Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Physical mask / Vehicle mask
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Machiavelli
SR4 Street magic says:

QUOTE
Vehicle Mask (Realistic, Multi-Sense)
Type: P • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F 2) – 2
This version of the Physical Mask spell (p. 202, SR4) is specifically
used to mask vehicles and drones. The vehicle must be
masked to look like another vehicle of roughly the same size. This
spell can also affect the vehicle’s sound, smell, and other characteristics.


while SR4 Core-book says:
QUOTE
Physical Mask (Realistic, Multi-Sense)
Type: P • Range: T • Duration: S • DV: (F 2) + 1
Th e Mask spell requires the caster to touch the subject. Th e
subject assumes a diff erent physical appearance (of the same basic
size and shape) chosen by the caster. Th is alters the subject’s
voice, scent, and other physical characteristics as well.


Does this mean (and according to the high drain of Phys.mask.) that this spell can virtually everything and has no specific target or should i take the term "subject" more serious?
Neraph
I guess so. Whatever you touch can be changed, apparently.
Adarael
I usually limit the size of something to be masked to Force+6, if it were to have a body stat. I approximate for larger things, or use a straight calculation for vehicles. Thus, a Force 4 Physical Mask can conceal an average car.
Falconer
Actually no it can't... you need min force 5 for the car. (object resistance).

The spell is cast on the target touched... the car/truck/etc.. In order to attach/affect a non-living target w/ the spell you need to beat it's object resistance. After you cast it though, you only need sustain it (don't need ot stay in contact with it).


Yeah, the vehicular mask is just a more limited version of physical mask as is quickly shown by it's target limitation and much lower drain code. So you're looking at min 3 drain on the 'unlimited' version of the spell per casting. The vehicular version would still need 5 hits... but with the 1point drain code it's much easier to cast until it 'takes'.
Dakka Dakka
I'm not sure the spell has to break the OR:
  • The object is not manipulated thus needs not resist.
  • Spells that have to beat OR say so in their description.
Casting it at a high force with lots of hits is preferable though because you have to have enough hits to fool the objects (cameras) that may perceive the masked vehicle. This is where the OR comes into play.
Adarael
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jan 15 2010, 04:47 PM) *
Actually no it can't... you need min force 5 for the car. (object resistance).

The spell is cast on the target touched... the car/truck/etc.. In order to attach/affect a non-living target w/ the spell you need to beat it's object resistance. After you cast it though, you only need sustain it (don't need ot stay in contact with it).


Yeah, the vehicular mask is just a more limited version of physical mask as is quickly shown by it's target limitation and much lower drain code. So you're looking at min 3 drain on the 'unlimited' version of the spell per casting. The vehicular version would still need 5 hits... but with the 1point drain code it's much easier to cast until it 'takes'.


You have to beat the OR of observing sensors, not the Or of the object being made invisible. This has been clarified several times. This is because otherwise, casting phys mask on yourself at any force would be a free pass with cameras.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Machiavelli @ Jan 15 2010, 08:27 PM) *
Does this mean (and according to the high drain of Phys.mask.) that this spell can virtually everything and has no specific target or should i take the term "subject" more serious?

Vehicle Mask is just a Restricted Target variant of Physical Mask - lower drain.
Draco18s
QUOTE (Adarael @ Jan 17 2010, 02:14 PM) *
You have to beat the OR of observing sensors, not the Or of the object being made invisible. This has been clarified several times. This is because otherwise, casting phys mask on yourself at any force would be a free pass with cameras.


Which still makes it a Force 5 spell to be useful. wink.gif
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 17 2010, 09:59 PM) *
Which still makes it a Force 5 spell to be useful.

Sensors are OR 3.
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 17 2010, 09:12 PM) *
Sensors are OR 3.
On drones they are only if you trust stuff one of the developers wrote on dumpshock. It is not RAW (yet) AFAIK, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Falconer
The dev wrote for PAGES that drone sensors are OR5. in *one* post said OR3, turned around and corrected himself, and they were OR5 again for the rest of the thread.

So no, drone sensor suites are OR5 by RAW/RAI. Now that may be too high, in which case OR3 or even 4 is a reasonable house rule. But in matters of RAW, I don't like it when people put forward house rules as RAW. (I'd rather see RAW understood as RAW so that the Devs will errata/fix it when necessary, rather than have to know 5 different rules sets for 5 different playgroups).


In any case, I thought that was the difference between physical mask and trid phantasm... trid phantasm is just cast on a point in space. While physical mask needed to be cast on a target and affect both it and the viewers. I can see it going either way, it's just the spell has a target of "touch" (and obviously as an illusion it also targets it's viewers as well). I never said or even inferred casting it successfully on the object meant that would bypass viewers OR.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jan 17 2010, 10:32 PM) *
The dev wrote for PAGES that drone sensors are OR5.

That was prior to the revised SR4A.

By RAW, Sensors are OR3, see SR4A, p. 183.
Falconer
Rotbart... then why the hell in the last few PAGES of the thread did Synner write that no, they are OR5. The entire thread was devoted to SR4a and it's changes btw... that was not 'prior' to SR4a.

You cannot pick and choose... either a drone is OR5 including ALL it's subsystems or it is OR3. Illusions have no special clause which allows them to magically change OR. And Synners comments were specific... any sensor suite would be treated as OR5. All drones by definition are equipped with sensor suites.


Again, I repeat myself, I'm not a big fan of it but am neutral... just RAW/RAI is what it is. I'd rather see the devs acknowledge it as a problem and fix it than watch people house rule it different ways everywhere and all claim their way is RAW as you're doing now. On the bad side, the OR is kinda high... on the good side... it's not a bad thing that technology and magic are natural enemies, and I don't see issues w/ mages having a hard time dealing w/ drones.
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 17 2010, 09:40 PM) *
By RAW, Sensors are OR3, see SR4A, p. 183.
Does the illusion fool the drone (OR5) or the done's sensors(OR3)? If it is the sensors it goes against normal magical theory where you cannot target part of a whole.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jan 17 2010, 10:54 PM) *
The entire thread was devoted to SR4a and it's changes btw... that was not 'prior' to SR4a.

Sorry if making myself not clear enough: SR4A was released as PDF, discussed and revised, then released again as PDF and in print.
The claims you make are concerning the former release, not the latter. The latter has a specific entry for Sensors at OR 3.

In fact, that entry was specifically added after me pointing out during said discussion, that such an entry would really ease the question what force you need to fool a camera.
QUOTE (Falconer @ Jan 17 2010, 10:54 PM) *
any sensor suite would be treated as OR5.

Read p. 183.

But hey, it's your game and you are free to believe and play whatever you want.
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Jan 17 2010, 10:55 PM) *
If it is the sensors it goes against normal magical theory where you cannot target part of a whole.

And where would that theory be? It's not like the drone paid it with essence...

Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 17 2010, 10:04 PM) *
The latter has a specific entry for Sensors at OR 3.
True, but can you fool the drone's sensors alone or do you have to fool the drone as a whole (OR5+ not 6+ what the earlier release said)?
Ruling the former to me is like saying after a called shot "no the opponent may not roll his full BOD because I shot him in the eye which is a lot squishier than other parts of the body."

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 17 2010, 10:04 PM) *
And where would that theory be? It's not like the drone paid it with essence...
Clothing (even MilSpec armor) does not impede targeting via astral perception, area spells cannot exclude targets in the area.

[Munchkinism]I'm just thinking about a restricted indirect area combat spell without elemental effect to destroy drone sensors.
The sensors cannot dodge because they are immobile the drone cannot dodge because it isn't a target and you need negligible damage since the sensors have no own armor and are rather small.

Scratch that and use one restricted to copper or silica (for fiberoptic cables) those are OR2 at best.[/Munchkinism]
Rotbart van Dainig
Honestly, I don't quite see the connection of either the Called Shot nor the Astral Sight comparison to the matter at hand.

Well, of course, you can call shots on vehicle components...
Draco18s
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 17 2010, 04:56 PM) *
Honestly, I don't quite see the connection of either the Called Shot nor the Astral Sight comparison to the matter at hand.


Casting illusions vs. the drone's sensors is equivalent to shooting someone in the eye.

Or, say, Powerbolt-ing a drone in its sensors (OR3 is easier to beat than OR5!)
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 17 2010, 03:28 PM) *
Casting illusions vs. the drone's sensors is equivalent to shooting someone in the eye.

Or, say, Powerbolt-ing a drone in its sensors (OR3 is easier to beat than OR5!)



Just like shooting the High Intensity Floodlight on the Tank... it is targetable all by itself if you so choose, and it will not get the Tank's Armor to resist the damage; saying that you cannot do that is utterly ludicrous...

But this will again lead to a big tussel over Object Resistance and spell targeting that has been beat like the proverbial dead horse...

Anyways...

Keep the Faith
Jaid
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jan 17 2010, 10:07 PM) *
Just like shooting the High Intensity Floodlight on the Tank... it is targetable all by itself if you so choose, and it will not get the Tank's Armor to resist the damage; saying that you cannot do that is utterly ludicrous...

But this will again lead to a big tussel over Object Resistance and spell targeting that has been beat like the proverbial dead horse...

Anyways...

Keep the Faith

yes, you can shoot it, but you can't cast spells at it (other than indirect spells, which work like shooting attacks). you cannot powerbolt the wheels on a car.
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jan 18 2010, 04:07 AM) *
Just like shooting the High Intensity Floodlight on the Tank... it is targetable all by itself if you so choose, and it will not get the Tank's Armor to resist the damage; saying that you cannot do that is utterly ludicrous...
If this is a case of the option to shoot a part of the target to generate a certain effect this is possible, since this requires the arbitration of the GM anyways. If it is a case of calling a shot to increase damage the tank would get the armor dice, just like a metahuman wearing an armor vest(compared to a chameleon suit).
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 18 2010, 12:28 AM) *
Or, say, Powerbolt-ing a drone in its sensors (OR3 is easier to beat than OR5!)

You mean like shooting a cars tires, which have less armor than the car? Or a drones tires? Or like shooting the drones Sensors?
Draco18s
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 18 2010, 03:54 AM) *
You mean like shooting a cars tires, which have less armor than the car? Or a drones tires? Or like shooting the drones Sensors?


Magic != Bullets.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 18 2010, 12:28 AM) *
Casting illusions vs. the drone's sensors is equivalent to shooting someone in the eye.

QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jan 18 2010, 04:19 PM) *
Magic != Bullets.

wobble.gif
Neraph
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jan 18 2010, 12:11 AM) *
yes, you can shoot it, but you can't cast spells at it (other than indirect spells, which work like shooting attacks). you cannot powerbolt the wheels on a car.

Can you provide some rules to back this up? It is my understanding that combat spells work using almost exactly the same rules as ranged combat (especially in the case of Indirect).
Tymeaus Jalynsfein
QUOTE (Jaid @ Jan 17 2010, 11:11 PM) *
yes, you can shoot it, but you can't cast spells at it (other than indirect spells, which work like shooting attacks). you cannot powerbolt the wheels on a car.



Ranged Direct Combat Spells are exactly like ranged bullet resolution... You can indeed use Targeted spells (Called Shots) to damage a certain part of something (Hell you can even create spells that are limited to such things... Wreck (Tires) anyone?)... it is arbitrated by the GM and is part of the rules set... I am going to have to agree with Dakka Dakke here about this... if the goal is to bypass armor or increase damage, well, Direct combat spell do that anyway, so the 1st two options for Calling Shots are pretty useless, but if you are trying to gain a special effect, why would you argue that it does not work, since the rules allow called shots to do so...

Keep the Faith
Shinobi Killfist
Well damn. I can't find the standard direct combat spell disclaimer that it effects the whole target and you can't target a specific part of the object in 4A. How long has that been gone?

But I'll point out only indirect spells claim to function like ranged combat, so I'd still rule you can't call a shot with direct spells since it does not work like ranged combat.


And double damn, I always ran mask as only working on people. I think I prefer it my way, my mind will hurt to much if I think about phsyical mask making a skyscraper look different. I'd rathe rnot have to deal with figuring out how big of an object it can mask and other bits of stupid.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012