Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 'Changeable' spells?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Apathy
One of my characters wants to design a Mask spell that allows him to change the image he's projecting without having to re-cast. (i.e. I cast my improved mask spell to make me look like a sec guard. Once I get in the building, I have the look change to make me look like a scientist, without having to recast.)

Would you allow it? If so, how heavy should the modifier be to drain, etc?

Stats for generic Physical Mask:
multi-sense , minor change, indirect illusion => base M
sustained => +1 power
illusion => -1 power
physical => +1 power
Final drain code => +1M

Proposed Stats for 'Flexible' Physical Mask:
multi-sense , MAJOR change, indirect illusion => base S
sustained => +1 power
illusion => -1 power
physical => +1 power
Final drain code => +1S

Doesn't seem right to me, somehow. The change isn't really any different than before, the only difference is he doesn't want to have to re-cast.

What do you guys think?

techboy
No way. Your player is clearly trying to work the system. It doesn't seem so bad now, but once you let him do it, he's going to quicken it/put it in a sustaining focus, and have a personal disguise wardrobe that no camera can penetrate, basically for free, forever, and with no sustaining penalty.

Laugh in his face, then smack him over the head with your (or even better HIS) copy of MITS.
RedmondLarry
Unlike techboy, I don't think it's a problem. Adding one drain level seems fine for this more-useful version of the spell.

Make it so that the magician who casts the spell is the only one that can change the appearance, and he has to be on the same plane as the spell and have LOS to the subject when he changes the appearance. No big deal.
Apathy
TB, you're so full of it eek.gif

Don't bias the rest of the group before they chime in, or they may all start agreeing with you.
Artemis
If they quicken it or drop it into a sustaining focus, it's only at their own risk. Just like any other time they use the standard Physical Mask. It has to be high enough to dupe the guards watching the cameras, usually requiring higher force for better odds. Higher force means even more illegal, and dangerous to keep if quickened.

Any mage who sees them in astral space will immediately see a spell on them and know that soemthing is up, so that's yet another thing they'll have to work around.

Generally speaking, there are plenty of good factors and bad factors to the spell. Enough to balance each other out in the end. And honestly, recasting the spell at some later point and resisting a +1M isn't all that scary. A one-time resistance of +1S can be a lot more detrimental if the character gets stuck with a failed drain and ensuing penalty for the coming encounters. If they want to make it permanent, that's their own cup of bitter tea to live with. (Depending on the GM.)
techboy
QUOTE (Artemis)
It has to be high enough to dupe the guards watching the cameras

That's not true. Otherwise, the rule about cameras and other technological devices automatically being fooled (no resistance) by illusions would be pointless, since eventually SOMEONE's going to be looking through them. If the camera's fooled, the image it shows will include the illusion, and there's no chance for the viewer to know about it or resist.
Artemis
I don't recall reading the rule stating that physical illusionary spells automatically duped cameras. I might understand having to over come an object rating perhaps, but automatically even with a force 1 spell? It just seems wrong.
techboy
QUOTE (Artemis @ Feb 17 2004, 07:21 PM)
I don't recall reading the rule stating that physical illusionary spells automatically duped cameras. I might understand having to over come an object rating perhaps, but automatically even with a force 1 spell? It just seems wrong.

You know what? I don't recall it either. Bad choice of words. It's not a rule. It's a logical conclusion based on the fact that technological devices don't get to resist spells, and thus are automatically fooled by physical illusions.

Whether or not illusion spells have to overcome object resistance was, I believe, a hotly debated topic here a little while ago. I disagree with those who say they do, because the idea that an armored camera is harder to fool than an unarmored one just seems silly to me. Those rules were designed for combat/elemental manipulation spells, not illusions.

I have been persuaded by OurTeam and Artemis. My, uh, I mean, the player's spell idea is well balanced. I say let me, uh, him do it!
Fortune
QUOTE (Apathy)
TB, you're so full of it eek.gif

Don't bias the rest of the group before they chime in, or they may all start agreeing with you.

You did ask for opinions, and he gave you his. I don't see that he did anything to deserve your semi-flame.
Kanada Ten
Fortune, I think the run together (hence the "rest of the group" statement).

I would allow it; after all, it is simply a weaker form of Trid Phantasm. It takes a full complex action to alter spells, IMO (or IIRC one of the two).
Crimson Jack
I dunno. I wouldn't allow it in my game either. I had a player who always used to set me up with new spell designs and the like. I say, let the player suffer with the already useful spell. nyahnyah.gif
techboy
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Apathy @ Feb 18 2004, 08:16 AM)
TB, you're so full of it eek.gif

Don't bias the rest of the group before they chime in, or they may all start agreeing with you.

You did ask for opinions, and he gave you his. I don't see that he did anything to deserve your semi-flame.

Does the fact that I'm the one who came up with the spell idea shed any light on his comment? He wasn't attacking me... he was advising me to shut up before I convinced the group (Dumpshock) that I was right about the spell being ridiculous, since the consensus here (ha!) is going to have some impact on our final decision about the spell. I was just messing around attacking my own idea, and I think it surprised him.
Frag-o Delux
It seems to me this spell is no different then quickening/spell locking invisibility. True less people will inadvertently bump you and you would raise less trouble making noise being disguised then invisibile, but I can't really see the harm in it.
Fortune
QUOTE (Kanada Ten @ Feb 18 2004, 12:15 PM)
Fortune, I think the run together (hence the "rest of the group" statement).

Yeah well, I didn't notice that until after I posted and then read the rest of the thread. smile.gif
QUOTE (techboy)
Does the fact that I'm the one who came up with the spell idea shed any light on his comment?

See above. wink.gif

And see if I ever come to your defence again! nyahnyah.gif wink.gif
Rev
I have been pondering other mutable spells one might make up, and I have to say I think it is a really bad idea to allow it.

Consider mutable versions of the following:
phantasm (may already be completely flexible, depending on ones interpretation)
various barriers (or are these already movable, or movable but not reshapeable?)
ice sheet
shapeshift

Consider how they dovetail with expendable foci, centering, and location/condition based t# modifiers.


Normally if you are penetrating an area with physical mask, and want to switch your appearance you have to either drop the first spell and cast the second (revealing your true self for a moment) or cast with +2 for sustaining the first spell. The casting also creates an astral signature you may have to deal with.

The next thing the player could do is make a self only version to get the drain down (probably below regular physical mask), since they pretty much need to be there to change the mask anyway.

However would the player be able to change the illusion if it was in a sustaining focus, or quickened, or whatever? They are no longer sustaining the spell themselves, so I might say no. Don't know what they books say about this, if anything.

And, yea, it would be nice if the books said something about how all these physical indirect illusions work on cameras other than that they do work on cameras (and other sensors). I think security systems have some analog of perception, so one could roll that. Vehicles could roll thier sensors.
Sphynx
I'd allow it. Seems like a good idea actually. What I wouldn't allow is it to be changed once something else sustains it. As long as you incur the +2 TN (or +1 if you have Concentration), you can change it, but the minute a Focus or Quickening (or elemental) takes over, the appearance you have at that time is the appearance you have sustained.

Sphynx
Namergon
QUOTE (techboy)
QUOTE (Artemis @ Feb 17 2004, 07:21 PM)
I don't recall reading the rule stating that physical illusionary spells automatically duped cameras. I might understand having to over come an object rating perhaps, but automatically even with a force 1 spell? It just seems wrong.

You know what? I don't recall it either. Bad choice of words. It's not a rule. It's a logical conclusion based on the fact that technological devices don't get to resist spells, and thus are automatically fooled by physical illusions.

Whether or not illusion spells have to overcome object resistance was, I believe, a hotly debated topic here a little while ago. I disagree with those who say they do, because the idea that an armored camera is harder to fool than an unarmored one just seems silly to me. Those rules were designed for combat/elemental manipulation spells, not illusions.

I have been persuaded by OurTeam and Artemis. My, uh, I mean, the player's spell idea is well balanced. I say let me, uh, him do it!

The rules are simple when one doesn't mix terms and concepts.

A physical indirect illusion affect all observers, even if they observe through non-cyber technological tools. So a guard observing a physical indirect illusion through a camera will be affected. If the illusion was of mana type, the guard would not be affected. Being affected or not here is the fact of needing to perform a Spell Resistance Test. When you're not affected, you don't need to perform such a test, the illusion simply doesn't work for you. If you're affected, you must make a Spell Resistance Test. If you are successful, the illusion doesn't lure you, if you're not successful, you're lured by the illusion.
A funny example of this rule is a magician using (not physical) Mask on himself to appear as a guard. This magician walk in the corridors of the corp site, and suddenly encounters a real guard. This guard makes a Spell Resistance test, and doens't manage to overcome the successes of the caster on his Sorcery Test. He sees a guard in front of him. While relaxing at the sight of a colleague, his eyes pass over the little screen of the guncam mounted on his rifle, the rifle still being pointed roughly toward the "so-called guard". What a surprise for him when he sees a completely different guy in front of him that he thought he had...

The only particular case is autonomously operating drones as observers. This is handled by the official FAQ.
Lilt
Another humerous example is where the mage and the guard meet in the hallway, and another guard (or security rigger) is watching through a sec-cam. The guy looking through the security camera sees the security guard quite happily chatting with an intruder and the two parting with a smile and a wave...

As for shifting the effect of the spell: I'd probably allow it. It'd be the mage's choice as to when the image would change and it'd take a complex action as-per moving sustained area-effect illusion spells.

As for not being able to control the spell once something else is sustaining it: I think it'd still be possible through the magical link to the focus. If the "No control over a spell once something else sustains it" idea were to be a general rule then mages probably couldn't control other spells quickened or in sustaining foci, levitation for example. You could make it a special case, but general rules are better than special cases really...
techboy
QUOTE (Lilt)
If the "No control over a spell once something else sustains it" idea were to be a general rule then mages probably couldn't control other spells quickened or in sustaining foci, levitation for example.

This example may have personal relevance to Sphynx, I think...
Lilt
Possibly, yes. If you did rule that you had no control over something when quickened or sustained by a focus then he might have troubble using his Levitate and Magic Fingers spells.

There are also the possibly amusing results of letting a water elemental control what you look like. It could decide that the 'wet' look is best and make your character look soaking-wet while it sustains the spell.
Lantzer
I'm personally in favor of the "no control unless you are the sustainer" interpretation.

After all, the point of putting a spell on a sustaining focus or elemental is to rid yourself of the need to personally pay attention to it. No more divided attention = lower target numbers. therefore, my games, if you want to actively control something, then don't give it to somethng else to sustain.

Seems simple enough. It does somewhat reduce the frequency of mages who have flight sustained by a focus 24 hours a day, but spend most of their time walking around to avoid attracting attention.
_____________
On the original point, I agree with techboy and a few others in that the changeable spell is a bad precedent. Shapeshift comes to mind, as a spell which could be abused if very similiar modifications were applied to it.

Now, dropping a spell is a free action, so switching disguises is not difficult. You just re-cast as you drop the spell. It would look to an observer like the person just morphed into a new person. Perhaps a frame-by-frame analysis would find a picture of the mage if he did it in front of a camera, but that is his problem for switching while observed without wearing a mask or turning his back or something.

Lantzer
Ooh, I just had a nifty idea...

How about a metamagic that allows an astral mage to manipulate/control an uncontrolled sustained spell?

"Well, looky here, this boy's got a levitate spell in a focus... I'll just reach in and twiddle the altitude knob a bit.. ooh, that's gotta smart."

I mean, they've come up with _possesion_, so this is hardly more powerful.

Good idea / bad idea? (I admit it's the mental image which amused me.)
Apathy
Ok, so what parameters should we allow the caster to change on sustained spells? Should I be able to change the target without re-casting a sustained spell? The area of effect?
techboy
QUOTE (Apathy)
Ok, so what parameters should we allow the caster to change on sustained spells? Should I be able to change the target without re-casting a sustained spell? The area of effect?

This time I'll be serious.

I think OurTeam (and most of the other responders) has the answer that makes the most sense.

The appearance of the target can be changed as many times as the caster likes as long as the spell is running. As the one who has the magical link to the spell, the original casting mage must be the one to trigger any changes, and must have line of sight to the target (or be the target) to effect said changes.

Changing the target mid-spell is ridiculous.

Area of effect doesn't really apply here, but it is an interesting question. If a mage sustaining a trid phantasm moves, does the illusion move with him? I think that's a debate for another place, though.
Rev
QUOTE (Namergon)
The only particular case is autonomously operating drones as observers. This is handled by the official FAQ.

What about recordings and photographs?

Does the eventual observer of a recorded image make a resistance test, meaning that the spell is somehow incorporated into the recording, or should the recording device make some sort of test to see if it records the real image or the illusiory one? What if a security system was set up with a one second delay, or was taking just one frame per second?

Personally I hate the first option. The recording should either work, or not.
Lilt
I think he was talking about how drones use sensors, part of which is probably not affected by invisibility (Ultrasound, listening devices & Radar), meaning it's capable of seeing invisible people. The suggested rule from the FAQ is to only roll half dice or to add a hefty perception modifier.
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