Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Invisibility: Real Ultimate Power
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
noneuklid
Is it just me, or is Invisibility the most powerful spell in a mage's arsenal?

I mean, magic is limited by line-of-sight. So people put all kinds of things between them and mages; tinted windows, walls, other people...

*poof* I can see you!
*poof* Manabolt! (and that's if you're feeling uncreative)
Kanada Ten
Depends on the game I suppose. Control Thoughts and Influence are pretty powerful too and not nearly as easy to counter (not resist, counter).
Sandoval Smith
Invisibility doesn't help you get through any of that stuff, and if your opposition is also awakened, things are not going to be so easy.
noneuklid
Huh?

No, you don't make YOURSELF invisible, you make the WALL invisible. LOS.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (noneuklid @ Jan 3 2005, 08:46 PM)
No, you don't make YOURSELF invisible, you make the WALL invisible.  LOS.

<sigh> I'm not about to have this argument again, but I will simply state magic cannot alter LOS for the purposes of casting spells, period.
Hitomi
Yeah, casting invis on a wall to get LOS on a target doesnt work.
noneuklid
Funny, I thought blowing a wall away with a Toxic Wave spell would pretty well clear a path.

If a tinted window can block LOS, then anything that un-tints the window will un-block LOS.
Herald of Verjigorm
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
QUOTE (noneuklid @ Jan 3 2005, 08:46 PM)
No, you don't make YOURSELF invisible, you make the WALL invisible. LOS.

<sigh> I'm not about to have this argument again, but I will simply state magic cannot alter LOS for the purposes of casting spells, period.

Yes, I prefer to give LoS to the guy with the really big gun so he doesn't whine about the L wound he got from a fair fight.
toturi
No... the wall is still blocking LOS. We've already debated this until the cows came home last year.

If your enemy want to target the wall, he get a +TN but you still can't see through the wall. It still blocks LOS. You think it is invisible and you can make the camera think the wall is invisible, but both you and the camera only "see" what you think you/it will see, where you/it will see certain things. It is not LOS.
Coil
Definitely not the ultimate power by any means, but of course there is a reason for there being that classic little motto....KILL THE MAGE FIRST.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (noneuklid)
If a tinted window can block LOS, then anything that un-tints the window will un-block LOS.

Funny, I don't recall Invisibility affecting the subject material - rather it creates a false image in the mind of the viewer (aka the target).
noneuklid
The effect of an Improved Invisiblity spell suggests that it is actually causing visible-spectrum light to pass through the affected object. The only thing that blocks LOS from a tinted window is light failing to pass through it on the visible spectrum. One effect cancels the other.

QUOTE
Funny, I don't recall Invisibility affecting the subject material - rather it creates a false image in the mind of the viewer (aka the target).


If it was a totally subjective illusion, you'd only see what you expected to see- and most people don't have a good enough imagination to create a high-res image of what *should* be on the other side of a target. Cameras, having no imagination whatsoever, would show a blank shadow where the invisible being was (thus rendering the spell totally useless)
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (noneuklid @ Jan 3 2005, 08:56 PM)
The effect of an Improved Invisiblity spell suggests that it is actually causing visible-spectrum light to pass through the affected object.  The only thing that blocks LOS from a tinted window is light failing to pass through it on the visible spectrum.  One effect cancels the other.

Please, if you think we're all so dumb as to not know what we're talking about, point out where it says indirect illusion spells "causing visible-spectrum light to pass through the affected object"? Pretty please? Especially since an indirect illusion is cast on a subject (the wall) and is resisted by the targets (viewers) whom it affects with FALSE (mana) or CREATED (physical) SENSORY DATA. Or you could just use the search engine.
Coil
Edit: Already stated above.
mfb
even if your GM allows invisiblity to offer LOS, i tend to think that the high level of difficulty involved in casting it on walls is enough of a balancing factor.

and, as others have alluded to, this discussion has been done many, many times before. i'd recommend doing a search for "invisiblilty" in the forums, and seeing if others haven't already shot down the arguments you're thinking of presenting.
noneuklid
Sorry, the (P) invis, Improved Invis.

I actually did a search result- Invisibility turns up nine pages of results, but Invisiblity Line of Sight and Invisiblity LOS turn up nothing.
Kanada Ten
That argument was on the old forum; it's the subject / target issue that disproves your point about what Improved Invisibility affects.

Toxic Wave doesn't alter LOS: it alters the wall.

Imp Invisibility doesn't alter the wall: it creates actual sensory data (stated in MitS) which proves (created) it's not the same light.

* I need to go take my chill pill now. Must learn to stay out of Invisibility topics.
noneuklid
I'm sort of coming up against a split here. If the Improved Invis spell renders something transparent, then it allows a mage to cast a spell through the object because "Transparent obstructions, such as glass, have no effect on most spells (see below). Because it is transparent, the spellcaster can see the target and affect it." (p182 SR3). However, if what you're saying is accurate and the spell creates new sensory data where the old object was, then you can only target the illusion. This is a problem.

If you have a window that has been replaced by a created illusion of Joe Average on the other side of it, the illusion itself is a valid target for magic (it is a physical thing (that is, opposed to being an astral thing) he can see unaided). In other words, the window USED to look like a window, and now it is a flat plane that happens to look like Joe Average and kitchen. But it's still a physical thing the caster can see- so if he were to go cast Powerbolt at the illusionary Joe Average, the spell's target would actually be the window that has been covered by illusionary real sensory data. Boom goes the window, and the magician curses and casts through the now-open space.

One tiny problem. If this is the case, anything that's been masked by an illusion works the same way. Which means... any invisible target can be targeted normally if you know its location, because you just attempt to target 'through' it with a Physical spell.
mfb
that's just it. improved invis does not turn anything transparent. it only affects the viewers of any object that has been subject to the spell. read the description:
QUOTE (SR3 page 195)
Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved Invisibility affects technological sensors as well.

that's a strong indicator, to me, that imp invis does not make anything transparent. as for the astral thing, spells don't affect astral visibility. astral sight is not physical sight; it is one of the "other senses" that the spell description speaks of.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (noneuklid)
However, if what you're saying is accurate and the spell creates new sensory data where the old object was, then you can only target the illusion. This is a problem.

I my opinion the spell automatically fails if it is a combat spell or similar that is cast on a target or subject. Spells that are cast at something (elemental manipulations only) would hit the wall and perhaps break through.
toturi
mfb is exactly right. It is an illusion, just like when you cross your fingers and touch them to your nose, you get the illusion of having 2 noses.

When someone gets hit by an Invisibility spell, he thinks he is seeing something. When some sensor gets hit by an Imp Invisibilty, it thinks it is seeing something.

When you cast a spell at an illusion, you are casting it at the image you have in your mind. There is nothing physically there.
noneuklid
Cameras don't have minds. If there isn't anything there, it won't record anything- or it won't not record something that IS there, as the case may be. Physical spells create or modify physical data.

"Physical spells affect the physical properties of a target." (p178, SR3)
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (noneuklid)
"Physical spells affect the physical properties of a target." (p178, SR3)

And the target of Improved Invisibility is the camera (or other viewer).

MitS page 55 "Indirect Iullsions are cast on a subject person or area. Anyone who views that person or area is a target of the spell."

And somewhere in SR3 it says "Physical Indirect Illusions create actual physical data."
Gilthanis
QUOTE (noneuklid @ Jan 3 2005, 09:30 PM)
I'm sort of coming up against a split here.  If the Improved Invis spell renders something transparent, then it allows a mage to cast a spell through the object because "Transparent obstructions, such as glass, have no effect on most spells (see below).  Because it is transparent, the spellcaster can see the target and affect it."  (p182 SR3).  However, if what you're saying is accurate and the spell creates new sensory data where the old object was, then you can only target the illusion.  This is a problem. 

If you have a window that has been replaced by a created illusion of Joe Average on the other side of it, the illusion itself is a valid target for magic (it is a physical thing (that is, opposed to being an astral thing) he can see unaided).  In other words, the window USED to look like a window, and now it is a flat plane that happens to look like Joe Average and kitchen.  But it's still a physical thing the caster can see- so if he were to go cast Powerbolt at the illusionary Joe Average, the spell's target would actually be the window that has been covered by illusionary real sensory data.  Boom goes the window, and the magician curses and casts through the now-open space.

One tiny problem.  If this is the case, anything that's been masked by an illusion works the same way.  Which means... any invisible target can be targeted normally if you know its location, because you just attempt to target 'through' it with a Physical spell.

Powerbolt would not target the wall, but the image in the perceivers mind which would fail, but on the otherhand, powerball would most definitely hit the window. Improved invisibility only has the physical status for purposes of affecting electronic devices which doesn't mean something solidifies as a "physical" target out of thin air. (just a hologram sort of speak) So, a physical spell could only distort the light itself. So, IF your GM lets you blast physical light (which in my opinion would be really stupid because everything would basically be one big target) then the image would just reproduce because you didn't necessarilly disrupt the spell in the proper manner....just the current image. The only spell that ever gave you that line of sight was the x-ray spell that didn't make it to 3rd Edition.
noneuklid
What I'm saying is, if it's not passing light through, the (P) Invis spell is changing the property of the light around the affected area- which means that what once looked like a window now looks like Joe and his kitchen, but is still a window. Since you target what you see, and what you see is the window-that-looks-like-Joe, your powerbolt would smash the window.

QUOTE
Improved invisibility only has the physical status for purposes of affecting electronic devices which doesn't mean something solidifies as a "physical" target out of thin air. (just a hologram sort of speak) So, a physical spell could only distort the light itself.


All that you see is a hologram in the same fashion. That argument would lead to the conclusion that if you have a window that happens to look like a window, you can't hit it with a (P) spell because all you're targeting is the visible image of the window rather than 'the window itself'.
toturi
No, you are targeting what looks like Joe, but is not. Therefore when your powerbolt gets there, it gets an invalid target and fizzles but of course, you still gets the drain.
Gilthanis
And don't forget that if you are casting a spell...most good mages would check it out in the astral first anyways. If they saw an illusion on top of it, then they would know to eliminate the illusion first or try an alternate path. (and before I'm struck down with the infinite possibilities people always try to bring up to counter a simple statement I'm aware that destroying the illusion tips off the mage....that is why I say use an alternate path)
noneuklid
QUOTE
No, you are targeting what looks like Joe, but is not.


I'm unclear on this. Why does it matter if the window is pink, purple, or Joe-coloured?

QUOTE
And don't forget that if you are casting a spell...most good mages would check it out in the astral first anyways.


Irrelevant; what I'm saying is that if Invis doesn't pass light, then the illusion-masked object is still targetable (so you can target a spell against an invisible opponent because invis is simply adjusting the way it looks).
grendel
If improved invisibility bends light around an object to make it invisible, what allows an invisible person to see?

If improved invisibility turns the targeted object transparent, allowing light through, what allows an invisible person to see?

If improved invisibility affects the physical property of an object, why isn't its target number based on object resistance like other transformation manipulations?

Kanada Ten
QUOTE
Irrelevant; what I'm saying is that if Invis doesn't pass light, then the illusion-masked object is still targetable (so you can target a spell against an invisible opponent because invis is simply adjusting the way it looks).

And if you resist the spell you can certainly do that. If you fail to resist the spell then you can't becasue don't have LOS in your mind. You fail to make the spell properly because you don't see the truth.
noneuklid
If Invis bends light away from something in order to make it invisible, it's probably implausible; you couldn't, for instance, have the running example of the invisible tinted window because the window is set into a larger structure and 'bent' light wouldn't penetrate the rest of the object.

If it causes the object to be transparent, it's still plausible for light to register on an imposed object. Firing a laser through a sensor will trip the sensor, even if it's not something that halts the laser.

If we're dealing with target numbers, we're already in a realm of potential confusion. I'd say that since it's modifying the light being absorbed/reflected by the target object, it is functioning exactly like other transformational manipulations- for instance, ice sheet, which coats an object with ice and operates at a target number 4, not a target number dependant on the object's construction.
toturi
Improved Invisibilty creates sensory input. The game description does not say what form that sensory input takes. Therefore for any affected device or person that is affected, the input can be altered electrical signals that are erronously interpreted by a chip or the human brain. For all you know, the actual sensory input, the fake Joe, could originate not from the object that is cast upon but starting from your eyes, where upon you casting the powerbolt, you will take the damage from your own powerbolt.
Gilthanis
QUOTE (noneuklid)


If we're dealing with target numbers, we're already in a realm of potential confusion. I'd say that since it's modifying the light being absorbed/reflected by the target object, it is functioning exactly like other transformational manipulations- for instance, ice sheet, which coats an object with ice and operates at a target number 4, not a target number dependant on the object's construction.

I would totally disagree on that last statement. It in no way actually physically manipulates the object being "turned invisible". The object had no change whatsoever. Only your perception of it. That is why it is an ILLUSION SPELL!! Again, the problem just boils down to giving a classification of Physical instead of mana in order to make it fool cameras. Nowhere does it say it bends light. Period. Assuming so is dumb if you are using that as a factual stance. If you want a home ruling to FURTHER DEFINE the spell...then you are more than welcome to do so. This very topic HAS been argued many of times and yes you will need to search deeper than just the title of the thread to hear them all. It doesn't actually say whether a true light sorce is created or if it is just imagination on the passerby being distorted. But for cameras sake it would just be EASIER (not to be mistaken as Canon) to assume floating illusion-like hologram or maybe just constant mana tricking everything in its radius whether man or machine.
However you want to imagine it, it works just like all the other illusions when it comes to targeting.

A trid phantasm spell making a fake troll walk by a building does not let a manabolt kill the next closest (mana) target just because of a stray bullet.
noneuklid
QUOTE
the actual sensory input, the fake Joe, could originate not from the object that is cast upon but starting from your eyes, where upon you casting the powerbolt, you will take the damage from your own powerbolt.


Hmm. This is quite possible (although it would be pretty impressive; the illusion would have to basically locate and modify every individual source of perception rather than simply affect its location).

Remind me to learn how to link Mask to Control Emotions.



QUOTE
...Only your perception of it. That is why it is an ILLUSION SPELL!! Again, the problem just boils down to giving a classification of Physical instead of mana in order to make it fool cameras. Nowhere does it say it bends light. Period. Assuming so is dumb if you are using that as a factual stance.


QUOTE
PHYSICAL spells affect the physical properties of a target.


(p 178, SR3)

Of course, as Kanada Ten (I believe) has pointed out, MitS says that Indirect Illusion spells have observers as a target (somewhere around, what was it, p53?). Which means the cameras (and the eyes of percievers) are being physically manipulated in order to register something else. This raises some interesting 'tree falls in the forest' questions; what counts as an observer? Anything that will have the modified light reflecting off of it? If not, how does the spell identify a camera or other sensor? etc.

This is what's leading to spinny little circles in my head- if the observer is what's being changed, but for a physical spell, the observer can be anything that the invis'd object's reflected light would be bouncing off of, what, exactly, is the spell doing? Changing the properties of the object that's being invis'd, or actually seeking out and editing every single possible observer (and see above to understand how wide-reaching that is)? And even IF the latter, what's the difference between that and modifying the light as it leaves the subject (not to be confused with target)?

QUOTE
But for cameras sake it would just be EASIER (not to be mistaken as Canon) to assume floating illusion-like hologram or maybe just constant mana tricking everything in its radius whether man or machine.
However you want to imagine it, it works just like all the other illusions when it comes to targeting.

A trid phantasm spell making a fake troll walk by a building does not let a manabolt kill the next closest (mana) target just because of a stray bullet.


No- phantasm isn't the same as Mask or Invis, which edit an existing subject. Phantasm and Trid Phantasm create previously nonexistant constructs out of mana, or work to edit every observer to convince them that such a construct is there. If I was to rule the effects of a manabolt cast against such a target, I (who subscribes to the 'floating hologram' theory) would rule that the manabolt is attacking a magical construct. But if it's not a created thing, then the manabolt simply has nowhere to go (barring some complex magical hacking rules whereby the spell functions like a utility, attempts to target the troll, discovers it's not there, whaps its sorcerer upside the head, and she is able to ferret out from this "spell x exists in location y and is being put there by source z" with the proper meta/magic)
BitBasher
Plus, the spell cannot physically bend light because it can be resisted. For some people the subject of the spell is still wholly visible. Only for some people is it not.

It's not an absolute effect, is a set of false sensory input that may or may not take effect on the person viewing it.

also, BBBpg 181 lower right corner states that no spell which alters vision may enhance LOS for spellcasting. Remember the people viewing the spell are the targets of the spell, therefore this rules out using invis (or any other spell that affects vision) to enhance LOS.
mfb
it's not that impressive. magic works on line-of-sight, right? that means that seeing something creates a path of some sort that allows mana to flow between the viewer and the object being viewed. if a person looks at the subject of an invisibility spell, he opens a path between himself and the spell; the spell follows the path provided, and hits the viewer.
Jonah
Invisibility = Illusion

Illusion: n. Deception, delusion; sence-perception of an external object involving a false beleif as to its nature; missaprehension of true state of affairs.

ie. It is a false image, a deception; there for NOT an actual image of the target. It would be like a wall coated in retherium...it would look invisible but it would still be there.
Cannot cast a spell through a Trid set or security monitor...
Cannot cast a spell through an illusionary invisible wall...

Still invisible walls can be alot of fun...
Bad guy doing a bad mime...
Crushing walls that the party cannot see untill its almost to late...
"Take a short cut down this ally, your motorbike should fit..."
noneuklid
QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 4 2005, 03:22 AM)
it's not that impressive. magic works on line-of-sight, right? that means that seeing something creates a path of some sort that allows mana to flow between the viewer and the object being viewed. if a person looks at the subject of an invisibility spell, he opens a path between himself and the spell; the spell follows the path provided, and hits the viewer.


This is probably the sanest answer I've heard yet, but it still leaves the question of physical illusions and the physical properties of light up in the air. If the light being reflected (or not reflected) off of something isn't changed, how does the spell modify all physical observers?
BitBasher
Becasue it's magic. It doesnt have to follow standard physical laws.
Gilthanis
Well...considering there is NO full description of magic and mana to every scenario possible. I would say that the reason is you are supposed to just have fun with it not scientifically explain it. But once again, magic in SR3 floats through all of us and arround us. I don't think it has much problem interacting with people when in the area effect of the spell.
mfb
what bitbasher said, essentially. the light is still hitting the eyes or cameras, but the eyes/cameras aren't registering them. beyond that, science dares not tread. it just is.
noneuklid
But it's the secondary effects that are the most fun!
toturi
Ahhh.... but there are no secondary effects. Except for Elemental Manipulation spells.
noneuklid
Most spells have at least a few secondary effects, contingent on setting- you can subvert pretty much anything away from its intended purpose. Isn't that one of the first laws of the shadows?
toturi
No, your GM may rule a certain effect a certain way, but in a "sanctioned" game, there are rules and there are rules. Subverting something away from its intended purpose is IC, not OOC. Or your GM could subvert the "GM is god" rule such that your PC dies the minute he steps out of his doss, a victim of a drive by bovine orbital bombardment.
noneuklid
So you'd say casting a high-Force Frost spell wouldn't freeze water solid enough to walk on, for instance?
toturi
QUOTE (noneuklid @ Jan 4 2005, 05:42 PM)
So you'd say casting a high-Force Frost spell wouldn't freeze water solid enough to walk on, for instance?

That is expressedly stated in MitS that Elemental Manips have such secondary effects. It is Canon, I'd have no problems with that.

What you are trying to do with Imp Invis isn't Canon and I take issue with that.
noneuklid
Frost isn't an elemental manipulation. rotate.gif
Cochise
The usual 0.02 from me:

1. The Illusion Spell category explicitly creates false images, sounds, etc. Those images, etc. are either created within the observer's mind or as "actual sensory input" for the observer, thus making the senory system (e.g. eyes) "believe" something that could be normally observed actually isn't true. The latter is necessary to also affect technological devices, because they have no mind to affect.

2. "Invisibility" is such an Illusion => It creates the impression of "Yo don't see me". As a consequence it won't actually make a person transparent in any shape or form. Not even in it's physical version.

3. Indirect Illusions are cast on persons or over areas. Interestingly enough the Invisibilty Spell does not have the area modifier => it cannot be cast over areas.
This also means that you can't cast that spell against walls (area) or single objects (since in the single target area only persons are valid spell targets) ... with the somewhat strange side effect, that objects worn and carried by a person can become "invisible" while they cannot be targeted individually. For the sake of the argument let's just assume that a magician knows an area effect version that creates the impression of an invisible (or better "non-existant") wall ...

=> By no means such an Illusion will grant LOS on any target behind that wall.

Sidenote: It's even heavily debatable if a dwarf behind a troll who is currently under an invisiblity spell can be seen by an observer who is on opposite side of the troll.
Nion
What if you have Imp. Invis. cast on you and look in the mirror? Would the mirror be the target of the spell, or would you be the target?
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