Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Stupid Question about Improved Invisability
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
GaiasWrath8
This might sound stupid, but I really don't know and a player is going to use this to get out of a tight jam next game.

Can you see a charecter with Improved invisability with Ultra Sound? Astraly?

What about sprikaler systems? If it was raining would could you see were the charector was?

Thanks
Kagetenshi
Ultrasound yes, astral yes. The other two will require more thought, but I'm inclined to say not meaningfully (footprints aside).

~J
LinaInverse
Astral absolutely.

Ultrasound yes, but only partially. If you read the writeup for Ultrasound, it says that it cuts the penalties to TNs against invisible or obscured vision by half, not all the way.
Kagetenshi
That's true, but it will still detect them.

~J
Ecclesiastes
Thats why I use a custom spell that combines Imp Invis and Stealth into one spell.
Kagetenshi
A hole in the ultrasound picture is noticeable too. It'd be like an invis spell that just ate all light.

~J
Ol' Scratch
Those spells (Improved or not) affect your mind, targeting your sense of sight and hearing. There would be no hole; you would see the scene just as if no one were there.
Zeel De Mort
Rain: Yes. Sprinkler system: Yes. Big old bucket of paint: Yes.
Teulisch
Ultrasound very specificaly reduces visibility penalties by half, with a +4 for targeting by ultrasound alone. Aditionaly, the spatial recognizor can get a -3 or -4 modifier to hit target by sound, even without ultrasound.

for cyberware (and ultrasound in general), there is no difference between illusion and improved illusion. Remember that motion sensors use ultrasound.

to make invisibility more effective, you may want to carry a white noise generator.
Jason Farlander
No to the sprinklers or rain (or paint for that matter), for the the exact reason specified by Doctor Funkenstein. The spell is fooling the perciever directly, not creating or manipulating light in any way. In the same way that you can be invisible and wearing clothes, you can be invisible an have paint all over you, or water splashing off of you. The light from you, the clothes, the water, and/or the paint is still getting to the perciever, but the perciever simply doesnt *notice*.

Edit: Now, in the bucket of paint example, someone certainly might notice a gap on the floor where there should be paint but isnt...
Zeel De Mort
No.

If someone is covered in paint before having improved invisibility cast on them, then the paint will be invisible too. Just like their clothes.

If they get covered in paint afterwards, or put on different clothes afterwards, those won't be invisible too. Likewise with rain. The person with the spell on them will still be invisible, but the paint, which happens to be sticking to them, won't be.

Otherwise you'd have the situation where there's a big invisble troll standing in the middle of a corridor, unknown to all characters present. For some unrelated reason someone throws a chair down the corridor. It crashes into the troll and falls to the floor. Are you saying what would actually be seen by people present is the chair flying down the corridor and continuing to the end, despite physically hitting the troll? So it looks to those present like the chair is at the far end of the corridor, when in fact it's actually sitting on the floor at the troll's feet??

If that's the case, then that's really messed up and will cause you a whole hell of a lot of problems.

If not, then why should your perception of the chair not be altered, but your perception of the rain/paint is?

Much easier just to say that anything colliding with an invisible object after the spell is cast will behave as normal, with noticable effects. The spell's still pretty good that way, especially if you keep out of people's way.


That interpretation still doesn't solve the famous invisble door problem though!
Dashifen
QUOTE (Zeel De Mort)
Rain: Yes. Sprinkler system: Yes. Big old bucket of paint: Yes.

Good reason to carry around a small bottle of spray paint on runs. Plus it's always good misdirection to scraw gang signs all over the lobby of that office you just broke into on your way out .... devil.gif
Ol' Scratch
The spell creates an illusion of invisibility. It doesn't make you invisible, and if the illusion is successfully tricking your mind (ie, you failed your Spell Resistance Test), you're just not going to see any direct evidence of the invisible subject. The broken chair will look like it smashed against something else. The paint will look like it's splattered on the floor just right. etc.

Indirect evidence is something else entirely.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
Much easier just to say that anything colliding with an invisible object after the spell is cast will behave as normal, with noticable effects. The spell's still pretty good that way, especially if you keep out of people's way.

That's how I run it.
tjn
Technically, the person would still see the perp in any event, noticing him on the other hand is another thing all together. Also, since both Ultrasound and Astral Perception do not perceive the perp visually in the first place, neither perception is effected by the spell.

As Doc and Jason said, this is effecting the mind of the perceiver and not in any way actually making the individual invisible.

As far as the chair and the troll, the chair would hit the troll and while it would shatter as normal, the viewers would not notice that anything was amiss until the spell was broken. It might prompt them to make a second Int check to resist the spell, but that's a GM's call.
CoalHeart
Improved invis works this way to my understanding

You and whatever you are carrying is invisible. Including the dwarf in your backpack. But since you are the target of the spell the moment you put down the dwarf he's not part of 'you' anymore and becomes visible. This works with exchanging 'dwarf' for 'item'. And when picking things up, or people too, they are affected the same, it just might take a few moments to kick in.


Getting paint, rain or chairs thrown at you won't make you visible or allow a second resistance test. What it will do is give your opponents an idea that 'Something is there' by the paint not being on the ground, two footprints on the ground, or the chair bouncing off.


By having the idea of 'something is there' they can then make blind fire shots into your 'area' and potentially hit you. Without it they wouldn't even come close.

Your body heat can still be felt. If you lean up against a wall for a time and move away, the after print of your body heat can be noticed. You still stink like a dirty trog. You still make sounds as your modern plasteel platemail armor clangs together. You leave foot prints in snow and sand and whatever else.

You and anything on you is invisible, you still leave other clues of your presence to the very observant.
hobgoblin
improves invisibliy isnt the problem child when it comes to ultrasound as it clearly is a physical spell and therefor use the manipulation of light to create its effect. and as ultrasound dont work with light its not effect.

the problem comes with the normal invisibility as its a mana based spell andis supposed to edit out the image in the viewers mind. therefor one could arue that its even able to edit the images created by ultrasound. that is unless ultrasound works by putting a kind of corona or aura around all objects that have a echo. stronger echo = brighter aura. and the aura allso gives you a general outline of the object, alltho with a book on top of a table you may get a mixed result looking like a oddly shaped table or similar. therefor a person coverd by invisibility viewed by a person useing ultrasound would see a aura without someone in it wink.gif
Ol' Scratch
No, it's a Physical spell because it can affect Physical targets (like camerass) as well as living targets (like metahumans). It does not make you invisible. That would be a Manipulation spell. Ultrasound can be used to help detect Invisibility subjects because it's not sight-based even though it's built into eyes (for whatever retarded reason).
hobgoblin
as in the physical one can hide physical objects as well as living ones?

or as in the physical one can hide you from both technological and living observers?

and if the last, how the hell can it pull that of without playing with light? edit the electrons in the camera?
Mercer
QUOTE (tjn)
As far as the chair and the troll, the chair would hit the troll and while it would shatter as normal, the viewers would not notice that anything was amiss until the spell was broken. It might prompt them to make a second Int check to resist the spell, but that's a GM's call.

I would rule it that they see the chair being broken, but not what it broke against. They may be able to deduce whats going on, but its still blindfire to hit someone you can't see. Knowing there is an invisible troll in the room with you is of dubious comfort, after all.

Beyond that, I've always run it as Doc and others have pointed out, as the spell fooling the mind of the observer. I don't consider either version of the spell to manipulate light (which has pointed out, would be a manipulation spell). Invisibility fools only living minds, Improved Invis fools living minds and machines. There is no difference in the method beyond that.
hobgoblin
but when fooling the mind one can argue that it then should be able to allso fool it into ignoreing the ultrasound stuff as its being piped into the visual area of the brain, the exact area that the spell is said to fool...
MYST1C
QUOTE (Teulisch)
to make invisibility more effective, you may want to carry a white noise generator.

But than anyone near him would hear the white noise...
Mr. Woodchuck
Please also note that improved invisability is a touch range spell. For the sake of simplisity a character and anything they are holding (within reason) are invisable to both living and technolocical means of visual detection. If a character is hit by an external object or if any object leaves the characters posesion it is instantly visible, and any portion of the external object remaining on the mage is rendered invisible. This does not instantly end the spell or negate any of it's effects however it will allert observers to the existance of an invisable entity in the area, but will not tell them where without other means. The spell will not rewrite the world around the spell target to obscure their placement by an area effect ilusion. (such as the chair continuing on it's path). The spell grants the inability to be seen not an edit out of the world. An invisable mage crossing the street is much more likely to be hit by a car because they can not be seen. If they can survive the hit they are still invisable, but if they are still in the grove they made in the car hood they will be found shortly.
Ol' Scratch
QUOTE
Please also note that improved invisability is a touch range spell. For the sake of simplisity a character and anything they are holding (within reason) are invisable to both living and technolocical means of visual detection. If a character is hit by an external object or if any object leaves the characters posesion it is instantly visible, and any portion of the external object remaining on the mage is rendered invisible.

A Touch Range spell only requires touch during the casting. Not that it even matters, because Invisibility and Improved Invisibility are both LOS spells. Which, if your logic was correct, would mean you could never cast it on anything because it would instantly become visible since you just broke your own LOS.
CountZero
QUOTE (CoalHeart)
Getting paint, rain or chairs thrown at you won't make you visible or allow a second resistance test. What it will do is give your opponents an idea that 'Something is there' by the paint not being on the ground, two footprints on the ground, or the chair bouncing off.

By having the idea of 'something is there' they can then make blind fire shots into your 'area' and potentially hit you. Without it they wouldn't even come close.

To put it another way, watch the film "The Shadow" with Alec Baldwin for an idea of how I.I. works (when he's clouding someone's mind, he's using I.I.).
[ Spoiler ]
Dashifen
My take on the concept of the paint can, chair, sprinkler, etc. is that you specify the target of your spell when you cast it. Because the chair, paint, water, etc. wasn't a part of that target, the spell doesn't "know" about it. I have allowed players to spend a complex action to alter the target of the spell without dropping the spell, which I think is given as an option for some detection spells.
Jason Farlander
Except the *target* of Improved Invisibility, just like with all indirect illusion spells, is not the person on whom the spell is cast, but, rather, anyone (or anything) attempting to percieve the invisible person (the subject of the spell). The spell doesnt need to know anything about the subject, because its not really doing anything to the subject except hangin' around, twiddling its spell-thumbs, or, perhaps, whittling, and waiting for a target to try to see him or her. And then the speal *leaps* into action, affecting the target's mind or circuitry, as appropriate, and preventing that target from percieving the subject.

I dont see how the application of paint to the subject will in any way affect the mindf*cking action of the spell.
Zeel De Mort
It won't affect it. People who don't resist the spell will still think the subject is invisible.

But the spell doesn't make the paint seem invisible, nor does it make rain seem invisible, or flying chairs or anything else. Nor does it make any of them behave in a way you wouldn't expect when they interact with an invisible character.

The spell doesn't trick people into thinking the subject doesn't exist at all, only that he's invisible.

So when rain happens to fall on him, your mind doesn't fool you into thinking the rain is falling straight onto the ground as if there's nothing there, it just makes it look like there's some kind of invisible humanoid shape there, vaguely outlined by rain spattering off him.

Otherwise the spell would be called Improved Not There At All. smile.gif
JaronK
Invisibility means you can't see them. Throwing paint on someone makes you see them!

It's a mind altering spell... it tells your mind there's nothing to see there. You can still see the person, plain as day, but your brain simply ignores that information. I remember a study once on some folks that had a certain part of their brain damaged. I don't remember which half it was on, but to make the point, I'm going to say it was the left side of the brain. Now, this part of the brain was the part that basically alerts the brain that something is wrong... the part that says "oh man, you cut yourself, better do something about that." There's a complimentary part of the brain, on the other side, that basically says "don't worry about it too much". If that part is damaged, people obsess over everything, even the possibility that they might be late to work can shut them down.

Anyway, in this study they took some folks who had the "something's wrong" part of the brain damaged in a stroke that paralysed one side of their body (since I'm going to say it was the left side of the brain that was damaged, the right side of their body didn't work). The researcher would ask the subject if there was anything wrong with their body... the person invariably would say no. The researcher would then ask the subject to do a simple action that required two hands... tying a shoe, for example. In all cases, the person would say something to the effect of "no problem" but then stop and make up some excuse why they didn't do it, something silly like "I didn't feel like it." Basically, these people couldn't get it through their heads that they'd had a dibilitating stroke... their brains simply didn't register that there was any kind of problem, due to brain damage. When faced with direct evidence that something was wrong (they couldn't tie a shoe) they just made something up and continued to believe that they were perfectly normal.

Then, the researcher in question tried something else. He told people to look into a box, with holes on the side to allow their hands in. He first had them put their left hand in the side of the box, and asked them what they saw. Of course, they would say "my hand" or something similar. If he asked them to cut some paper in the box (a two handed activity) again they'd say "alright" but make up some excuse why they didn't a few seconds later... "I don't like these kinds of sissors" for example.

Then something weird happened. The researcher did the same thing, but this time had an assistant sneak their right hand in the box to cut the paper when the person was asked. When he asked the stroke victems what they saw, the answers were completely out there. One woman claimed she saw a cake in the box, for example. Evidently their brains knew they couldn't cut the paper, it just didn't care, but when it saw what it knew couldn't be true, it just threw that out entirely and replaced it with, in one woman's case, a cake.

By the way, my source for this is Discover Magazine, about 5-6 years ago.

This is how I view invisibility in Shadowrun. You see what you expect to see... namely no one there. If someone gives you hard proof (such as tossing paint on them, for example) your brain just makes up something (my that's a funny splatter pattern... chaos theory at work, eh?) and ignores the obvious. You still don't see the person. If they move Line of Sight, however, the spell is no longer affecting you, so you could notice the paint and say "hey, that looks a lot like the outline of a dwarf with a pistol, doesn't it?" and put two and two together from there. But as long as you're in Line of Sight to the spell caster, you don't see them, no matter what. You could, however, hear them, in which case your brain would put together that there is an invisible person over there, but you still couldn't see them, despite what your eyes were telling you.

JaronK
Jason Farlander
The purpose/object/goal of the (Improved) Invisibility spell is to render a subject undetectable by normal vision. If you can see the paint on an invisible subject, you are then detecting that subject by normal vision. Wait! what if you're in a room,invisible, and someone shines a flashlight on you? Photons from that particular light source weren't bouncing off of you when the spell was cast! Technically, its the photons that a perciever would be seeing, and when the spell was cast it didnt take this new photons source into account. Damn, I guess Invisibility only lasts while you're in the same room where it was cast, and only if no more light sources enter the room. That sucks.

Does picking up a penny after you're turned invisible, and the sticking that penny in your pocket, end up with a mysterious, hovering penny floating hither, thither, and yon? Lets say you already had the penny, but then you drop it and pick it up again... does the spell *remember* that you had a penny? What if you drop one penny, then pick up a *different* penny! Holy dropped pennies, Batman! This is getting complicated!

...or not. If you want invisibility spells to be less powerful in your games, cool. As far as I'm concerned, there are enough countermeasures in the game already such that I dont need to worry about the specifics of weird situations that might come up. Illusion renders a subject undetectable by normal (as opposed to astral) vision. Period. If youre going to detect an invisible subject, you will either resist the spell, or use non-visual means to detect that subject. Easy, simple, fast, doesnt require any situational pondering, isn't terribly overpowered.

Edit: JaronK, that is a wonderful (and entertaining) description by way of analogy of how Invisibility spells work, in my opinion.
John Campbell
It's an Invisibility spell, not an Obscure All Traces Of The Subject's Presence spell. It makes the subject invisible to normal vision. It doesn't hide their footprints or make it look like rain or smoke is going through them or craft cunning excuses for why a chair thrown at them suddenly stopped in mid-air and shattered or make it look like the poor runner that the invisible troll with the halberd just decapitated is still walking around talking. If you want those effects, well, there's always Trid Phantasm.

There's some hazy middle ground involving exactly how the "subject" is defined, where stuff like the subject picking up objects or dropping objects or getting covered in paint falls. Those are GM judgement calls.

My personal take on it is that anything that was on the subject's person when the spell was cast is made invisible and remains invisible until it leaves their person, but anything they pick up afterwards is not affected. That seems to me like the best and most consistent way to rule it that allows neat Invisible Man effects like stuff apparently flying around by itself without either crippling the spell or making it overly powerful.

But, again, that's just my personal judgement call. If some GM wants to rule that anything on the subject's person becomes invisible, whether it's something they were carrying when the spell was cast, or something they picked up afterwards, or something like paint applied to them, that's perfectly supportable. It's just not the way I prefer to treat it.
Kanada Ten
Personally, I view the spell as a spandex suit. Anything that crosses to the inside of the suit is invisible, anything that falls out is visible, and anything that covers the suit is visible.
Zeel De Mort
Edit: Mainly in response to JaronK's interpretation..


YOU'RE NOT SEEING THEM! smile.gif

You're seeing the outline the paint makes when it splatters over the invisible person. You're seeing the humanoid shape rain makes when it falls on the person. You still don't see the person themselves - you see a gap in the rain where the rain should be falling but isn't. Hmm, why not? Oh there must be an invisible person there. I'd better shoot him!!

The spell doesn't make rain invisible, it doesn't make you ignore the strange effect rain has when it falls on an invisible person, it just makes that person seem invisble to you. Nowhere in the spell description does it mention anything about your mind making up reasons for odd things to happen, all the spell does is fool your mind into thinking the person in front of you is actually invisble. So if you've no reason to suspect there's something there, you'll completely ignore them. If their presence is revealed somehow, you won't.

It's nothing at all similar to, for example, Disregard from 2nd ed.

It just makes the subject seem invisible, that's it!
JaronK
The spell also doesn't specify anything other than the subject being invisible... so you can see their clothes, right? I don't buy that. Besides, I don't want any more naked trolls running around.

JaronK
Kanada Ten
"Cast around a person or area..."
Shadow
To me it just sounds like you want to make invisibility have a reduced effect. People argue this kind fo crap all the time, but really, how often does a security guard walk around with a bucket of paint. And would you really see a whole in the rain? After all, rain is falling behind him, so you would see rain falling. Unless perhaps you were standing right next to him and being really perceptive.
Jason Farlander
So, those who rule that the splashed paint will make a target visible, consider: when you shine a flashlight on an invisible person in a dark room, does that person cast a shadow? Afterall, the spell is only making the *subject* invisible, it does nothing to manipulate photons, and the wall behind the subject is not covered by the spell. If so, invisibility is a rather shitty, worthless spell. If not, explain how the spell compensating for photons failing to pass through you is significantly, conceptually different than the spell compensating for paint being all over you.
John Campbell
QUOTE (JaronK)
The spell also doesn't specify anything other than the subject being invisible... so you can see their clothes, right? I don't buy that. Besides, I don't want any more naked trolls running around.

Clothes are generally considered to be part of the person for the purposes of spell targeting. You can still Manabolt someone who's wearing all-concealing security armor, for example. It'd be consistent to assume that they also count as part of the subject for Invisibility.
BitBasher
QUOTE
Invisibility means you can't see them. Throwing paint on someone makes you see them!


Semantics are important here. If paint is spalshed on an invisible target, the target is still invisible, the spell is unaffected, but the paint floating around in the vague shape of a person heavily implies there's someone invisible. The paint does NOT make the person visible, but it's a means if telling where the invisible person is.

The spell is not "undetectability" they still leave footprints and can affect the environment in visible ways.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
So, those who rule that the splashed paint will make a target visible, consider: when you shine a flashlight on an invisible person in a dark room, does that person cast a shadow? Afterall, the spell is only making the *subject* invisible, it does nothing to manipulate photons, and the wall behind the subject is not covered by the spell. If so, invisibility is a rather shitty, worthless spell. If not, explain how the spell compensating for photons failing to pass through you is significantly, conceptually different than the spell compensating for paint being all over you.

It works in the exact same way that a person on each side of the subject can see each other and shine a flashlight trough him or her or it and make shadow puppets on the wall. That's the function of the spell.
John Campbell
QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
So, those who rule that the splashed paint will make a target visible, consider: when you shine a flashlight on an invisible person in a dark room, does that person cast a shadow? Afterall, the spell is only making the *subject* invisible, it does nothing to manipulate photons, and the wall behind the subject is not covered by the spell. If so, invisibility is a rather shitty, worthless spell.

There's actually literary evidence to indicate that invisible people do cast shadows. Bilbo got spotted that way in The Hobbit.

But, personally, I'd rule that, no, they do not cast a shadow. It's just like if there were a perfectly transparent person standing there. You can't see them. They don't cast a shadow. But if you hit them with a chair, you can see the chair break over them, and if you cover them with paint, you can see the paint outline. But still not the person.

QUOTE
If not, explain how the spell compensating for photons failing to pass through you is significantly, conceptually different than the spell compensating for paint being all over you.

One of them is making the subject invisible. One of them is making something that isn't the subject invisible.
iPad
Having seen this spell used alot there are two mundane ways to beet it:

Ultrasound: its sound nothing to do with seeing so the shape of the invisible thing is visible.

Thermo Sense organs: not using sight either, just sense/feel the person is about.

As for rain and everything else I believe it would partially give away the person, the drips become visable as soon as they bounce off or drip from the person.
Zeel De Mort
QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
So, those who rule that the splashed paint will make a target visible, consider: when you shine a flashlight on an invisible person in a dark room, does that person cast a shadow? Afterall, the spell is only making the *subject* invisible, it does nothing to manipulate photons, and the wall behind the subject is not covered by the spell. If so, invisibility is a rather shitty, worthless spell. If not, explain how the spell compensating for photons failing to pass through you is significantly, conceptually different than the spell compensating for paint being all over you.

The invisible person doesn't cast a shadow.

If the person was "really" invisible, the light would pass straight through them. If they were "really" invisible and you, for some reason, emptied a bucket of paint onto the area they happened to be standing in, they'd get covered in paint and you'd see the outline of a person. The person would still be invisible, but would be covered in so much visible paint that they may as well not be.


As to why security guards would be throwing buckets of paint around: They wouldn't. The spell is still really great, especially if you're stealthy. As long as you don't accidentally bump into something and knock it over, aren't unfortunate to be under a bucket of paint when some crazy guy is randomly throwing it around, etc, you'll be fine.
JaronK
But wait, the subject isn't invisible, it's just a mental thing in the observers (as per the rules for illusion spells). So he would cast a perfectly normal shadow, because light doesn't pass through him. If you don't believe the spell compensates for such things, then you'd get a shadow, and the spell would be worthless.

I don't see any difference between the spell compensating for light bouncing off the target instead of passing through and creating an even plane of light on the floor, and the spell compensating for paint bouncing off (and sticking to) the target instead of passing through and creating a pretty splatter on the floor.

JaronK
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
If you don't believe the spell compensates for such things, then you'd get a shadow, and the spell would be worthless.

Bulldrek. Ruthenium suits cast a shadow and I've yet to hear them called worthless. A +8 blind fire pentaly and +8 to stealth rolls is not worthless, at all, ever.
Ol' Scratch
That's because Ruthenium Polymers are insane. Period. They just can't work as presented. You have to throw out every shred of your suspension of disbelief to accept them as plausible. Doesn't mean they're invalid int he game, though.
Jason Farlander
Oh, I agree that the light would appear on the wall. However, the light never actually makes it to the wall. The photons reflect off of Mr. Invisible as normal, and reach Mr. Flashlight's eyes as normal. But Mr. Flashlight not only disregards the photons bouncing off of Mr. Invisible, but his brain *assumes* that the photons are actually bouncing off of the wall *behind* Mr. Invisible. When a rat runs along the wall behind Mr. Invisible, Mr. Flashlight will also continue to see the rat, even when it *should* be completely obscured by Mr. Invisible. Why? Because thats how the spell works. It tricks Mr. Flashlight into thinking nothing is there, until some non-visual cue reaches his brain. Being able to see the paint would be a visual cue concerning Mr. Invisible's presence, just as being able to see the shadow or not being able to see the rat would be a visual cue. Thats why they don't work.
DrJest
"Aston Martin call it the Vanquish, we call it the Vanish."

First time I saw that, I thought to myself - a car covered with ruthenium polymers! Sweet!
toturi
At what time does an external object become part of the target? If Mr Invis picked up a cup of tea does it become invisible? At what point does a bullet from Mr Invis's gun become visible?

If Mr Invis dropped an object does it become visible? If yes, then the reverse should be true. If Mr Invis picked up and object it become invisible. Hence if the rain or the paint fell upon Mr Invis, then the indicator would be some of the paint/rain mysteriously vanished.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
Being able to see the paint would be a visual cue concerning Mr. Invisible's presence, just as being able to see the shadow or not being able to see the rat would be a visual cue. Thats why they don't work.

I don't agree. Invisibility is only looking at the photons hitting the subject and figuring out where they end up and then implanting that data in the targets' heads. The spell doesn't care about the paint (until the idiot covers it with his jacket) becasue it doesn't see the photons hitting the paint to hide them since it's not inside the subject area.
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