That's in the spell description.

Sphynx

Physical Illusions don't create an actual visual effect. They simply (physically) manipulate the target into sensing something.

SR3:203 under Illusion Spells says, "Physical illusion spells create actual sensory input". 2nd column under "Indirect Illusion Spells" says, "Indirect Illusion spells manipulate energy to create and illusionary image or sound or some other sense-based effect fooling the sences. They must be cast 'around' a person or over an area."

I think these would say that Physical Invis would create something that would refract or bend the light so that the target would appear to be invisible.

Same page under Illusion Spells says, "Mana based spells effect the mind and are ineffective against technological viewing systems like cameras."

The "Indirect Illusion" part helps answer my question.

That's basically what I was saying. It feeds the camera an image without the invisible object -- it doesn't actually make the object invisible.

Illusory image: not an actual image, but an image one is fooled into seeing. Illusion: a misleading image presented to the vision or perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature.

See here for the average Dumpshock view on the subject (33-4 in favor of "does not create actual light, only sensor input"). Further recent discussions here and here.

That thread ended for a reason...

They just become usless at Force < 4. The theme is that more processed objects are harder to affect with magic. It wasn't until I re-read the SR3 about 100 times before I got the interpretation that OR does apply for invisibility as well as other spells.

Actually, they *are* the targets of the spell. See, the spell is *cast* on a Subject, which is the area or person that you're making invivible. The *targets* of the spell is everyone who tries to view the Subject. This is the interpretation the board has comt to after many long, hot debates and dozens of people quoting the BBB, MitS, and T:AL until they were blue in the face. It makes most Physical illusions useless below Force 5-6, but them's the breaks, I guess.

It's the same way for detection spells, unfortunately, which is why most of them too are almost useless below Force 5-6 as well. Bummer, huh?

Only included the 2nd quote to show that the preposition is not the important factor here.

Nice interpretation you have there, but it's not Canon. Object Resistance is ONLY for when you cast against an object, Illusions are cast around (or on) a person. Therefore OR plays no factor at all.

Sphynx

We've already established by my previous quotes that you are casting 'against' the person (not the camera). From that point on, "it" is the pronoun for the object cast against (the person). Unless you're casting the spell against the camera, the "it" to be affected isn't the camera, so the OR/2 round down < force does not apply.

Anyhows, I've had this discussion countless times before. Not going to carry it further. Everyones allowed to have their own interpretation, but you should remember that it is just that, an interpretation. I'm not saying my view is Canon, I'm saying your view isn't Canon. Someone should not say "it is this way" when "this way" is merely an interpretation.

Sphynx

My hurdle is thinking that the camera requires a certain level of the spell to be affected, while the person viewing the illusion is making the Resistance test with intelligence to try and disbelieve the illusion.

I guess unless we all get some "official" ruling on SR3's choice (or lack therein) of wording, interpret as you see fit.

Correct. The camera is not resisting, your magic simply isn't powerful enough to affect it.

Ha! That'd be a funny situation, I could see the Guard doing a fe double takes...looks at the monitor....looks down the hall....looks at the monitor...

Basically the same situation as for Invisbility. If the guard had been paying attention during Security Watch 101 instead of passing notes to the cutie in the next aisle he'd recognise the situation immediately and punch the alarm button.

Odds vary widely depending on facility. The Ares military weapon complex? High. The Toys 'R' Us warehouse? Low.

unless the guard is a real moron? If what his eyes sees dramatically differs from what the camera sees then I'd have him dropkick the amarm and hide under his desk and wait for backup. He's prolly not trained well enough to handle well under stress.

So does this bring to an end the debate of using OR for Improved Invis, etc?

Yes, like eyeless said, those two phrases are not mutually exclusive.

[quote]....Is it resisted by the drone or can the drone just not see the character? .... So the simple answer is that the spell automatically fools drones. ... [quote/]

No where does it mention OR occuring. No where does it imply it occuring. It is directly answering the question of whether or not the drone -resists-. If there was object resistance involved when asked about resistance in general OR would fall under that. If the question was specifically "spell resistance" you could claim non-exclusiveness. But this appears as a more general question.

So, barring an error in the FAQ, the answer appears to be no resistance for the sensors at all, object or otherwise.

It appears you indeed do have an idea about what my point was, and it is the correct one.

Actually what appears to be altered is "energy", from reading the intro to the indirect Illusions, although it doesn't talk about the difference between the Physical and Mana versions. Like most of the spell stuff it is rather vague in how it works ("It's magic!" ) That does not preclude that the Physical spell alters the energy (light, sound...odor isn't really covered) around the subject, not the viewer. The viewer (sensor, human, etc.) then recieve direct physical world stuff (sound, light). In fact that would be the simplest and easiest way for the spell to function. So if the "standard" one didn't work like that any PC/NPC in my control would tend to custom their own spell that way. It would also be fairly logical that others would as well.

The outcome of that is that indeed the sensor would be fooled. Except if it had some sort of AI rating that equated to an intellegence that could try determine via clues it could use that to finger out the location of the subject. You know, dust swirling where it shouldn't, light that the spell doesn't quite bend right (think Predator).

P.S. Do you require the OR check for Fling, for example? If so Force 1 Fling is without use, and > Force 2 is required to fling anything other than an unworked rock or stick. Flinging a credstick would require Force 5.

COUNTER EDIT: Adding to what i mentioned above under the Indirect Illusion Spells, they may be the Target but they are not nessasarily altered directly by the Physical...ergo the Indirect. Remember that they also don't quite follow the normal LOS rules for targets...unless with the Physical it works like i suggest then the LOS is not a problem.

That would be nice, except that if a person resists an Improved Invisibility spell, they get no modifier to their Perception or Ranged Combat or other tests against the subject of said spell. If the spell actually acted on the light reflected from the subject, there would be a Blind Fire +8TN modifier for attacking the subject even after the spell has been successfully resisted.

Glyph said it better in the quote in the 8th message in this thread.

No, I didn't know that the FAQ is error prone. Is there any thread that discusses these errors? I tried searching for it but my search-fu is weak.

Thanks