules for the ultrawideband radar that you have to make your own spell to be able to hide from them. The rules dont seem very clear on them, but it looks like if they get one hit they "see" you.


which raises a question for me, if a mage had the cyber version of this which would overlay his vision would that qualify as seeing a target for LOS requirements?

Yes, the conventional explanation being that because the mage has paid the essence for the cybereyes they are now a part of him or her, satisfying line of sight.

Essence still confuses me. Does this mean that a mage couldn't use 'demolish arm' on someone's cyber-arm? Or could they? Or could you not demolish normal arms in the first place?

I would be willing to use such things as Demolish Cyberware... problem is it does not work so well against things you do not have a direct line of sight to... against the replaced arms and legs though... Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

i disagree. radar never satisfies line of sight.

*especially* not radar that overlays onto your field of vision.

I should have caveated that, it's part of you so it brings you up to minimal line of sight. But if you couldn't actually see it normally (i.e. through a wall with radar)

The item says it can replace your vision though, so I would assume that if you see a different spectrum that you can still target things you see in that spectrum. For example a cyber eye replaces your vision with an electronic device that sees the normal visual spectrum and you can still target things with spells, so it makes sence that if your vision is replaced with a device that sees the radar and Tray parts of the spectrum that you can target things you can see still, right?
I am not sure if I missed something in the book, but I was under the impression that you could target things with thermographic vision for instance if you were in an area with no light and had either natural or cyber thermographics.



And for the original topic (sorry for side tracking it) in my book the chart stops at OR 4, which drones are under. I am not seeing an errata that changes them to 5, so am I missing something somewhere that says drones are 5? As that makes drones an even bigger pain to damage with combat spells.

The second update to SR4's anniversary edition shows drones at 5+. Not sure I've seen an errata on that either, but my printed copy and latest PDF both show it.

Exactly. And tiny drones are cheap enough, and have enough extra capabilities, then why would you bother with CCTV cameras at all?

Essentially, if passive Illusions (Physical Mask, Vehicle Mask, Improved Invisibility) need to be a minimum of F5 in order to affect a drone, that constitutes a MAJOR Nerf^TM of how they were used previously. AND you have to have a spellcasting DP of 15+ to have an odd-on chance of pulling it off. In 4th Ed, more than ever, drones are EVERYWHERE, and they simply ignore anything F4 and under. Sorry, but that one counts as a Nerf^TM in my book.

(Now, I completely agree that trying to affect the drone actively with something like Chaff would require the higher Threshold because you're trying to use Mana directly against the thing. But if the mana's being cast on ME, I don't think it should be quite the same Threshold. And needing a 3 against cameras generally seems about right, a "Hard" test.)

Yeah, I agree with that interpretation.

There's a difference between casting Invisibility on me, to hide from cameras and drones (which should be a threshold 3) and casting it "on" the object so it is hidden. I would think the threshold 5 for drones is if I attempted to case Improved Invisibility on a drone, so it was invisible.

I think its important to understand what the object of your spell is, in these cases.

Exactly. I LIKE the Threshold 3 for electronic visual aids. It "fits" that you need a certain "depth" of the spell to fool the item since it can't roll against you like a coloidal being can. That's the equivalent of a camera having a WILlpower of 9, on average, or 12 if you're letting the camera "buy" hits (which you are).

I would agree, except that you cannot use a mana spell against a drone... it must be physical...

The three spells I mentioned are cast on objects BESIDS the drone, and ARE physical.

No Complaints... apparently I read a paragraph in an unintended fashion...



Emphasis on the Mana aspect of the sentence... My Apologies... I assumed you meant Mana Based Spells and Not Physical...
Keep the Faith...

I thought this was exactly why they added sensors into the OR3 category... So that by RAW affecting the sensors of a drone (so a 'passive' illusion) would be easier than affecting the whole drone.

I mean... when else is a spell gonna affect a sensor that's not 'Electronic Equipment'? Do you need the separation for something else?

-- (some minutes of searching) --

Hmm... I looked, but couldn't find the old thread discussing this, so I'm not sure if this was an 'official' ruling or just a houserule I found logical enough to consider RAI.

*shrug* whatever. It works for me

AHA!!!

Now I have the wording I want.

Though you may not target a speciffic part of a drone/vehicle with a spell, spells not cast directly on the drone/vehicle may affect only a speciffic part of the vehicle, resulting in a lower ORT.

Exactly. Keeps things simple

We have a winner....

Okay, have read the thread... but I'm going to address my issue with all of this here.

Illusion spells are too hard to use now against drones. I don't care for the rules as currently written. But to argue that what's there in plain language in the RAW is disingenuous. If it's a house rule, admit it's a house rule. As that means that there's a problem in the rules that needs to be addressed or errataed.


1. You CANNOT say that you're targetting drone sub-systems to lower the threshhold as they're 'less complicated' than the drone itself.

Example: the drone's cameras are only OR3... therefore I'm going to target the drones sensors w/ powrebolt! There no more camera... drone is screwed and I don't need to beat OR5. The same 'logic' can lead to targetting the skin because it's just plasteel or other warped targetting for even lower TN. If it works for one spell, it works for another.


Quite frankly, the only two reasonable house rules I can think of are
A. all illusion spells automatically get OR lowered by 1 or 2 points as a class bonus.
B. Reduce drain, so that people can recast them to get enough hits (means mage probably won't be able to invis instantly vs. drones... but given a little time to prepare he can get it high enough).

Keep in mind, this also applies to other spells such as vehicular mask and similar.

Also keep in mind, things like background counts complicate things further... 5 hits, no you now have 4. I'm going to intentionally have the security mage cast mana static on all my entrances so noone can sneak by the normal cameras... etc.

I will have to challenge your above statement. For TARGETING the Drone, I will agree with you, you must overcome the OR 5 for Direct damage spells...... However, when you are casting a Illusion spell, your intent is not to damage the integrity of the system interacting with the Illusion... How am I casting the Trid Phantasm spell ON A DRONE? it affects an area... however, any sensing system which interacts with the illusion will do so with their sensory equipment... This is CLEARLY indicated on the Chart on page 183 of SR4A BBB... Sensors are devices that are either standalone or are attached to other systems. If you look at the Drone Descriptions, there is a stat called SENSORS... Clearly, when interacting with a sensory Illusion the OR to overcome the Sensors of any given system is 3...

How can you argue that?

Not trying to start a fight here, but it seems pretty cut and dried... I am NOT targeting the Sensors, it is the Sensors that Interact with the Illusion... They are Completely different things...

Keep the Faith...

And you COMPLETELY ignore the following...
p208 SR4a
"Physical Illusions are effective against technological systems, assuming the caster achieves enough hits to meet the Object Resistance threshold"

You cannot arbitrarily say that the spell does not target the drone... the spell AFFECTS whatever interacts with the illusion. In order for a spell to AFFECT (not target) anything it must beat object resistance. Affect or target it makes no difference, it's empty semantics.

If you state the drone's cameras (piecemeal targeting) are only OR3... then it's OR3 for ANY spell.

You make a distinction without difference. And for that reason your logical argument is not sound.

I do not ignore that statement... the fact is, most illusions are sensory, therefore the senses are what is important here... Object Resistance for Sensors is 3... Pretty Simple MAth there... and it is not OR 3 for any spell, it is obviously OR5 for Direct Spells (therefore Direct Damage Spells that cause Damage is OR5)... not seeing the problem here...

Hows that for a Distinction with a Difference... Senses (Sensors) OR3 and Damage OR5... Pretty Different in my book


And besides... WHo cares if the Trid Phantasm has a threshold of 3 against a Drone's Cameras... teh Radar System on teh Drone will immediately identify it as not there... so it really does not matter... Just Saying...


Keep the Faith

Yes, now tell me EXACTLY in the rules, page & cite.
Where does it say that a damaging spell has a different object resistance than an illusion spell.

You can't it doesn't.


That is why I take issue w/ your arguments foundation and fundamental assertion. As soon as you allow piecemeal targetting of spell effects, you open pandora's box. Why target the car, I'll just target the rubber tire for a lower OR. In almost all cases, I can think of something debilitating which would involve a lower OR as all more complex machines are made of simpler ones. Where exactly do you draw the line?


It's not that I don't like the outcome, just from a legalistic reading of the RAW it's flawed and there is a problem w/ the way the rules are done.

There was a dev post that said to fool the drone observing the illusion, you'd have to fool the OR of the cameras & sensors it was using.

To affect the drone itself, you'd have to overcome the drone's OR.

Seems rather cut & dry to me.

A bit of searching through the 20th Edition Changes thread found this nifty little post...

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry783452

The conclusion reached above *IS* correct. Falconer, your interpretation is incorrect.

Okay darthmord... thanks you just gave me even more ammunition.

Synner actually says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

"Industrial sensors..." IE: free standing sensors are OR4 (before they retconned to 3 & 5 from 4 & 6)
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=783452

Then he SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES DRONES LATER
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=784692

I quote Synner:
"On the other hand you have OR 6 for drones and vehicles. In terms of Illusion spells, the main reason for this is because neither uses simple sensors but rather sensor suites, which increases redundancy and makes Illusions less likely to fool the overall system."

Again in another post:
Everything is not in a sensor package.
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=784719

To be fair.. he later turns around and says the opposite for one post about page 28 or 29 of that mess...

But finally again at the end! (p38 of 40)
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...st&p=791206
Synner:
"You are mistaken.

My position has remained consistent through out this thread (including the quote above). If the illusion you are casting is seen by a camera or individual sensor you would face a certain OR (OR 4 in the initial SR4A printing, OR 3 in the final version). However, if your illusion was observed by a sensor suite (emphasis added above) or package this makes the entire system much harder to fool and hence is subject to a higher OR (OR 6 in the initial printing of SR4A, OR 5 in the final version) because the combination of sensors in a package makes it easier for flaws in your illusion to be detected."

So right there we're back to drone sensor suites are OR5. (and according to previous posts by devs... doesn't matter because the radar sensor or motion sensor will see through the illusion anyhow as part of the drones standard package). I think that's the final dev post as well, I skimmed the rest and didn't see any more.

Due you care to point out which of the dev posts changes all this darthmord?
(thanks for the link though... I couldn't remember which thread that was in... I was lurking at the time)

The argument, and the rules don't specify, is weather the OR3 for the sensors or the OR5 for the drone are used. For Illusion spells that directly affect the drone-such as chaotic world spell-the OR5 would be used as the spell is targeting the drone.

The trid phantasm is just there-it is a passive item and is not targeting the drone directly, and it only matters to the drones sensors. Now this is debatable because typically with magic you go with the "whole" item. No powerbolting the tires, so to speak. But does the "whole" philosophy apply to a spell not directly targeting the drone.

Side note:Trid phantasm is a physical spell, so yes the drones radar sensor would be affected by the illusion.

I see three way to handle this (just to recap)
1. OR3 (generate 4 successes and it affects the drone)
2. OR5 (generate 6 successes and it affects the drone).
3. Opposed Sensor test of Pilot+Sensor+Clearsight vs #of hits on the spell.

I don't have the books in front of me-but I don't think RAW is very clear on this.

I wonder if that was before or after they took in all the critique, and added Sensors to the OR table, next to Electronic equipment (which already covered regular sensors, in my opinion).

Doesn't change a thing in my table, though. If drone sensors would automatically get the benefit of OR5+ just because they're part of drones, all corporate facilities would start ripping out Bust-a-Move heads and attaching the new twice-as-hard-to-fool cameras to wall mounts. They're not even more expensive than regular security cameras.

I find using the same OR for all sensors more logical and better balanced. If it's a houserule, so be it. We already had this discussion at length in the SR4A threads, and I don't want to get into the details again.

But Falconer, there is a big difference between casting a spell *at* a thing, and having the effects of a spell cast at something else *affect* a thing. You can cast a fireball at a person, and have the elemental effect affect the ammunition he's carrying (and go against the ammo's OR). Doesn't mean that you're wrong, but I just wanted to make the other side of the argument clear

Personally I don't have a problem with drones seeing through all but the most powerful illusions, I've never agreed with the idea that you have to fight magic with magic.

As for the sideline, no, you can not blast someone's cyberlimbs anymore than you could blast someone's normal limb, remember magic targets the whole and said cyber was paid for with Essence so it is part of you. Demolish Cyberlimb is only effective against said limbs before they are implanted.

Which is why Turn to Goo should not work as it is described in the book. Cyber implants on a Turn to Goo target should get goo-ified just as easily as living tissue, because while they're non-living, they're an integral part of the living being from an aura and targeting standpoint. However, rules as written, Turn to Goo only affects living tissue of the target.

You also can't target a bullet in someone's pocket, but you can affect it. My point was not that differentiating between ORs is not a houserule, just that there is a difference between targeting and affecting. For example, rules-wise the former needs LoS, while the latter does not (at least with indirect area effect spells).

Still, you're absolutely right about partial targeting. Doubly so when it comes to essence, though that's not really applicable to drones.

And to throw another curve-ball out there: even the rule about partial targeting is a bit fuzzy, as you pretty much have to allow targeting walls instead of whole buildings, a point on the ground instead of the whole Earth, etc. To get all philosophical about it, we could even wonder when the sensor becomes part of a drone: would a disconnected floating sensor be a part of a close-by drone? what if you connect it via wireless? via wire? glue it to the drone? use a screw? wire it to the central battery? (no need to answer to my silliness)

All things considered, I don't think deciding on an OR based on the affected part of a drone is too incongruous a houserule.

I imagine this would be similar to the question from the SR4 FAQ about ocular drones and when they can provide line-of-sight for spellcasting.

Agreed RunnerPaul, I've ranted about how Turn to Goo and Petrify should be studied by every Megacorp in the world to figure out why they are allowed to break the known laws of magic.

I'm not sure that I agree Zormal, although it doesn't really make logical sense, Object Resitance works in such a fashion as to lead people to treat illusion spells like Direct Combat Spells as opposed to Indirect Combat Spells, and no, you can't affect a bullet in someone's pocket by powerbolting them. Seems to me like we need a different system for affecting tech with illusion spells, but I'm not sure what exactly that might be.

As for your questions involving targeting walls an such, personally I don't think you should be able to target a wall or a speck of earth with direct spells (A rock or tree I'd be fine with, or if you are feeling really mighty, try powerbolting an entire building or even Mother Gia herself. ), targeting a portion of an object is the stregth of indirect combat spells like flamedart, ect...

Not necessarily. Do the rules state that drones ALL have sensor suites?

Also, a Physical Illusion should be able to defeat radar / sonar. The spells are creating an actual physical effect. If they don't defeat radar / sonar, then it would imply the spell was NOT good enough (failed to have enough net hits) to pass inspection.

BTW, I don't disagree with Synner's post. Having one sensor observing something is reasonably easy to fool. Having 5 sensors observing is much harder to fool.

But truthfully, they should have made sensors work under a Skill + Rating mechanic. It would have been less problematic. Some sort of control software + rating of sensor vs Magic + Skill.

BTW, if all a drone has is OR 1 cameras installed, it will NOT detect the illusion if it's good enough to beat OR 1. Higher grade cameras / sensors are harder to beat. That makes sense.

It does NOT make any sense to state that regardless of the sensors' OR, the drone's OR overrides and takes priority. The drone isn't observing, the sensors are. The sensors are merely reporting that information to the drone.

Yes, as well as any modern vehicle. It's in the description of the Sensor vehicle stat.

You are talking about multi-sense illusions, right? Physical or not, a visual illusion will not fool sonar or radar.

Actually, since the thread is ABOUT the changes, I can't imagine Synner going back to talk about pre-anniversary rules. More to the point, prior to the PROPOSED SR4A thresholds, there had NEVER (that I can find) been an example of a Threshold 6 test, anywhere. The proposed thresholds were: 1,2,4,6 but the FINAL thresholds wound up as 1,2,3,5, which if applied to the cited text (Thanks, by the way, for the precise cite darthmord!) converting the proposed thresholds to the final ones, 4 became 3 while 6 became 5. So the threshold to successfully beat ANY sensors (except those of EXCEPTIONAL capability as noted) is Threshold 3.

Hmm... Could be. I've always thought that, as physical illusions change physical things (i.e. bend light), they would be more in line with Indirect Combat Spells. That's why I used the example with a Fireball affecting bullets. But I'm often following the fluff more than the crunch.

If we're going to houserule, I guess it's a choice between a simple change and a new mechanic. I just prefer the former.


No, me neither.

I was wondering which version of SR4A it was. The original PDF (and the beginning of the discussions) had OR 1,2,4,6+ and no Sensors in the table. It was quickly changed to 1,2,3,5+ with Sensors in the third category.

Not that it makes much difference

---

Anyway... it's clear that people with different preferences are going to want to do things differently (and they should). There's no right or wrong here. Thanks for sharing your views.

Aye, they should be treated as indirect spells, but the rules pretend that they aren't so there is a massive disconnect.


But then again, personally I wouldn't mind seeing the physical illusion spells simply go away considering that there would be so many intended side effects, such as being blind and fragging freezing to death from invisibility, ect, ect...

I would, but that's me...

And think about it a second. For Improved Invisibility to work with visual spectrum light, it's going to be keeping it from coming in, notionally like you seem to think, because it's the reflection of that light that we interpret as sight. Thermographic vision, on the other hand, relies on EMITTED energy, not REFLECTED, so the sight shield would have to TRAP it, right? In which case, since the (meta)human body is highly exothermic, you wouldn't freeze to death, you'd braize in your own juices!

*grin*

Keep in mind that a lot of the Manipulation spells seem to break the (currently understood) laws of inertia, gravity, thermodynamics and countless others. That's why they call it "magic". The general description of Improved Invibility talks about light bending, but that's a scientific description; I expect what the spell is really doing is just keeping light from reflecting, not keeping it from getting to you. Thermal's a little harder, but compared to, say Levitate? Or Dragons (that can fly), or telepathy or ... for that matter, how is science going to explain ANY Mana spell? There's nothing there to quantifiably measurable, so how do you fit it anywhere into a physics equation in the first place?

The only physical law Magic can't break apparently is anything related to space/time. No teleportation, extradimensional pockets or time travel.

Meh, I fail physics, forever...

Given that Magic can create sustenance from pure mana, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume it works in reverse... turn that exothermic radiation into mana which dissipates in the environment.



Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Magic *does* break Space/Time but that we simply haven't figured out *how* to get it to do so as of yet.

Prime example: The spirit power of Movement. That has to break space/time. The object under the effect of Movement doesn't move faster yet covers more space. Space/time was bent to make that happen. It's very much like Warp Drive from Star Trek. The relative speed of the vessel doesn't change. It simply went to a dimension where the distances between points A & B were smaller.

Ex: I can travel at 100 meters / sec.
In Dimension 1, I need to travel from Point A to Point B. The distance between them is 1,000 meters. At my movement speed, that would take 10 seconds.

But if I go to Dimension 2, the distance between those two points is only 500 meters. So I transit from D1PA to D2PA and then travel from D2PA to D2PB and then transit back to Dimension 1 which has me arriving at Point B... in 5 seconds instead of 10 seconds.

So perhaps further research needs to be done to determine how exactly spirits are able to bend space/time to accomplish the feat of faster travel without extra speed or altering the flow of time.

**Edit: BTW, scientists have apparently managed to get mice to levitate in an anti-gravity field. Saw an article on it on Live Science yesterday. So Levitation isn't so far out there...

Actually based on Synner's comments:

As someone else already pointed out... all drones by definition have a sensor suite.
Also all drones by defintion have an autopilot/agent constantly monitoring them.

I'd consider an OR3 camera to be a basic remote security camera. EG: here's a camcorder pointed at the door whose only job in life is to provide a record of everything which goes through this doorway. Or here's a fisheye camera watching the street in this zone... if a crime is committed we'll pull the footage and review it for evidence to use in court later. No brains, no special software.

I'd consider an OR5 sensor suite, to be a camera or camera + other sensors. Then at a minimum running an agent/autopilot actually evaluating what the camera is looking at. This could be further augmented by other software such as clearsight, facial recognition, vehicle identification, tacnet of some kind.... The software in question can easily turn a $200 camera into a $2000+ camera as well as a hefty upgrade in it's internal response chip.


Quite frankly... allowing for 'partial' effectiveness on illusions would also be a good way to give illusions a bit of a boost as a house rule. -6 dice for blindfire on invisible targets is one thing. But at -1 dice per hit... you can get grades of 'obscurement' as well if you think about it.

That's just it, though. The GM would have to make the call on if the "suite" was advanced enough to require the higher Threshold or not. And they'd (again) have to make the call on things like vehicles, too. And then there's all the other things out there, things like Vehicle Mask, which by what you're saying is pretty useless at anything under F5 w/ 5 Net Hits behind it, even though it's "multi-sensory". The cop can't tell that's a red Rover Model 2068 not a black Toyota Coaster, but her drone (or police cruiser) chirps happily that it's really a Rover like the APB says, so go ahead and pull it over!

I much prefer to leave it as a simple rule which both can be applied in a blanket fashion by the GM with the EXCEPTIONS being clearly notable in their mind AND doesn't wind up as a big Nerf^TM on Physical Illusion Spells across the board.

Umm, I thought that the "creating something from mana" has been removed in Fourth Edition...