Having a bit of trouble with the rules here, and I was hoping somebody out there had an answer.

We've gone over Invisibility at length, and I think I've got it under control now. However, my players like to use Invisibility to augment their Infiltration attempts, and who can blame them. I understand that the guards who were fooled by the Invisibility spell (and the mechanicals fooled by Improved Invisibility) would still get to roll a Perception test vs an Infiltrate test.

My question is, how much of a bonus does Invisibility give in this test? The rules as I understand them are that the guards will be rolling for hearing, scent, or other senses they can bring into play. That means that optics will give no bonuses and chemsniffers and cyberears take the forefront, but wouldn't they be at some sort of a penalty if they were using their secondary senses? The only penalty I can find listed in relation to Invisibility is the Blind Fire (-6), but I'm not sure if that's intended to apply to listening tests. My gut is -3, but I'd love a second opinion or two.

Ah, that's easy: Using Perception Page 136 in the 20th A. book... (and perhaps in the other 4th edition book too.)

Basically you have to get a higher threshold to hear something very quiet (like an invisible dude sneaking about, talking , breathing. Also don't forget that if they don't KNOW he is there, all perception tests get -2 dice for observer distracted. The spell itself won't hinder anybody at their perception; no dice lost.

Still if they can hear/smell him... they don't know exactly where he is (maybe if they have a spatial sensor/Ki-Power etc.) and will always blind fire.

Invisibility doesn't work against suppressive fire. If I knew there was an invisible guy in the hallway I'd try to fill it with as much lead as possible.

You know, I've tried that. Suppressive Fire gives a good chance for a single hit at base weapon damage - most infantry weapons being 5 or 6. As far as I can tell, barring special ammo types, you won't be adding anything to that. Most runners I know buy the maximum armor they can carry, since it's cheaper then a hotzone DocWagon call. Assuming a very moderate body score of three, that means they'll have at least six armor, so stun damage, and they'll roll 9 dice to avoid damage, so 2-3 soak probably. This is a good 'plink' against the caster, if he's the one with his head out, but if it's a cybersam with 12 armor and body 9, you might as well save the ammo - and don't get me started on Trolls with Bone Density augs. Even our 50-kilo weakling is only out two or three Stun boxes, and you're going to have to hit him three more times to put him down.

In the words of a wiser man then I, Suppressive fire doesn't.

I think suppressive fire sure suppresses a lot better than nothing. And to be fair, a single suppressing PC is kinda meh, but when you have 3 or so all suppressing, and a fourth tossing grenades into that confined space? It chews people up right vicious, especially if you're packing APDS in those rifles.

Then again, that is pretty much the optimal situation for suppressive fire. In more open areas, it's highly meh.

Don't forget that you will knock him down with a DV 5 if he has lower body. That might give the guy a chance to shot once more or something.

But neurostun mixed with frag grenades does, as the armor value of .25mm of Tyvek is pretty low.

So we're all agreed that Invisibility has no effect on Perception tests other then eliminating visual bonuses?

Invisibility does not affect Perception tests.

Invisibility grants no bonus to Infiltration tests.

If the Invisibility is not successfully resisted, the character cannot be detected with visual Perception - thus, Visual specializations, vision enhancements, etc. do not apply. The Perception vs. Infiltration test is otherwise unaffected.

Note that unless the character has some other method of pinpointing the location of the invisible character, however, that even if noticed, Blind Fire rules apply normally.

Remember that even if a person cant see the invis person there are a ton of sensors that see them without a problem. A cheap ultrawideband radar pretty much auto detects invis people.

Isn't this a weird ruling? I think it would be harder to percieve a guy thats invisible, unless you were not using sight in the first place. If a guys is looking, listening, and smelling. I'd say he's down 33% I'd give some kind of modifier if the perciever is relying on sight at all.

Why? Radar is not sight... and neither is smell or hearing... you have a general perception roll at which you will not be able to add in any visual modifiers too... that usually makes it kind of hard to notice things at that point anyway... and definitely makes it hard to target whatever it is that you have discovered unless you can apply that sense as a targeting sense... which generally hearing and sound are not...

Keep the Faith...

Invisibility can be ruined by something as simple as a door.

Just a thought.



-karma

Also very true... but you could also wait until someone opens it and follow them in, so it is not foolproof...

Keep the Faith

There is a reason why every high security site I've ever been in or seen the entrance control facility to (IRL) has had a turnstile for access control in front of the guard. Some have been ceiling to floor, some have been just like like theater ones, but they have all had them.

I can't imagine SR being any different.

I don't see why visibility modifiers should not be applied to Perception tests to defend against Infiltration. Is it easier to notice somebody in broad daylight or in the dark? The rules do not impose anything on that point: it's up to the GM to devise which modifiers apply to any situation. Resisting Infiltration is multi-sense perception, but human perception is mostly driven by sight.

If you apply visibility modifiers, as it makes sense, then Invisibility imposes the modifier for no visibility at all, that is -6.

I've also had good luck with potato chips. Great improvised invisibility detector.

Yes, for visual Perception. That does not apply whatsoever to 'general' Perception tests, or specific non-visual Perception tests.

If a GM enforces a -6 vision modifier to an audio Perception test, that is the point I burn his books & leave.

Prove it. The rules do not state when to use visibility modifiers or not. This area is left free to the GM. It is up to him to state which senses account to each perception roll.

There is a matter of consistency here: how to ensure that Invisibility does not make anybody easier to detect? Simply stating that the guard cannot use his vision enhancements does not fly: if the guard does not have any enhancements but suffers a penalty from poor light, then it makes his test easier. Your interpretation would be consistent if you rolled perception twice in the normal case: once for hearing and once for sight.


This is obvious but off-topic.

Can't you just apply the generic modifier for an unfavourable circumstance? I.e. a -2 dice to Perception because you can't use sight, but still use hearing. (And as mentioned above of course no visual enhancements etc.)

I think that is unnecessary. The -2 for distraction and the threshold of the infiltration test is enough. Also the observer can only get the information his other senses can process. Humans, as opposed to dogs, cannot pinpoint a smell. Hearing and location of sound is also a lot less effective than the sense of some animals. Taste and touch should be irrelevant in this kind of situation anyway.

@Suppressive fire: Only if the persons in the field of fire wish to remain standing, they risk being shot. There is no rule against dropping prone and retaliating, or simply crawling out of the field of fire. Even if the character wishes to remain standing a hit is not guaranteed. REA+Edge is not so bad against the normal CorpSec Guard.

Those are independent from Invisibility.

The guard decides to observe in detail or not before getting to roll against Infiltration. Whether he could see tha target or not does not matter because he has not seen it yet anyway.

Invisibility does not provide any bonus to the Infiltration roll, so the "threshold" for the Preception roll is the same. There are no variable thresholds in Opposed Tests, only dice pool modifiers.

Lots of good points being made. I think I see the source of contention.

A normal Perception check is multi-sense. (i.e. roll to see if you see, hear, or smell the whistling Troll who just walked out of the burning sports bar. Wet Dog is nothing compared to Scorched Troll.)

However, the GM is within his rights to call for single-sense Perception checks - maybe the guards are all watching the burning sports bar, so they only get to roll hearing (and smell) when the Troll comes up behind them. Assuming no sensory bonuses, it would be the same pool - there's no inherent penalty for taking a single sense out of the equation.

This is kind of counter-intuitive when an Infiltrator is hidden from view; if a chameleon suit imposes a -4 penalty to see the wearer, then shouldn't being entirely invisible impose a greater penalty? Since the oppostion is rolling hearing, visual modifiers have no effect, and since there's no separate Listen skill, it uses the base Perception skill.

While modifiers for hearing-only tests make sense, as far as I can tell it's up the GM to determine those modifiers. There's no chart indicating how far away a running PC can be heard from, or how background noise might apply penalties. The upside to this is that it makes things simpler; the downside is Invisible PCs are at the mercy of the GM when it comes to sneaking into a facility.

(Evil Laugh Here)

Come on Traul... Prove What... that the term Visibility refers to Visual... If you have not noticed, they have the same root... Visibility modifiers apply to VISUAL tests... not to Tactile, gustatory (taste), Aural or Olfactory tests... What... so the dog now receives a penalty to his sense of smell perception test because he cannot see his target? How dumb does that sound?

I mean, really... come on now...

And again, a penalty to perception tests (say -3, for whatever reasons you apply) is still applied to the perception test for visibility, regardless of whether the guard has a bonus via equipment or not... if you have not noticed, it is harder to detect someone via smell or hearing, as these senses are not generally considered to be targeting senses (Like Sight is)... you may have penalties to eithr of the others for distractions that would never bother sight based perception, just as penalties to sight based perception is not penalized by strong smells...

Keep the Faith

Heres how i see it:

Interpreting Raw
Invisibility and infiltration are intended to be separate, with the idea that an invisible character is imperceptible, and only someone who resists the spell can spot them. The GM would determine special circumstances where a test could be made based on other senses.

I would like to note that although visibility modifiers are not mentioned in the text, the table is printed in the middle of the description for Using Perception.


Bending Rules
Invisibility would impose a -6 on a visual perception test to notice footsteps on carpet etc. for anyone actively seeking an invisible character visually. I would add another -2 for interfering sight. Auditory perception can reveal the sound and general location, but is not enough to shoot by (not even blindfire) unless 4 or more hits are made.

On an infiltration test, one could normally give one roll for each applicable sense. For example, characters approaching from behind could avoid visual detection Until one of them is heard. Or, the PC gets one last chance to smell the cold steel of the invisible assassins blade, which has so many times been soaked in blood.

Simplifying this back into one die roll would require "weighing" each sense according to importance. Being obvious to any sense would reduce the penalties to others.
For an unaugmented human, standing next to an elephant:
-4 if the elephant itself cant directly be seen
OR -6 if no trace is visible (you are next to an invisible elephant in the dark)
-3 for listening to Def Leppard on headphones- cant hear its respiration or movement
-2 since you have a cold and cant smell its huge elephant butt.
-1 Your limbs are numb from being tied up, so you cant feel its footfalls or warmth.


Now my question for this forum: What is required to qualify for "defender unaware of attack" in extended combat?

Prove what he said and I quoted:

that I clearly separated from

Now which case does your rant refer to? First or second? You're beating a straw man.

No straw man needed my friend... you still have not validated your original text... VISIBILITY is keyed to a single sense... so it would only apply to VISUAL Senses... that Is what I was saying, you would need to prove that this is incorrect...

Not going to get in a pissing contest though... I am in too good of a mood...

Keep the Faith