Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Invisibility: Real Ultimate Power
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Sandoval Smith
Just to make some assumptions, the higher the force, the more ice you get. Force 1 is a thin sheet of ice that is slick, but it follows the contours of the surface it's cast on (like rough asphalt) thinly enough that you can still get a little traction. Meanwhile, use force 6, and you've got a one centimeter thick sheet of highly uniform ice. So very slippery.
noneuklid
Why isn't Ignite called Agony? Who knows?

They made a spell that makes people trip. The flavor they chose for this spell is that it creates a sheet of ice; the actual ice is irrelevant to the listed mechanic, because it could be just as easily a Field of Trip-ness or a puddle of slippery goo. The trip effect is based entirely on magic, since natural ice below freezing is not any more slippery than, say, taut vinyl (now, warm ice, on the other hand...); check out the friction coefficients sometime or just go here. The Force of the spell and successes rolled make it more and more magically slippery the more powerful the magic is; however, since ice was the chosen flavor, there are secondary effect such as being cold, being solid, etc which would be entirely different than if it was a puddle of KY Telesma Ultraslick.
toturi
Negative. If it was a Field of Trip as you say, then the game description and mechanic would read like that of the Accident power.
noneuklid
Yeah- but then it wouldn't be a transformation manipulation spell, and they'd need to figure out a new one to balance out the Control Manipulations. Also "field of trip" is a much narrower and more easily balanceable power than the wide-reaching Accident. There's all kinds of reasons to choose an ice power over KY Telesma Ultraslick (simple, concise, etc)- but in the end, (ice = slip) = magic != real. Natural ice simply doesn't get that slick unless it gets warmer- and the melt time is fixed.

Edit: And beside 'switch, mister canon, aren't you the one that was against the idea of non-elemental manips having secondary effects at all in the first place?
toturi
So? The spell does what it does, as described in the book. All the effects are stated and listed. Simply follow them. Improved Invisibility still doesn't make you invisible.

I was never against secondary effects as stated and described in Canon. I am against any additional secondary effects that players think up that is not described in Canon.
noneuklid
So we're back to, "You wouldn't allow Ice Sheet to freeze water it was cast over?"
Fortune
No, we're back to "No secondary effect Cold damage is caused by Ice Sheet".

I grew up on ice, and one of the features of frozen water is that it is more slippery than pavement.

You are the one trying to read more into the spell (and Improved Invisibility) than is listed in canon.
toturi
It will not matter since, it "creates a flat sheet of ice covering a radius..."

Therefore the point of whether the spell will freeze water is moot. However, from a strict reading, it would be Canon that the water would not freeze as a result of the spell. Whether the water would get colder is up for debate however.
Cochise
QUOTE (noneuklid)
Actually, it is cast 'against' the camera- anything that observes an indirect illusion is a target of the spell. 


Sorry to say that: RTFM ...

Both the genereal description of illusions and the spell description say that you cast that spell on / against / at a person (or area in case of area effect spells).
Once the spell is in effect it works against cameras and the like. Yet the spell is still cast on / against / at a person ...


QUOTE
I'm not sure how you'd roll that in terms of the camera's resistance.


"You" simply don't roll resistance, since the camera is a non-living entity that does not receive a resistance test. Normally even living beings wouldn't get a resistance test, since they are not the entity that the spell was cast onto / against (If a target of an indirect illusion ever decides to resist the spell, that'll be the only time when the spell as a whole can fail *When the target negates the casting successes of the caster*). However, the definition of indirect illusions says that any observer of such an illusion automatically becomes the spell's (secondary) target. And that's why they get the chance to resist.

QUOTE
The Force thing probably covers it, as has been brought up.


No it doesn't since the "force thing" is subject to debate on its own ...

QUOTE
Hell no.  I can't even imagine the kind of mind that has the ability to create a truly realistic image of something it expects to see, in realtime.


a) That's why it's called "magic"
b) Pretty much an optical illusion you might fall for in our real world works in this manner: Your brain misinterprets actual reality and even fills in the blanks on a subconcious level ... as wrong as those "fillings" might be ...

QUOTE
At best you'd get a hazy, dream-like image if that were the case (which would make, say, an invisible person pretty obvious as they're moving).  I fully support the idea of spells that make you 'overlook' something, but they wouldn't stand up to scrutiny the same way an Invis spell does.


Again: It's magic, so the effect is magical or better "miracle like" in comparison to normal physical perception. And of course, such "glitches" that might be caused by illusions actually also might be the reason why living beings do resist indirect illusion spells with intelligence rather then willpower.

QUOTE
I'm also facinated by the True Invis spells that are popping up.  I tend to agree that a 100% transparency doesn't necissarily mean blindness as the light could still register on photoreceptive materials (especially with the aid of magic), but likewise agree that a very large object would create noticable blurring as it moved.


At 100% transparency from any angle in relation to the surrounding media (thus nor refraction) the can't be any "blurr" ...

QUOTE
Bending light is probably right out, though, since the light needs somewhere to *go* when it's bent, and so it wouldn't work from certain angles (as you moved towards above an invisible object that is touching the ground, it seems like you'd begin to see more and more of the object as the light fails to 'bend' around the surface in contact with the ground).


A "perfect" bend would mean that any light is bent along the surface of the protected target and rebent to its original direction / angle on the opposite side of the target's body => You'd be unable to see that target at all ranges. The theoretical point at which you could observe strange illumination effects would be the same where you actually come in touch with the target. And I guess that at least organic eyes do not have the resolution to actually see bending in the range of 300 to 800 nanometers ...
BitBasher
QUOTE (noneuklid)
So we're back to, "You wouldn't allow Ice Sheet to freeze water it was cast over?"

QUOTE
This would be far more expensive; the treatment only increases the Racial Modified Limit, so more attribute points would have to be bought.
Right, I wouldn't. The spell doesn't create a sheet of cold, it creates a sheet of ice. If cast over a puddle of water then the ice would likely immediately begin to melt. In order for that ice to be slippery it has not be all that cold (relatively), and in the process of partially melting already. I don't even see why you would think it would freeze water. If I drop a block of ice in a puddle it doesn't freeze the puddle, it starts melting the ice.
Tarantula
QUOTE (noneuklid @ Jan 5 2005, 06:08 AM)
So we're back to, "You wouldn't allow Ice Sheet to freeze water it was cast over?"

Well, depending on the size of the radius when you cast it, it could quite possibly create a sheet of ice wide enough to bridge across said water and thus effectively look like it was freezing the top of the water, while in fact the water is not being changed, its just getting a big sheet of ice put on top of it. If the ice wasn't as big as the water however, it'd be the same as dropping a big ice cube(sheet) into the water, the ice would start heating up, and the water would start cooling down, until their temperatures equalized.
Shaudes29
if you read teh discription of the ice sheet spell it is veary clear that it is not thick enuf to support any wait on watter. Whats doign teh suporting is the underlyign matterial. If you cast it over water and tryed to walk on it. it would sink and break up, as you sank. Abetter spell would be Freez water. Now back to talking about Invisability.


House rulles option:

Invisibility has a base T# of 4 you keep track of teh number of suscesses for resistence purposes. To keep it from being too oubber, i would alow technology to get to resist it using its rating.

ex human gets to use will (person will disbalive) or intelegence (perseption test)to resist the spell
tech would use its rating, target numbmer spell force.

Camra is observing area mage enters with 4 sucseses and F6 imp invis.
camra has 4 dice to beat wiz 4 sucses at target number 6 not veary likly but resonable way to work it.

Why does tech get resistence chance. Its complicated tech and is resistant to magic. You might considerd it a perception test in the case Imp Invis, and its a test to see if the tech sees thou the spell.
Jrayjoker
Why not give it dice equal to its object resistance from the table?
Tarantula
QUOTE (Shaudes29)
if you read teh discription of the ice sheet spell it is veary clear that it is not thick enuf to support any wait on watter. Whats doign teh suporting is the underlyign matterial. If you cast it over water and tryed to walk on it. it would sink and break up, as you sank. Abetter spell would be Freez water. Now back to talking about Invisability.

Simply to clarify. I agree with you, I never said the ice would be thick enough to support anyone, simply that it might look as though you froze the top of the water, when in reality, you put magical ice on top of the already existant water.
BitBasher
Because *no* inanimate objects get to resist spells other than (IIRC) damaging manipulations.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Shaudes29)
if you read teh discription of the ice sheet spell it is veary clear that it is not thick enuf to support any wait on watter. Whats doign teh suporting is the underlyign matterial. If you cast it over water and tryed to walk on it. it would sink and break up, as you sank. Abetter spell would be Freez water. Now back to talking about Invisability.


House rulles option:

Invisibility has a base T# of 4 you keep track of teh number of suscesses for resistence purposes. To keep it from being too oubber, i would alow technology to get to resist it using its rating.

ex human gets to use will (person will disbalive) or intelegence (perseption test)to resist the spell
tech would use its rating, target numbmer spell force.

Camra is observing area mage enters with 4 sucseses and F6 imp invis.
camra has 4 dice to beat wiz 4 sucses at target number 6 not veary likly but resonable way to work it.

Why does tech get resistence chance. Its complicated tech and is resistant to magic. You might considerd it a perception test in the case Imp Invis, and its a test to see if the tech sees thou the spell.

Waaay off topic here, but use the damn spell checker. I am guessing most folks will skip your submissions.
Shaudes29
QUOTE (BitBasher)
Because *no* inanimate objects get to resist spells other than (IIRC) damaging manipulations.

If you notic i have it noted it as a house rule.

I use the rating instead of the OR number becouse the rating represents how good the camra is. Ie. its perseption dice.

Kanada Ten
QUOTE
ex human gets to use will (person will disbalive) or intelegence (perseption test)to resist the spell

It is not a perception test to resist illusions with Intelligence. They still can use Spell Defense and adepts cannot add Enhanced Perception dice to the test (though they can use True Sight and Magic Resistance dice).
noneuklid
QUOTE (Cochise)

QUOTE (noneuklid)
Actually, it is cast 'against' the camera- anything that observes an indirect illusion is a target of the spell. 


Sorry to say that: RTFM ...


And the FM (specifically, page 55 of MitS) says, "Indirect illusions are cast on a subject person or area. Anyone who views that person or area is a target of the spell." (emphasis mine)

QUOTE (Cochise)

"You" simply don't roll resistance, since the camera is a non-living entity that does not receive a resistance test. Normally even living beings wouldn't get a resistance test, since they are not the entity that the spell was cast onto / against


The camera- and any other observers- get to resist indirect illusions with Intelligence (p195, SR3. Creating the spell requires a roll against a target number of 4 to successfully cast at all. All the targets- the observers, per MitS- get to make resistance rolls.) Since cameras and other inanimate objects do not typically have an intelligence stat, I was simply commenting that I'm not sure what, if anything, the camera would be using for this resistance test

QUOTE (Cochise)

a) That's why it's called "magic"
b) Pretty much an optical illusion you might fall for in our real world works in this manner: Your brain misinterprets actual reality and even fills in the blanks on a subconcious level ... as wrong as those "fillings" might be ...


If the spell is leaving it up to the person's brain, it is not magic that creates the image- it's imagination. If it IS magic that creates the mental image, then there's no particular reason to believe that it isn't filling in all the blanks.

As far as optical illusions go, there's a bit of difference between a straight line that looks curved and a troll with an axe that looks like nothing. Gestalt makes you add things- or occasionally misinterpret what you see- but it doesn't take things away.

QUOTE ("Cochise")

Again: It's magic, so the effect is magical or better "miracle like" in comparison to normal physical perception. And of course, such "glitches" that might be caused by illusions actually also might be the reason why living beings do resist indirect illusion spells with intelligence rather then willpower.


Again, if the magic is creating the mental image, it's not being created by imagination, and there's no reason to believe that the magic isn't giving an image of what's actually there as opposed to what the target wants to believe is there. That's making the spell jump through extra hoops, uneccissarily complicating its function. In fact, if it WAS giving the target a feedback on their own imagination, a character with higher Intelligence would most likely be able to dream up a better fake than one with a low intelligence- the power of the brain would work against him/her/it.

Regarding transparencies and bends- if the fully transparent creature is still able to see, the light must be 'captured' somehow for a brief period in order to register. So the spell would have to slow down or otherwise manipulate the light as it passed through the invis'd subject, creating a 'blur' effect that would be more noticable the higher the volume and the faster the relative movement of the subject in relation to its observers.

A perfect bend means that the light needs to pass over the subject and then continue, as you said, in its original direction and angle. This means that light that was striking an object that is in contact with another object would not be able to 'bend' properly; say, for instance, you target an area with this spell and 'bend' the light away from a wall. The spell would have to transport the light through the wall somehow- something much different than simply bending it- because otherwise the light would reach the barrier of the solid object around the edges of its area and fail, essentially meaning the object is still visible (at least around the edges. It would be a strange visual effect, probably looking something like an increasing compression of the surface towards the edge with a significant stretch towards the center, and a single point of actually 'invisible' wall at the center of the area). The same might be expected of a target that is in contact with the ground- since the top of the subject is 'bending' light directly downwards, all of it would be moving towards the ground and simply be unable to go anywhere when it hit the barrier.

I'm not really trying to revive this discussion- I'm addressing a few points for clarity. Just got back from Canadia, hense the delay in replies.
SirKodiak
QUOTE
Regarding transparencies and bends- if the fully transparent creature is still able to see, the light must be 'captured' somehow for a brief period in order to register. So the spell would have to slow down or otherwise manipulate the light as it passed through the invis'd subject, creating a 'blur' effect that would be more noticable the higher the volume and the faster the relative movement of the subject in relation to its observers.


Why can't the spell just duplicate all the light that would hit the subject's eyes, and send one copy to the eyes, and send the other through the subject or around the subject or whatever? Wouldn't that be simpler?

QUOTE
A perfect bend means that the light needs to pass over the subject and then continue, as you said, in its original direction and angle. This means that light that was striking an object that is in contact with another object would not be able to 'bend' properly; say, for instance, you target an area with this spell and 'bend' the light away from a wall.


Between any two touching objects, there is still considerable space. If you want the light to pass through an object, just decouple the photons from the four fundamental forces while doing so. The magic obviously has control of these, anyways, if it's going to be sending the light around on funny paths.
noneuklid
In the first case, that would render the subject visible (or at least whatever the spell decided its eyes were). Having two distinct effects like that (transmutation AND creating new energy) is probably outside the scope a single spell, as well. But I hadn't thought of that before now, and it's a good idea- probably as a seperate spell, though, and it might not make things visible if it is a mana spell only. Wouldn't help people with cybereyes, but they could use thermo.

In the second, that turns a strange spell into a completely bizzare one. I'd thought of something similar... but it still amounts to teleporting the light, as a subatomic object doesn't work the same way as larger discrete particle. Magic seems to modify or skirt around physics, not wildly ignore them in quite the same way (mana sems to be considered a type of energy for the Laws of Conservation, for instance).
Cochise
QUOTE (noneuklid)
And the FM (specifically, page 55 of MitS) says, "Indirect illusions are cast on a subject person or area.  Anyone who views that person or area is a target of the spell."  (emphasis mine)

*bleh* Semantics at places where they don't help in any way. ... Guess why I initially used single quotation marks ...
Yes, the text explicitly says that spells are cast "on a person". Now make use of your english skills (I presume that you are a native speakker unlike me) and tell me whether or not it is possible to use 'against' instead of 'on' in that sentence without harm to meaning to the sentence ...
The 'picture' being that you cast that spell 'against' the person and the effect working 'against' observers ...

QUOTE
The camera- and any other observers- get to resist indirect illusions with Intelligence (p195, SR3.  Creating the spell requires a roll against a target number of 4 to successfully cast at all.  All the targets- the observers, per MitS- get to make resistance rolls.)


No they don't wink.gif
Care to quote where it says that all observers get to make a resistance roll?
As per p. 55 MitS, observers do become 'targets'. Thus the resistance test made by observers is a normal spell resistance test. Now the restriction for spell resistance tests is: Non-living objects do not make an resistance test ...
Then of course there's the fact that a camera doesn't have ...

QUOTE
Since cameras and other inanimate objects do not typically have an intelligence stat, I was simply commenting that I'm not sure what, if anything, the camera would be using for this resistance test


... an intelligence at all ...

QUOTE
If the spell is leaving it up to the person's brain, it is not magic that creates the image- it's imagination.


No, in this context it is still the spell that makes the brain fill in the blanks ...
However, this wasn't the sole explaination ...

QUOTE
If it IS magic that creates the mental image, then there's no particular reason to believe that it isn't filling in all the blanks.


Yes and no ... There is no reason not to believe that the spell is able to fill all blanks, but there are still some issues with what it puts there.

QUOTE
As far as optical illusions go, there's a bit of difference between a straight line that looks curved and a troll with an axe that looks like nothing.


*D'oh* ... I guess that's why it's a mere comparison and I guess that's why I stated that magic is much better than any real world optical illusion ...
You even bothered to quote that part of my statement ~sigh~

QUOTE
Again, if the magic is creating the mental image, it's not being created by imagination, and there's no reason to believe that the magic isn't giving an image of what's actually there as opposed to what the target wants to believe is there.


There's still the question where it would take that information from wink.gif

QUOTE
That's making the spell jump through extra hoops, uneccissarily complicating its function.


No, it's just treating the spell as what it is: An Illusion => False information.

QUOTE
In fact, if it WAS giving the target a feedback on their own imagination, a character with higher Intelligence would most likely be able to dream up a better fake than one with a low intelligence- the power of the brain would work against him/her/it.


It's just that intelligence as such doesn't have anything to do with the described effect.

QUOTE
Regarding transparencies and bends- if the fully transparent creature is still able to see, the light must be 'captured' somehow for a brief period in order to register.


Yes and no. Light is not captured there, it's absorbed *we'll come back to that later*

QUOTE
So the spell would have to slow down or otherwise manipulate the light as it passed through the invis'd subject, creating a 'blur' effect that would be more noticable the higher the volume and the faster the relative movement of the subject in relation to its observers.


Wrong.

1. There wouldn't be a blurr due to movement, since optical perception with your eyes means absorption of photons => The light would be less intense / bright in angles that are affected by absorption. Those spots would be rather small however, since the human eye lense and retina only consume a rather small amount of light in comparison to what the rest of the body reflects and aborbs. That absorbed and reflected light would then go through the body without being affected at all. It's rather doubtful that a human observer would actually be able to notice those spots where the light intensity drops ...

2. Again the magic factor: Manipulation spells can also create any form of energy / material including light. So all the spell has to do is to alter the fabric of the body to being "transparant" and then magically compensating for the absorbed amount of light that is still required by the spell subject to be able to see.


QUOTE
A perfect bend means that the light needs to pass over the subject and then continue, as you said, in its original direction and angle.  This means that light that was striking an object that is in contact with another object would not be able to 'bend' properly; say, for instance, you target an area with this spell and 'bend' the light away from a wall. The spell would have to transport the light through the wall somehow- something much different than simply bending it- because otherwise the light would reach the barrier of the solid object around the edges of its area and fail, essentially meaning the object is still visible (at least around the edges.  It would be a strange visual effect, probably looking something like an increasing compression of the surface towards the edge with a significant stretch towards the center, and a single point of actually 'invisible' wall at the center of the area).  The same might be expected of a target that is in contact with the ground- since the top of the subject is 'bending' light directly downwards, all of it would be moving towards the ground and simply be unable to go anywhere when it hit the barrier.


I've got the feeling that you're making it overcomplicated at this point ...

1. We're still talking of 'bends' on a nanometer scale => an object in contact with our invisible object won't usually make such 'tight' fits

2. If something is actually in such a contact with the object that we want to make invisible, the usual SR-problem of "part of the target / no part of the target" arises => It might be possible that you can't make those two "objects" invisible independantly ...

3. Again the magic factor: Although manipulation spells are closest to what we'd comprehend as physical phenomena, they are still magical in nature and thus defy the laws of physics. But you're still trying to explain them with your physical knowledge. That's pretty much a waste of time ...
hyzmarca
The real problem of rendering a subject magicly transparent is the detrimental effects of high energy particles on DNA. Sure, you could make a person as transparent to light he is to gamma rays. We are mostly transparent to gamma rays they still cause radiation poisioning in large doses and cancer in smaller doses. UV light causes skin cancer. It only cause skin cancer because the skin absorbs it. A mage using a transparency spell would eventually have to face the problem of massive full-body tumors.
Gilthanis
Bare with me because the 3rd Edition book I have at disposal right now is one of the original printings, so if newer printings are different, don't rape me. According to the Last paragraph in the Improved Invisibility description says "Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility affects technological sensors as well.


To me this is pretty evident that it is not making any "real" image at all. It is just manipulating ones mind and manipulating sensors to "think" they saw something. So, the bending of light never really happens. Where does it say a physical change actually happens other than it being listed as a physical spell.

As I have mentioned before....it ONLY has physical properties to affect sensors that don't willlfully resist anything. I am a big supporter of using OR though because it gives a mage with an insane sorcery and magic pool and foci to get a spell greater than Force 1. (please don't be stupid and start up the eternal argument AGAIN!!!! about how higher forces have benefits because of dispelling.) I think OR helps limit cheasing spell points at character creation otherwise every mage should at least have this spell at force 1 even if it weren't their specialty. (unless of course it was a role playing thing)
SirKodiak
QUOTE
UV light causes skin cancer. It only cause skin cancer because the skin absorbs it. A mage using a transparency spell would eventually have to face the problem of massive full-body tumors.


If the transparenct spell makes you invisible to UV, then they will pass through you harmlessly. If it leaves you opaque to UV, then they will still be absorbed by the skin. In either case, there will be no increase in the incidence of cancer in mages.
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