Well, I've got a bit of a rules question. Specifically, about the Manabolt/ball spells. As we all know (and it states on page whatever of SR3, I'm too lazy to look it up) you can't affect someone with a combat spell unless you have Line of Sight. What exactly constitutes line of sight?
For example, if you break into a secure compound, and the guards have tinted faceplates on their Heavy Sec. Armour, are they immune to a well-placed Stunball? What if they were wearing Full Body Suit Formfitting Armour (gloves, slippers, hood and all) and standing backwards? What about with a white sheet draped over their heads like Casper, a normal set of clothing, and a pair of gloves?
My GM seems to think they are, and I disagree. Well, except with the sheet part. Because it's just funny to watch Security guards run around with sheets on their heads. And it's so easy to shoot them in that case.
And please, go easy on me - it's my first time here.
Full Version: Magic-proof suits!...
No clothing or personal armor invalidates line of sight whatsoever.
Obviously not, otherwise it would render most combat magic childishly easy to defend against. But why does it work that way? How is clothing in this case any different from actual cover, which does provide Visibility bonuses? It's an interesting question I've seen asked on these boards a few times, and never really seen explained to satisfaction. All that stuff about syncing up with someone's projected aura seems a bunch of nonsense, first of all because auras don't exactly radiate, and second of all because mages aren't always astrally perceiving, and you can't see an aura without astrally perceiving, can you?
I have an idea for why chothing and such doesn't provide cover bonuses, but I'd like to hear if anyone else with more experience and/or knowledge has some thoughts first.
I have an idea for why chothing and such doesn't provide cover bonuses, but I'd like to hear if anyone else with more experience and/or knowledge has some thoughts first.
The canon explanation is that a person's aura extends out from his/her body, and it is the aura that is targeted.
Exactly how you want to rationalize this is in-game your own damn problem
Exactly how you want to rationalize this is in-game your own damn problem
The people arguing that auras extend beyond clothing aren't saying that the mage can see auras radiating through clothing; only that he can pick his targets and, through magic, achieves line of sight to the target through the aura's radiation, regardless of whether he can specifically see it or not. It's a bit thin, yes.
I'd comment on clothing not providing cover, but my knowledge of SR magic is very limited and my experience with the game is practically nil.
I'd comment on clothing not providing cover, but my knowledge of SR magic is very limited and my experience with the game is practically nil.
Well, I'll admit the 'aura extends from the body' reply was my first counter, but he didn't buy it, if for no other reason than I couldn't find a page reference for such a 'ruling'. I think he was kind of cheesed about our party, though - it's his style to create NPCs to make sense, instead of creating them to challenge us.
That and the Seductress Shaman with all of the Control Manipulations broke one of his adventures.
But yeah - I've got no other ideas as to that, so, please, elucidate away, Eyeless Blond.
That and the Seductress Shaman with all of the Control Manipulations broke one of his adventures.
But yeah - I've got no other ideas as to that, so, please, elucidate away, Eyeless Blond.
I found this on another thread just now, and I think it's a better explaination than all that "radiating auras" (IMO) junk:
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| Let me take a shot at the line of sight issue. (get it?) To target a spell, you need to somehow 'relate' to the target; to create some sort of sense of its identity. Line of sight (ie: my natural senses perceive the target) would be the easiest way to relate to it in the short term. Whereas ritual sorcery involves spending a lot of time to develop a visualization or an 'internal sense' of the target (like broadening your sense of the world through meditation, but on a higher scale). In other words, I don't need line of sight for anything to travel, I need it so I can know that there's a real target for my spell. If a magician got 'good enough' at this remote sensing, they could cast LOS spells without, but so far, no magician has developed that ability and it is currently outside the realm of the game. This could explain a few other things, such as object resistance tests (harder to develop empathy for car than a dog.), drain differences for touch spells (hands on sensing). Go easy on me, I was just typing this as I was thinking it up. |
Another theory is drawn from the "radiating aura" theory...your aura extends outside your body, thus outside your clothes. When you cast a spell, you're using a limited form of astral perception which targets the aura. Or something like that...
The Abstruse One
The Abstruse One
Out of curiosity, if the explanation is that your aura extends outside your body then how far behind a corner should I need to duck in order to ruin line of sight? If I'm barely behind the corner then wouldn't my aura be showing? 
Another way of putting it could be that clothing/armour is "part" of you since it is in such a close proximity of yourself and your aura.
One of the dodges sometimes used here is that it takes 'some time' for the aura to 'bleed through' your clothing. So you could hide behind a clothes line for a {some small amount of time} but if you put those clothes on in {some small amount of time} your aura would bleed through the clothes and you would become targetable...
So, if I carry a 6ft high, 4ft wide shield with a DNI camera on the front connected to my datajack am I able to be targeted by spells?
It's a stupid example, but I'm wondering what constitutes personal armour and where the line is drawn with cover. (IMO my example is portable cover).
Does a full exoskeleton count as armour? Passengers inside a vehicle can be targeted IIRC (assuming LOS still exists - windows etc).
Hmm...
How about a portable mage platform. It's a wheeled (or hovering...) box containing a mage who controls movement via a joystick (or DNI if he's cybered), completely enclosed and opaque thus making him immune to magic. BUT it has the fancy optics from SOTA:2063 allowing him to cast spells out.
Apart from the sheer stupidity of it, what am I missing?
(edit: hit post and then realised it would be simpler using one-way glass...)
It's a stupid example, but I'm wondering what constitutes personal armour and where the line is drawn with cover. (IMO my example is portable cover).
Does a full exoskeleton count as armour? Passengers inside a vehicle can be targeted IIRC (assuming LOS still exists - windows etc).
Hmm...
How about a portable mage platform. It's a wheeled (or hovering...) box containing a mage who controls movement via a joystick (or DNI if he's cybered), completely enclosed and opaque thus making him immune to magic. BUT it has the fancy optics from SOTA:2063 allowing him to cast spells out.
Apart from the sheer stupidity of it, what am I missing?
(edit: hit post and then realised it would be simpler using one-way glass...)
A GUNDAM mobile suit with a mirrored cockpit.
Armor to protect against combat spells........
My thoughts on it....
1) The only armor that would completely protect against combat spells would have to be so heavy that character using the armor uses the armor's physical stats (strength, quickness, body ) instead of his own. He's effectively is a vehicle with 2 arms and legs.
2) Mirrored armor that covered the entire body could be counted as providing partial cover.
3) Shields could provide cover if they stayed completely behind them. But keep in mind most riot shields are see through. Mirrored shields might be more effective.
My thoughts on it....
1) The only armor that would completely protect against combat spells would have to be so heavy that character using the armor uses the armor's physical stats (strength, quickness, body ) instead of his own. He's effectively is a vehicle with 2 arms and legs.
2) Mirrored armor that covered the entire body could be counted as providing partial cover.
3) Shields could provide cover if they stayed completely behind them. But keep in mind most riot shields are see through. Mirrored shields might be more effective.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| No clothing or personal armor invalidates line of sight whatsoever. |
I recall that, too. However, does anyone have a handy page number confirming that?
Targeting Auras is a holdover/explanation from SR2 I believe. In SR3, there is absolutely no mention of "targeting auras".
All combat spells work by damaging the target directly, bypassing physical armor and other non-magical forms of protection. A combat spell can affect any target in the caster's line of sight.
IMO, targeting "auras" is pure BS - Powerbolt and Powerball, both Combat Spells, "channel destructive magical power into the target, doing physical damage. These spells affect both living and non-living things." (SR3, 191)
Since non-living things have no aura, it means combat spells do not require line of sight on an "aura" to hit a target with a spell, but simply plain line of sight on the Target.
Cover modifiers do apply to spells (pages 181, 150, 150 (Twice on the same page), 182).
A white shite draped over your head no more provides cover for magic spells than it does for simply shooting the same target with a gun.
An Opaque riot shield can provide cover... how much cover depends on how much you can hide behind it. However, it may not provide protection against an Elemental Manipulation area effect that is centered above or behind the shield, as per rules on 182, under Elemental Manipulation Spells.
As for an exoskeleton/vehicle type armor. That's up to the GM to determine if it's Armor, or a vehicle.
All combat spells work by damaging the target directly, bypassing physical armor and other non-magical forms of protection. A combat spell can affect any target in the caster's line of sight.
IMO, targeting "auras" is pure BS - Powerbolt and Powerball, both Combat Spells, "channel destructive magical power into the target, doing physical damage. These spells affect both living and non-living things." (SR3, 191)
Since non-living things have no aura, it means combat spells do not require line of sight on an "aura" to hit a target with a spell, but simply plain line of sight on the Target.
Cover modifiers do apply to spells (pages 181, 150, 150 (Twice on the same page), 182).
A white shite draped over your head no more provides cover for magic spells than it does for simply shooting the same target with a gun.
An Opaque riot shield can provide cover... how much cover depends on how much you can hide behind it. However, it may not provide protection against an Elemental Manipulation area effect that is centered above or behind the shield, as per rules on 182, under Elemental Manipulation Spells.
As for an exoskeleton/vehicle type armor. That's up to the GM to determine if it's Armor, or a vehicle.
| QUOTE |
| A white shite draped over your head no more provides cover for magic spells than it does for simply shooting the same target with a gun. |
Hmm... I assume that you mean a white sheet... The other alternative is still possible for course, but frankly, the imagery is just too damn disturbing.
there is also glass that is opaque to the astral. i read about it in some security thead.
| QUOTE (xizor) |
| there is also glass that is opaque to the astral. i read about it in some security thead. |
There is no quote to back that up in 3rd, nor any other edition that I have ever found. A whole pile of people seem to think so though.
Consider that you need only to know where the target is in three dimensional space. You need not see the precise location - you can hit targets up to 99% covered, it is just more difficult. It is little harder to see where a person "hidden" in armor is standing than a naked person. Consider that touch range spells need not touch flesh either. If being completely covered doesn't protect from touch, why would it from sight?
Heh:
Spell Defense: "You can't seeeee me!"
Also known as the 'dunk your head in the sand', 'cover your face with your hands' and 'turn your back' defense
Spell Defense: "You can't seeeee me!"
Also known as the 'dunk your head in the sand', 'cover your face with your hands' and 'turn your back' defense
| QUOTE (ShadowGhost) |
| Targeting Auras is a holdover/explanation from SR2 I believe. In SR3, there is absolutely no mention of "targeting auras". All combat spells work by damaging the target directly, bypassing physical armor and other non-magical forms of protection. A combat spell can affect any target in the caster's line of sight. IMO, targeting "auras" is pure BS - Powerbolt and Powerball, both Combat Spells, "channel destructive magical power into the target, doing physical damage. These spells affect both living and non-living things." (SR3, 191) Since non-living things have no aura, it means combat spells do not require line of sight on an "aura" to hit a target with a spell, but simply plain line of sight on the Target. |
However, if you read that just as it says, then a fully covering suit 'would' be full cover for a combat spell since you don't have LOS to your target anymore.
As long as you can see even a little bit of the target, you're home free, but if LOS is the only explanation and you can't see the target, you apply a +8 TN to hit a guy inside a full heavy military armor (for instance).
Oh, and the opaque glass is simply an extension of the statement that physical objects only have a grey 'shadow' of themselves on the physical plane. In my games, all physical objects are opaque on the astral (unless they are thin, then auras can 'bleed' through)
And yes, in 2nd edition anyway, you could target a person behind a corner, if he was close enough to the corner - we're talking centimeters here. At least +6 to the TN for visibility mods.
| QUOTE |
| An Opaque riot shield can provide cover... how much cover depends on how much you can hide behind it. However, it may not provide protection against an Elemental Manipulation area effect that is centered above or behind the shield, as per rules on 182, under Elemental Manipulation Spells. |
In all truth it shouldn't matter if it's a sheet or if it's a shield, since the combat spell can pass both and your vision can't. With a sheet you can't be 100% sure of exactly where the target is either (which is the only reason for a cover modifier in the first place). Assuming he is fully covered by each, both should give at least a +6, probably a +8 TN.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) | ||
There is no quote to back that up in 3rd, nor any other edition that I have ever found. A whole pile of people seem to think so though. |
From pg150 of SR3 Main Book:
"Almost every vehicle in the mid-21st century comes with adjustable tined windows, which allow drivers and passengers an unrestricted view while blocking anyone outside from seeing in. This means a magician riding in a vehicle can cast spells through the windows at targets outside, while remaining protected from similar attacks."
One-way glass apparently does the job nicely.
Yes it does, but that does not make any mention of how the glass looks astrally, it's just talking about a mage in a car.
and:
and:
| QUOTE |
| However, if you read that just as it says, then a fully covering suit 'would' be full cover for a combat spell since you don't have LOS to your target anymore. |
If you ignore the fact that it "Bypasses all physical armor" than that is correct, but since it specifically says that physical armor is bypassed then no matter how much physical armor is worn, you can still hit them... Or at least that's the way I read it, unless you interpret the two lines as contradicting in the same paragraph when they don't have to be.
| QUOTE |
| Is glass/clear plastic see-through when astrally perceiving? The basic rule of thumb is this: if you can see through it in the physical world, then you can see through it on the astral plane. If you can't see through it physically, then you can't see through it astrally, either. The only real exceptions are astral barriers (and other astral things), which are at least partially opaque on the astral, but physically invisible. |
There are problems with this, some of which I brought up in an earlier thread.... but its the closest thing you will find to an official ruling about glass opacity on the astral.
| QUOTE (Skeeve) |
| For example, if you break into a secure compound, and the guards have tinted faceplates on their Heavy Sec. Armour, are they immune to a well-placed Stunball? ... My GM seems to think they are, and I disagree. |
If you can't convince him, just shell out a couple grand for your whole team to wear full suits of Form Fitting Body Armor so they can be immune to all of his magical threats. That might change his mind.
indeed. after all, full formfit comes with gloves, a mask, and cute little booties. failing that, just where ten shirts and ten pairs of pants. if they're unarmored, no penalty to Qui or CP!
Why not just wear ten sets of Form-Fitting Body Armor? No layering penalties there, either, but ungodly ballistic armor (22/0).
Shouldn't that be in the twinking thread? 
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| Why not just wear ten sets of Form-Fitting Body Armor? No layering penalties there, either, but ungodly ballistic armor (22/0). |
6/1 armor isn't all that ungodly.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I suppose you could do runs in mirrored phone booths, set up on casters so they roll.
It also does a good job of concealing your Panther assault cannon too!.
The only problem is if someone wants to make a call from one of the roving phone booths.
It also does a good job of concealing your Panther assault cannon too!.
The only problem is if someone wants to make a call from one of the roving phone booths.
You've got a Panther. How is that a problem?
Bystander Mook: Hurry up in there, I need to make a call.
[Runner opens door, points cannon]
BM: On second thought... take your time.
The only problem is when the rigger tricks hers out, and she gets pulled over by LoneStar for speeding.
Fortunately, I did manage to convince our GM with the paragraph Eyeless Blond quoted about 'relating' to the target. That seemed to jive with him.
Bystander Mook: Hurry up in there, I need to make a call.
[Runner opens door, points cannon]
BM: On second thought... take your time.
The only problem is when the rigger tricks hers out, and she gets pulled over by LoneStar for speeding.
Fortunately, I did manage to convince our GM with the paragraph Eyeless Blond quoted about 'relating' to the target. That seemed to jive with him.
| QUOTE (John Campbell) | ||
6/1 armor isn't all that ungodly. |
But 22/1 is. 4/1 for the first, unhalved layer, plus 9 more suits at 2/0 each. Of course, any sane GM'll obviously rule that you take the quickness penalties after the first suit.
And a large number of sane GMs will rule that you don't get bonuses beyond the second layer. Many, in fact, would say that is the intent of the rules. Certainly you can argue either interpretation is correct. But we don't want to go there, I presume.
I'll go there. The rules describe how to calculate the benefit of armor. Performing the described calculation with multiple sets of Form Fitting (4/1) armor layers results in (6/1) as John Campbell stated.
Go right ahead, then. I'm sure you won't mind if I don't join you. 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.