I was wondering how Invisibility works.
The TN is 4, so basically the Force of the spell is only for Dispelling purposes, right?
All living crearues get a Resistance test against Illusion spells, so does the GM secretly roll the PC's Intellegence as soon as the PC's are 'within view' of the mage? If not, do you only roll when you (the PC) have a suspicion that there's something funny going on ("I disbelive it!")?
Full Version: More Magic Questions: Invisibility
Nother funny aspect, Astral perception, according to the response I got from the Shadowrun folks on the official site, sees immediately through invisibility
Gm should do a secret roll to see if your character perceived the invisible character. All spells are resisted, including invisibility. Otherwise if he tells you to roll, you already know something is up.
So the GM would roll your intelligence + any dice allocated to spell defense against the force of the spell.
So the GM would roll your intelligence + any dice allocated to spell defense against the force of the spell.
When I'm GMing, I have PCs roll Perception checks pretty much constantly anyway. One more isn't going to raise suspicions.
The TN of 4 is for casting it. In other words, the spellcaster rolls Sorcery and Spell Pool, getting a success for every roll of 4 or more. Anyone who could be affected by the invisibility spell rolls their Intelligence against the Force of the spell. If they get more successes, they are not affected by the spell. So the Force of the spell does matter. If you cast it at Force: 6, then it will be much harder to resist than the same spell cast at Force: 2.
Force is less important for invisibility, though, because usually the spellcaster has more dice for casting than the target has dice for resisting. If you get, say, 7 successes on your spellcasting test, then it doesn't matter if the Force is 1 or 9... someone with an Intelligence of 6 or less (with 6 or less dice to roll) can't possibly beat your number of successes, so it automatically works on them.
Force is less important for invisibility, though, because usually the spellcaster has more dice for casting than the target has dice for resisting. If you get, say, 7 successes on your spellcasting test, then it doesn't matter if the Force is 1 or 9... someone with an Intelligence of 6 or less (with 6 or less dice to roll) can't possibly beat your number of successes, so it automatically works on them.
Umm... the force is also the TN to resist the illusion. The TN to cast the spell is 4.
But yes, the two common methods of handling this are requiring frequent perception checks and making secret rolls. If it suits you, you could take into consideration the fact that "observing in detail" (making a perception test) requires a simple action and, thus, isnt automatic - thereby forcing your players to declare they are making perception checks. But a good number of GM's (myself included) find that option somewhat unpalatable.
But yes, the two common methods of handling this are requiring frequent perception checks and making secret rolls. If it suits you, you could take into consideration the fact that "observing in detail" (making a perception test) requires a simple action and, thus, isnt automatic - thereby forcing your players to declare they are making perception checks. But a good number of GM's (myself included) find that option somewhat unpalatable.
Whats the ruling on invis against thermographic vision? Can you see the heat patterns of an invis person?
No, you cannot see the heat patterns of an invisible person because that is still sight (FAQ). Thermosense, which is more of a smell, penetrates Invisibility, but not spells that works against either all heat sensing or that make one "invisible" to all senses.
| QUOTE (Jason Farlander) |
| If it suits you, you could take into consideration the fact that "observing in detail" (making a perception test) requires a simple action and, thus, isnt automatic - thereby forcing your players to declare they are making perception checks. But a good number of GM's (myself included) find that option somewhat unpalatable. |
That's a nightmare. I've played in games where the GM does that. Everyone just walks around going "I observe in detail" over and over and over, and the dice wear down to spheres.
To summarize and add to the above:
The force is used as the tn to resist, and for dispelling. However, since the caster can (against tn 4) theoretically generate more successes with sorcery + spell pool than the target has intelligence dice to resist, its less imporant than for some other spells.
Invisiblity is a Physical spell. It renders the target invisible to sight. Ultrasound (sound based) and astral perception (the spell is physical so will not screen astral, ie mana, based vision) can both get around it.
Because any indirect illusion requires the target to have some reason to disbelieve it, there are no perception/resistance tests unless the targets have reason to do so. Such reasons can include paranoia, the invisible perosn not using stealth and moving loudy, telltale mistakes such as opening a door while someone is watching, etc. But there shouldnt be any automatic roll unless you have a situation like an astral perciving mage happens to glace over a room with an invisible person, then youd resolve a happenstance check as normal. A player requesting to make a perception check to look for signs of an invislbe target, and thus make a resistance check presuming he saw some is the way it should be resolved.
The force is used as the tn to resist, and for dispelling. However, since the caster can (against tn 4) theoretically generate more successes with sorcery + spell pool than the target has intelligence dice to resist, its less imporant than for some other spells.
Invisiblity is a Physical spell. It renders the target invisible to sight. Ultrasound (sound based) and astral perception (the spell is physical so will not screen astral, ie mana, based vision) can both get around it.
Because any indirect illusion requires the target to have some reason to disbelieve it, there are no perception/resistance tests unless the targets have reason to do so. Such reasons can include paranoia, the invisible perosn not using stealth and moving loudy, telltale mistakes such as opening a door while someone is watching, etc. But there shouldnt be any automatic roll unless you have a situation like an astral perciving mage happens to glace over a room with an invisible person, then youd resolve a happenstance check as normal. A player requesting to make a perception check to look for signs of an invislbe target, and thus make a resistance check presuming he saw some is the way it should be resolved.
| QUOTE (The White Dwarf) |
| Invisiblity is a Physical spell. |
Unless I missed something, my book lists Invisibility as a Mana spell.
| QUOTE (The White Dwarf) |
| Because any indirect illusion requires the target to have some reason to disbelieve it, there are no perception/resistance tests unless the targets have reason to do so. Such reasons can include paranoia, the invisible perosn not using stealth and moving loudy, telltale mistakes such as opening a door while someone is watching, etc. But there shouldnt be any automatic roll unless you have a situation like an astral perciving mage happens to glace over a room with an invisible person, then youd resolve a happenstance check as normal. A player requesting to make a perception check to look for signs of an invislbe target, and thus make a resistance check presuming he saw some is the way it should be resolved. |
I strongly disagree with this. In my opinion *everybody* gets to make a resistance test against the invisibility, the test is *automatic*.
Characters with Invisibility on them are *not* truly invisible, and there's IIRC *no* rule that lets them ignore *anybody's* resistance check. They can roll stealth to avoid the possibility that a guard will look in their direction, but once he does, he automatically gets to resist the spell - he is not making a *perception* check, he is rolling a *spell resistance* tests - and *all* targets of an indirect illusion spell roll one. Only *after* this roll you resolve whether he can or can not (depending on the circumstances and the result of his resistance roll) roll a perception check. If he resisted the spell, you roll as normal. In some circumstances where the guard fails the resistance test he will have a chance to hear something, or notice the invisible characters interfere with the environment, e.g. kick up gravel on a path, or draw attention in some other manner, so he will roll a perception check anyway, with about +6 to +8 to his TN.
May I guess you've played too much V:tM? Your interpretation of the situation sounds a lot like Obfuscate 2...
Invisibility *is* a mana spell, Improved Invisibility is a physical spell. The functionality of the spell has nothing to do with the fact that it is physical or not - the spell produces a single-sense change, and only affects normal vision. Astral perception is a completely separate sense from normal vision (a creature with no eyes or even with its visual cortex removed could still astrally percieve if awakened).
Meant Improved INvisiblity was Physical. In reference to the fact that you have to use that in order to affect cameras, and thus thats the one commonly in use in our games. So commonly, in fact, that I forgot to even bother with the proper name. Sorry.
Noname Hero, you can do it however you want. But you yourself said
Noname Hero, you can do it however you want. But you yourself said
| QUOTE |
| he is rolling a *spell resistance* tests - and *all* targets of an indirect illusion spell roll one |
and since the target of the invis spell is, in fact, the person thats invisible, you might want to rethink your stance. Directed Illusions work by directly hitting the affected people with misinformation, and they get to resist normally. Indirect Illusions work by changing the environment, and unless the people in that environment have any reason to disbelieve what they now percieve, I find it unlikley they would activly resist those perceptions.
| QUOTE |
| and since the target of the invis spell is, in fact, the person thats invisible |
No it's not. the invisible person is the subject of the spell, the targets are the people looking at the invisible person.
| QUOTE |
| Directed Illusions work by directly hitting the affected people with misinformation, and they get to resist normally. Indirect Illusions work by changing the environment, and unless the people in that environment have any reason to disbelieve what they now percieve, I find it unlikley they would activly resist those perceptions. |
Noone has to actively resist anything, it's automatic. Spell resistance itself is automatic in the case of every type of spell except beneficial health spells. Heck, you even automatically resist spells if you're asleep. Spell = resistance test. Automatically. Even in cases like Clarivoyance, the people in the area get an automatic roll to not be seen by the spell.
So using White Dwarf's explanation:
Mage 1 has Imp. Invis up and is standing right in front of Sam1 but not moving or making any other type of noise.
Does:
Sam 1 get an immediate Resist Test, or
Sam 1 only gets to make a Resist Test if he thinks something's amiss?
Supposing Sam 1 had some sort of enhanced hearing, would you give the Sam a Test to hear the Mage breathing?
Mage 1 has Imp. Invis up and is standing right in front of Sam1 but not moving or making any other type of noise.
Does:
Sam 1 get an immediate Resist Test, or
Sam 1 only gets to make a Resist Test if he thinks something's amiss?
Supposing Sam 1 had some sort of enhanced hearing, would you give the Sam a Test to hear the Mage breathing?
BitBasher is right - All targets of spells automatically resist, unless it is a voluntary spell. They may not even know what they're resisting. This is why I usually roll for my PCs if they encounter an invisible NPC - those that fail will have no idea an invisible person is there, rather than everyone rolling and guessing "Gee, there must be someone invisible in the room."
When it comes to spells, Subject and Target are confused.
Subject being what the spell is centered around (invisible person), Target being those who are affected by the spell (people looking at the "invisible" person). Those who fail the resistance test do not see the "invisible" person. I use "invisible" because you are not actually physically invisible, just a illusion that there's nothing there.
If a PC/NPC has failed a resistance test (cannot see the invisible person), then the only thing an additional perception test will do is to try and locate the invisible character by other means - astral sight, ultrasound, sound, radar etc., and even then, only if the invisible character does something to draw attention to themselves (makes noise, breaks wind, opens door etc).
Addition perception test will *not* see through the illusion once you've failed the resistance test - it will only narrow down the area the invisible person might be in.
This is where paint grenades can come in handy.
When it comes to spells, Subject and Target are confused.
Subject being what the spell is centered around (invisible person), Target being those who are affected by the spell (people looking at the "invisible" person). Those who fail the resistance test do not see the "invisible" person. I use "invisible" because you are not actually physically invisible, just a illusion that there's nothing there.
If a PC/NPC has failed a resistance test (cannot see the invisible person), then the only thing an additional perception test will do is to try and locate the invisible character by other means - astral sight, ultrasound, sound, radar etc., and even then, only if the invisible character does something to draw attention to themselves (makes noise, breaks wind, opens door etc).
Addition perception test will *not* see through the illusion once you've failed the resistance test - it will only narrow down the area the invisible person might be in.
This is where paint grenades can come in handy.
| QUOTE (Clank @ Jun 22 2004, 05:41 PM) |
| Mage 1 has Imp. Invis up and is standing right in front of Sam1 but not moving or making any other type of noise. Does: Sam 1 get an immediate Resist Test, or Sam 1 only gets to make a Resist Test if he thinks something's amiss? Supposing Sam 1 had some sort of enhanced hearing, would you give the Sam a Test to hear the Mage breathing? |
Sam always gets a resistance test, immediately upon viewing the illusion.
Enhance hearing may let you know there's something there (perception test), but it would not be added to the resistance test.
[HOUSERULE]
We houserule that the maximum successes allowed on an illusion of any kind, for the purpose of resisting the illusion = Force + 1/2 magic rating (rounded down) to cut out the cheesy muchkinism of a Force 1 Improved invisibility with OMG successes... i.e. more successes than most people have intelligence to resist with.
So a magician with magic 6 casting a Force 1 Improved Invis. would have:
Force 1 + magic 6/2
1 + 3
4 successes max for the purpose of resisting an illusion spell.
Extra successes over that limit still count toward dispelling however.
[END HOUSERULE]
Sam 1 gets an immediate resistance test.
If he succeeds in his resistance test, the invisibility spell doesn't affect him at all, and since the mage is standing right in front of him, a perception check is unnecessary... he obviously spots the mage.
If Sam fails his resistance test, the invisibility spell does affect him, and he can't see the mage. He may then get a perception check anyway, with a hefty TN penalty, to see if he hears the mage breathing or notices the mage's footprints or smells the mage's cheap cologne or notices how he displaces the mist from the nearby steam grate. Any appropriate sensory mods apply.
And I said "perception check" in my earlier post, which is not exactly correct. It's a spell resistance test, but, unless spell defense is involved, it uses the same dice as a perception check, so I call them that to avoid raising suspicions, since I tend to call for frequent perception checks anyway, even when they're not really necessary. If spell defense is involved, I figure that the providing mage may be able to tell that something is pinging his spell defense, so I don't have much of a problem with the PCs starting to get suspicious.
It occurs to me that perhaps I should occasionally have completely unrelated and generally innocuous spells trip the spell defense, just to keep the runners on their toes...
If he succeeds in his resistance test, the invisibility spell doesn't affect him at all, and since the mage is standing right in front of him, a perception check is unnecessary... he obviously spots the mage.
If Sam fails his resistance test, the invisibility spell does affect him, and he can't see the mage. He may then get a perception check anyway, with a hefty TN penalty, to see if he hears the mage breathing or notices the mage's footprints or smells the mage's cheap cologne or notices how he displaces the mist from the nearby steam grate. Any appropriate sensory mods apply.
And I said "perception check" in my earlier post, which is not exactly correct. It's a spell resistance test, but, unless spell defense is involved, it uses the same dice as a perception check, so I call them that to avoid raising suspicions, since I tend to call for frequent perception checks anyway, even when they're not really necessary. If spell defense is involved, I figure that the providing mage may be able to tell that something is pinging his spell defense, so I don't have much of a problem with the PCs starting to get suspicious.
It occurs to me that perhaps I should occasionally have completely unrelated and generally innocuous spells trip the spell defense, just to keep the runners on their toes...
Since we're talking about invisibility here, I have a couple of questions.
1. Since Invisibility (not Improved) is a Mana spell, I have always assumed that it makes the subject invisible by messing with the minds of the viewers. So I would think that thermo, ultrasound, and even the other senses, and such would not penetrate it. I can understand astral perception beating it, because in my head, when you astrally perceive an invisibe creature, you probably still don't see the creature, but you do see his aura. Has anything been said officially on this matter, beyond what's in the book? I'm thinking this might be one of the Game Balance vs. How it could be things.
2. Under Indirect Illusion Spells, it says that they must be cast "around" a person or over an area (Magic rating in meters) that is within LoS of the caster. Now, assuming Magic 6, is this a 6 meter diameter, or a 6 meter radius? Also, is it mobile? Can the mage and his group pile into the Westwind, and turn it invisible and gruise around on a unique joyride through the plex? Or is the area effect of it stationary?
3. Nothing to do with Invisibility. What are tyhe rough parameters of the Mask/P. Mask spells? It says of the same basic size and shape. So could a 6'5" ork appear to be 5'10", or would that not be close enough in size?
1. Since Invisibility (not Improved) is a Mana spell, I have always assumed that it makes the subject invisible by messing with the minds of the viewers. So I would think that thermo, ultrasound, and even the other senses, and such would not penetrate it. I can understand astral perception beating it, because in my head, when you astrally perceive an invisibe creature, you probably still don't see the creature, but you do see his aura. Has anything been said officially on this matter, beyond what's in the book? I'm thinking this might be one of the Game Balance vs. How it could be things.
2. Under Indirect Illusion Spells, it says that they must be cast "around" a person or over an area (Magic rating in meters) that is within LoS of the caster. Now, assuming Magic 6, is this a 6 meter diameter, or a 6 meter radius? Also, is it mobile? Can the mage and his group pile into the Westwind, and turn it invisible and gruise around on a unique joyride through the plex? Or is the area effect of it stationary?
3. Nothing to do with Invisibility. What are tyhe rough parameters of the Mask/P. Mask spells? It says of the same basic size and shape. So could a 6'5" ork appear to be 5'10", or would that not be close enough in size?
1. The definition of the spell restricts it to sight. So, thermo doesn't penetrate it. Ultrasound does. Inivisibility doesn't mess with the non-visual senses; that's what silence, stealth, and the like are for.
Why should there be a hefty TN penalty for the listening perception check? A standard stealth roll should do the trick, generally with the sam getting the +2 penalty for being distracted. Sure, that means the mage's presence will get noticed a fair bit (note that multiple successes are required to go from "I think I heard something" to "there's an invisible mage over there!"), but if you go blundering around it shouldn't matter if you're visible or not.
If you want stealth, mix imp invis, stealth skills, and sound dampening spells.
If you want stealth, mix imp invis, stealth skills, and sound dampening spells.
| QUOTE (Person 404) |
| 1. The definition of the spell restricts it to sight. |
So game balance/because, in other words? Cool I can deal with that. About Inv. vs US. Us cuts the penalties in half IIRC, so if a guy using US "sees" an invisible target on the US, he's basically looking at his US sight going "There's something there", but when he visually checks the area, he doesn't see anything, correct?
| QUOTE (danzig138) | ||
So game balance/because, in other words? |
Er, no. I don't know why you'd expect invisibility to make you completely undetectable. Yes, it "messes with the minds" of the viewers... so does Control Thoughts. There's nothing stopping you from designing a spell that stops all perception, but invisibility isn't it.
| QUOTE (TinkerGnome) |
| Why should there be a hefty TN penalty for the listening perception check? |
Did I say "listening"? I'm talking about a generic spotting test where the sam is completely unable to use his primary sense for spotting.
And if you're going to harp on it being a listening test, it's worth noting that an unsilenced gunshot in the next room has a net zero modifier on your listening test. Using that as a baseline, I have to say that attempting to hear someone's footsteps well enough to localize them ought to have a fairly large TN penalty involved.
| QUOTE |
| A standard stealth roll should do the trick, generally with the sam getting the +2 penalty for being distracted. |
Yeah, and then maybe another... what's the max modifier for ruthenium? +12? Invisibility should be better than that.
Umm... how does a stealth roll vs. perception compare to the roll to hear a gunshot? The TN for one is the high die on a stealth check. The TN for the other is a flat 4. Big difference, there.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that just because you're invisible doesn't mean you can't be spotted (even easily). What it does mean is that when Joe Securityguard makes his perception check and hears you walking around that he just says "Hey, I think I hear something over there" and goes to look. Unless the runner blunders somehow, he'll glance around, not see anything, and shrug before going back to his post.
I'm not suggesting that the guard is likely to hear someone breathing, but walking quietly is difficult, at best. It takes multiple successes for the guard to know that someone is really there (3). If your stealth sucks that badly or the guard is just that lucky, then you deserve to be caught. Proper cyberware can make this a lot easier on the guard, but it'd be relatively rare.
Ruthenium works the same way. Those TN modifiers only affect attempts to visibly spot the target. You still have to know how to sneak.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that just because you're invisible doesn't mean you can't be spotted (even easily). What it does mean is that when Joe Securityguard makes his perception check and hears you walking around that he just says "Hey, I think I hear something over there" and goes to look. Unless the runner blunders somehow, he'll glance around, not see anything, and shrug before going back to his post.
I'm not suggesting that the guard is likely to hear someone breathing, but walking quietly is difficult, at best. It takes multiple successes for the guard to know that someone is really there (3). If your stealth sucks that badly or the guard is just that lucky, then you deserve to be caught. Proper cyberware can make this a lot easier on the guard, but it'd be relatively rare.
Ruthenium works the same way. Those TN modifiers only affect attempts to visibly spot the target. You still have to know how to sneak.
Stealth is more than just walking quietly. It's more than just not being heard. It also involves using cover and shadows and camoflauge and careful movement to reduce one's visibility. It's also not being seen. Detecting someone who's made a Stealth roll can be more than just hearing them. It can also be seeing them. And sight is the primary sense that humans use for detecting and localizing things.
Invisibility takes sight out of the picture completely. You no longer have to worry about slinking around in shadows or moving only when people aren't looking at you. You can stand in front of the guard in broad daylight and wave your arms, and he will not see you. It completely removes one entire sense - and the primary one, at that - from an observer's options for detecting you. That's worth a TN modifier.
Invisibility takes sight out of the picture completely. You no longer have to worry about slinking around in shadows or moving only when people aren't looking at you. You can stand in front of the guard in broad daylight and wave your arms, and he will not see you. It completely removes one entire sense - and the primary one, at that - from an observer's options for detecting you. That's worth a TN modifier.
Which would be the basic +2 for the initial perception check (because the observer isn't using his hearing just for detecting enemies and is relying on his sight). When the guard goes to look and see what the noise was, his followup perception roll will automatically fail reguardless of the amount of cover used (provided the runner is being still and not making more moving around noises).
Invisibility, in general, is better for hiding than sneaking. If you're not walking around making noise, etc, then it is virtually impossible to get around. If you are... then you'd better compensate for that with sound dampening spells or lots of stealth. Distance to target should also count for something, and wind as well (we're talking sound, of course).
The big advantage to improved invisibility is that cameras aren't going to spot the sneaking character. The ratio of cameras to actual warm bodies patrolling most facilities is 10:1 or better. I also know that the likelyhood of a patrol spotting an intruder is small. The likelyhood of an incidental observer spotting an intruder (ie, non-security employee) is virtually zero. This means that what we're really talking about are guards who stand at given posts or checkpoints and watch the goings on. If these guards are alert (a crap shoot) then I'd go with an opposed stealth/perception check with few modifiers.
Invisibility, in general, is better for hiding than sneaking. If you're not walking around making noise, etc, then it is virtually impossible to get around. If you are... then you'd better compensate for that with sound dampening spells or lots of stealth. Distance to target should also count for something, and wind as well (we're talking sound, of course).
The big advantage to improved invisibility is that cameras aren't going to spot the sneaking character. The ratio of cameras to actual warm bodies patrolling most facilities is 10:1 or better. I also know that the likelyhood of a patrol spotting an intruder is small. The likelyhood of an incidental observer spotting an intruder (ie, non-security employee) is virtually zero. This means that what we're really talking about are guards who stand at given posts or checkpoints and watch the goings on. If these guards are alert (a crap shoot) then I'd go with an opposed stealth/perception check with few modifiers.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.