How much +tn i should get if someone throws imp.invisibility to his focus and i put ultrasound on?

Assuming you don't resist the spell, right? I'd say +4 TN, since ultrasound seems to only halve vision modifiers when you have to deal with it alone instead of normal vision.

of course i would try to resist spell but it's difficult with small int. so my tn would be something like 7 in melee? and with astral perception 5?

Improved Invisibility doesn't have any effect on Ultrasound Vision because you're using a sonic detection to generate the 'image' you're seeing. Stealth or Silence will effect it but not Invis.

Least not that I'm aware.

Just like pitch black doesn't affect Ultrasound Vision, but you still get a +4 vision mod in total darkness if you've only got Ultrasound Vision and regular vision.

Yes, it's +4.

However, it doesn't affect ultrasound security sensors at all, does it?

Not in the least.

~J

Which is a contradiction - a drone or sensor with ultrasound can see you fine, but a metahuman with ultrasound vision can't.

Doesn't the blurb for the impant in MM specifically say what happens anyway?

But a metahuman with ultrasound goggles can. The reason given, IIRC, is that ultrasound vision converts the soundmap into a visual representation, and does so entirely within the character's body (all stuff paid for with Essence). Odd, but arguable; you can take it or leave it.

~J

On a related note. What is the target number modifier if I have cyber eyes with ultrasound vision in heavy IR smoke? Assume the ultrasound vision is the only system I am using at the time.

Am I correct in assuming that you could not target spells in this instance.

On a second tangent what happens if I cast invisibility on a door? Assume I don’t resist the spell. Can I now see what is on the other side of the door?

Edward

Doesn't invis and improved invis 'require a voluntary target' or something?

I guess ultrasound is one of those oddities which works differently depending on what the end user is, since the actual hardware is the same :o)

Reference about ultrasound and Invisibility spell can be found in M&M IIRC, but I can't remember the page #, and being at work, I don't have the book with me. So, if other can give the reference, else I'll give it when I'm back home.

The canon invisibility spell does not require a willing target, however you can make a version which does.

A lot of these invisibility questions have already been covered in a previous thread. I'd recommend doing a search for 'invisibility' and 'door', since that was an example used.

In a nut shell, what happens depends on how you believe the spell works. If you believe it physically manipulates the protons into continuing past the target, you'd see whatever is on the other side of the door, but may or may not see the kitten you hid in your jacket after the spell was cast.

If you believe the spell works by affecting the minds of everyone around you to intentionally 'not' see you, like an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) field, you would see what you 'expect' to see behind the door, most likely an empty room. You probably would spot the kitten (if I remember the conclusions people ended on).

But as I said, find the thread, there's no reason to renew the debate.

an interesting question...

it specifically says that illusion spells can affect any target or area within line of sight. and invisibility (an indirect illusion) can cover an area based on magic rating.

so you should be able to cast invisibility on a door.

however, the illusion is one that tricks the mind, and so i would think that in some way, the spell effect determines what the person sees. when you cast the spell on a vase sitting on a desk, you know that the desk is there, and integrate that into the spell. if you cast the spell on a door, you would have to make the spell in such a way as to make what is on the other side believable - ie another room with furniture, etc.

the spell does NOT bend light or use other optical tricks, and therefore, you could not see what is on the other side of the door - you would only see what image the mage would want you to see as you THINK what would be beyond the door.

to go along with that - if you knew what was on both sides of a door, you could then turn the door invisible so that any pursuing guards would see that the door was "open" and seeing familiar features "through" the door, would keep running at full speed and smack into the door.

but as far as cheaply using it to magically peer through a door? no...you would be better off leaning against the door and just astrally projecting the inch through the door, send a watcher, or use the clairvoyance spell.

that's how i'd call it anyways...

So, if a troll is made invisble and is used to block LOS between an enemy and a couple of dwarves hiding behind the troll, the dwarves would be invisible to the enemy as well (without actually being invisible)?

if he's totally blocking LOS, then yes...

after all, if the troll was visible, you still wouldn't see the dwarves...

Wouldn't that be 2 or more invisibility spells for the price of one?

No, it wouldn't. The dwarves have to constantly be extremely careful nobody has a clue they might be there, or they will be immediately spotted. And the troll will be very angry after one of the dwarves pokes his head around him and the secguards open fire through the troll.

Not true, by the rules, the troll isn't being targeted specifically, he's got nothing to lose. The dwarf has partial or full cover. A win win situation.

Well damn, if it's a win-win situation, then it must be illegal! (And there's no rules about the troll being angry either, that's one of those things I as a GM add to the game world just because I like to.)

You asked whether that's 2 Invisibility-spells for the price of one. I told you it isn't. There may be a secondary advantage to the dwarves of the troll being Invisible, yes, but nowhere near the advantage they would have of being Invisible themselves.

[Edit]Sorry, I'm a bit irritable today it seems. You did not suggest it was not rules-legal, that was 100% my own addition.[/Edit]

There is a third option in the invisible door scenario. Rather than seeing what you expect or seeing through, you could just see a blank wall with no door.
If it's a mind-affecting illusion and the mind-effect is "you don't see a door" then you see a wall with no door in it, right? Not a hole gaping into the abyss or an empty doorway leading to happy clown-land (or whatever insane thing you think might be behind that door)

I read through the threads mentioned above and had a little niggle.

Does the spellcaster have to maintain LOS to the subject to sustain the physical illusion spell effect? If not then there is no way that the spell could be providing invisibility by illusion only. How does the spellcaster maintain the illusion when they cannot see the background that forms the illusion of invisibility.

If phys. invisibility merely "paints" an illusion over the target of what is on the otherside, how does a spellcaster know what isn't in the visual field (ie. behind themselves)?

If the spellcaster cannot see beyond a door/wall that is covered bya p.invis. spell because he doesn't know what is there, then the spellcaster also cannot be invisible from the front as he cannot see behind himself.

It's true.
In my opinion, physical invisibility should be a manipulation spell and just make the damn thing invisible.
Mana invisibility is mind affecting, so it should still be an illusion, in which case I think the observer should see what the observer's mind expects. Mostly just that they don't notice the invisible thing. There's a guy with a gun pointed at you five feet away, but you don't notice him. There's a door leading out of the burning building, but you don't notice it.

Guys like us don't just fall out of the sky, y'know!
!!!!!
Beautiful naked big-****** women don't just fall out of the sky, y'know!
?

edited for content.

You should write for Star Trek.

Is that a compliment or studied insult?

Probably both, but I'm leaning towards insult because I don't agree with you.

(Edit: On second thought, that might not be as funny as I thought. My apologies if you were offended, otherwise carry on.)

Whatever Physical or Mana Invisability do, I'd say they should definately have the same effect on any person viewing them, just for the sake of sanity. As for what you really see, well I'd just do something like this:

Mage: I cast Invisability on the door.
GM: Okay, the door is now invisable. You see right through it to the other side of the doorway.
Mage: Okay, what do I see?
GM: The other side of the doorway.
Mage: And... what's there?
GM: You can't see what's on the other side of the doorway; there's a door blocking you.

More of an amused observation. Not an insult. I particularly liked the part about the local photonic field.

what's all this crap about photonic fields anyways...the invis spell is a mind affecting spell, not a vision affecting spell. it has nothing to do with bending light waves. if you cast invis on someone, and someone else shines a laser through where the person is standing, then the spell is going to do whatever necessary to trick that mind into believing that the laser continuously goes through the target as if it were not there.

only "common sense" has to work here - if someone shoots a gun or a laser through a one foot diameter circle, and you are standing in the way of that circle, you're going to get hit. no +8 to target number, nothing - you're standing right there, you're going to get hit, and you're going to take damage. As far as what the shooter sees, you still aren't there visually, but the sucking sound from your chest and that smell of fresh blood is sure to raise some suspicion. that's the problem with magic in the game, there is a lot left open to interpretation, and each scenario has to be treated differently.


as for the door thing, i like the simplicity of the door "disappearing" and becoming just wall. after all, if the door wasn't there, it would still be a wall. if you want to show the door is still there, but open, and show what is beyond it, then that's more complicated, and would probably require a (trid) phantasm spell.

YMMV

And knowledge of what is beyond, to create the phantasm.

~J

Maybe, but the guards, who know the building well enough to know that there is supposed to be a door there, will immediately know something's wrong, and would at least be entitled to a bit of a TN bonus to the resistance test.

I'd go so far as to say what a person sees is colored by what they expect to see. The spell simply tells the person that the door isn't there; the target's mind fills in the details. So a random passer-by who's never seen this area before might simply see a wall where tte door should be. But a guard would see what he expects to see with no door: an open archway and the room beyond.

The point is, since different people will expect different things, they may well *see* different things. The invisability spell doesn't send an image, after all; that would be impossible as it would require the spell to make an intelligent decision as to what the target sees. What happens is that the spell just tells the person/observer that there is nothing there, and lets the observer fill in the details.The human brain already does this quite unconsciously for other things. Every human being has a small blind spot that you never really notice, that's actually quite big. The brain interpolates around it, though, so you don't notice anything's wrong. I imagine this is similar to how the invisability spell works.

[Edit] Damn, didn't read the second page. [Edit]

A bare table.
On the table you place a box.
Inside the box you place a muffin.
You cast invisibility on the box.
Only the bare table is seen.
You reach in the box and pull out the muffin.
You can see the muffin out of the box.
You place a coin in the box.
Only the bare table is seen.

A bare table.
On the tabel you place a box.
Inside the box you place a muffin.
You have a lid for the box
You cast invisibility on the lid.
You place the lid on the box.
You can see the muffin, the box, and the table.

An empty room.
Inside the room you place a dwarf.
You have a door.
You cast invisibility on the door.
You can see the room and dwarf.

Invisibility doesn't require you to know what is there. It knows what is there. It replaces the image of what you made invisible with the image of what one would see if the invisible object was not there.

The target of an invisibility spell is the observer of the invisible subject.

A voluntary invisibility spell would work like the entertainment spell: only those wishing not to see it will not see it.

If you have the targets mind fill in the details then what will be reco0rded on a cheep video camera when I cast improved invisibility on a door.

When the image is shown the spell will not be active and thus cannot affect the viewers minds and the camera doesn’t have a mind to fill in the gaps.

As to the blind spot on the human retina, the eye actually is in constant motion to move the blind spot so eth mind has enough data to properly create a seamless image.

Perhaps I should have known better than to ask this question.

Edward

You can see what is on the other side of the door: the invisibility spell fills in the details, it 'sees' the other side of the door and projects an image of it, but it is a false image, you can not cast a spell at something seen inside, (except elemental manipulations).