Question 2: Does the shock damage from Stun Gloves stage upwards in addition to the actual melee damage from the attack [which would stage normally]? If so, what mechanic is used to stage both?

Question 3: When using an attack program in the Matrix, there is some confusion because of the specific wording in the books. Does the Decker use his Computer Skill for the attack [just like he would with any other test], or is it the Rating of the Attack Program itself that is used?

Question 4: Is Dermal Sheathing obvious or not? No Concealability rating is listed, but it is described as being more subtle than Dermal Plating, which does have a Concealability rating.

(*Note: I could not find them either after looking again, but I am sure they must be listed somewhere, as this has been mentioned by others here as well. )

Question 5: The big one [in my opinion]! Does the Force of Improved Invisibility [or any other Indirect Illusion] have to equal or exceed the OR/2 of any technology such as cameras to be effective. This restriction is not listed in the spell description, but it is included in the Sorcery section. The official Shadowrun Missions Campaign [co-coordinated by Rich Osterhout] is ruling that the Force is unimportant in this regard, and only the number of successes comes into play [which is immaterial to non-living objects].

Hello naked mages. (And yes, I am suppressing a rant.)

Especially when you read the description for Mask, which is almost identical to Invisibility - except it says "against" in place of "affects". <deep breaths>

No offense at all, but it really shows you're new to Dumpshock. We don't let the FAQ come between us and argument. Errata? Yes. FAQ? No.

Which is why I finally decided to send the question(s) off now instead of waiting for more.

None of these answers surprise me, as they are consistent with how I have always run things in my games, with the exception of Enhanced Aim.

And not even that with any reliability. Witness the Called Shot Vs Armor argument/flamefest.

Yeah, that's what I said... It doesn't matter that I've been saying it applies to one or the other since first posting the F=OR/2 in relation to Indirection Illusions. The FAQ can be both relevant and wrong, but it would be better if they quoted rules to support their case...

not only is it repetive repetitive, it doesn't actually come out and tell you in clear terms what you're supposed to roll. the way it's being read for the FAQ is that you make a test using the offensive program for an attack the same way you'd make a test using your firearm.

i'm not saying that's the most obvious interpretation. but it is one possible interpretation, and it's the one that provides a sweet, soothing balm of sanity for my mind.

(examples below imply Imp. Invis.)
woah, first off - you can't cast Invis. on a tree limb or a computer - Invis. spells can be cast on a person or an area of effect, not directly on an object, therefore, no OR test is necessary for the tree limb, you just cast it on the area that the tree limb is in. The tree limb is NOT the subject of the spell - you cast an Area of Effect, and the target number is 4, with no threshold.

likewise, when you are casting the spell on a person or AoE, you're not casting the spell on the camera itself, you're casting on the person or AoE only, and the camera is treated as the viewer.

maybe i'm just having trouble getting my point across...but your examples above have nothing to do with the problem of whether to use OR or the rating of the camera or sensor to detect invis.

oh, and i'm the Campaign Director - not co-coordinator...I report directly to Rob/FanPro - i have no co-coordinator...

furthermore, it's the viewers of an indirect illusion spell that make the spell resistance test; and according to SR3 pg 183, that makes the viewers of the illusion the targets of the spell:

if a camera is viewing the subject of an invisibility spell, it is a target of that spell. and for a spell to affect an inanimate target, the force must be greater than half of the target's OR.

OK, i think i see the cause of the confusion...remember that the paragraph that talks about inanimate objects and using the OR Test on page 182 is errata'd...there is a sentence missing which adds the above quote's requirements, that the Force of the spell must be greater than OR/2 to even affect the object. this same paragraph, however, also says the TN is the OR.

Well, since the TN for the spell is predefined, does that rule out the second part of that paragraph, that the Force must exceed OR/2?? NO!

if this is what people meant in the original discussion, then i misunderstood, because i thought they were saying the TN to affect the camera was its OR, and the rating of the camera played no part...

so, in summary, i propose the following example:

Joe Runner is about to make a run against MeanieCorp. MeanieCorp has just installed a new security system, complete with cameras (Rating 5). These are just standard optical video cameras, based on today's tech level, so we'll call their Object Resistance an 8. Joe decides he wishes to cast an Improved Invisibility spell on himself to try and sneak past the cameras. First, he must cast the spell at Force 4 (or higher) to even attempt to trick the cameras - he decides Force 4 is enough. He will roll his Sorcery (let's say 6) and Spell Pool dice (let's say he uses 3) and must achieve a Target Number of 4. Joe's attempt at casting the spell is 2,2,3,3,4,5,5,7, and 8, thus giving him 5 successes.

Outcome 1: Joe wins
The camera (the observer)now resists the spell, using 5 dice and rolls 2,3,4,4, and 5, giving the camera 3 successes. OK, Joe has 3 Net Successes, and therefore the spell works and the camera does not notice Joe.

Outcome 2: Camera wins
The camera (the observer)now resists the spell (TN is the Force of the spell), using 5 dice and rolls 4,4,5,5, and 8, giving the camera 5 successes. OK, Joe has 0 Net Successes, and therefore although he cast the spell, and he hopes it is working, the camera does "see" him and Joe will have some surprises waiting around the next corner...


Now, if this is correct, it begs some questions:

1. First, are there any Device Rating for cameras, unless you want to muddy the argument by calling them sensors (see below). It does mention that cameras can have various accessories and modes, such as low-light, thermo, etc, but these don't change the rating of the camera. All of the cameras in the basic book seem to have no Device Rating, although some may reason that it is implied (as do I). A higher rating would mean that the camera has better quality optics or CCD chip, options such as low-light and thermo, etc.

2. I'm assuming that no one is watching the camera in the above example. Therefore, just because the spell fails, does not mean anyone sees what the camera sees - it just does its job - if Bob the guard is asleep at his post, then he's not going to see Joe on the monitor that shows the camera's angle of view. if the picture is being recorded, then if someone reviews the recording later, they will of course see Joe crossing in front of the camera. Right??

3. OK, now what if instead of just a camera, we're talking about an active guard watching a monitor that is displaying that camera. If he is awake and only watching the one camera, who is actually doing the perceiving of Joe?? If the camera does not "see" Joe, then the guard doesn't either, right? Does the guard automatically see him if the camera does?? I say yes to both.

4. OK, now there is a guard watching a bank of 4 monitors that each monitor about six cameras. For this, I would first see if the camera "sees" Joe through the spell, and then give the guard a Perception test to see if he catches it on the monitors, right??

5. The micro-camcorder says that it can be programmed to record upon recognizing movement, so i postulate that there is some kind of programming involved for image recognition to determine a change in the picture. If you're using such a program, or if the camera feed is being processed by some sort of security program or even smart frame, how does this affect the scenario (other than you should obviously increase the Obj Resist of the camera to 10 or above, based on its technology - is this all that needs to be done?? What about the rating of the program/frame - how is it resolved, extra dice for the camera's resistance test??)

6. OK, now what about those that would treat the camera as a Sensor, or just say that Joe is encountering Sensors. Since they are (in the above example) Rating 5 sensors, whether or not a guard is watching is immaterial, as you make an Active Sensor Test against the Signature of the target (for a standard meta, a 6). Or do you continue to use the Rating to resist the spell. Or do you do like in the guard example above, where you resist the spell first, then see if you can pick up the Signature - that hardly seems "fair"...

This is where I begin to have my problem. Sensors are somewhat "intelligent". But with the Improved Invisibility spell, it has a flat TN of 4, regardless of the Rating of the Sensors, and the Force of the spell required doesn't change either, without GM option - it just falls under "10 or above". So, Joe can go into a Stuffer Shack with a Force 5 spell and a TN of 4, and succeed almost every time, as the Shack would probably only have Level 1 Sensors (1 die to resist), and must get not only a 5, but then has to get a 6 to detect the Signature (yeah yeah, based on Perception mods, it might be lower - or higher!). Joe can then go into an Ares facility that has Security grade sensors (say, Rating 6) and cast the spell with the same parameters, with the only difference being that the sensors now have 6 dice to resist the spell (compared to Joe's 9) and then turn around and make a Signature test against a TN of 6. Odds definitely favor Joe or any spellslinger as long as they have more dice to throw than the sensors, as the target number is still a 4, no matter the rating of the sensors - this is what i don't like...

However, I have some suggestions:

1. Maybe i'm misunderstanding or reading it wrong - should the camera/sensor/what have you be resisting the Force of the spell? I ask because although that is the definition as per pg 182, I'm feeling as though I could be convinced that is for Directed Illusions only. Maybe Indirect Illusions should be resisted against the same TN as the caster needed to cast, since you are "looking at a reflection" so to speak. Having cameras/sensors or even living creatures resist a TN of 4 would be VERY balancing...

2. I would propose starting sensors at a 10, and adding their level/device rating to the Object Resistance test. That would make the required spell to trick them much higher, and greatly decrease those that can do so. Imagine in the above example that now going into a Shack required a Force 5 spell (10 base + 1 sensor level, divided by 2), but going into the Ares secret facility would require a Force 8 spell (10 base + 6 sensor levels, divided by 2). What's nice about this is that it makes the mage more dependent on teamwork, as you'll want a rigger/decker/techwiz around to perform EW on the sensors in order to lower their effective rating or knock them out all together...

OK, i'm zipping up the asbestos suit now...

so, outcome 3: as long as Joe gets 1 success, and his spell was cast at force 4 or higher, Joe is not seen by the camera.

the question is whether or not Joe needs to cast it at force 4 or higher, since he's not actually casting the spell directly on the camera. i say yes, because all of the text in the book suggests that, even though Joe isn't casting a spell directly on the camera, the camera is still the target (or, rather, a target) of the spell, and inanimate spell targets have a minimum force requirement to be affected.

the alternate opinion--the one supported by the FAQ--is that the force of the spell can be 1 and still keep Joe hidden from the camera. the only support i see for this opinion is the fact that the spell isn't cast directly on the camera itself. i don't see this as being a very strong argument, since you can make the same argument for a spell like powerball. the way i see it, invisibility has an area of effect, just like powerball; and just like powerball, everyone inside that area of effect is a target of the spell. for improved invisibility, the area of effect is "everyone and everything that views the subject of the spell"; for powerball, it's "everyone and everything inside the radius of the spell".

it is implied as follows (all on pg 195)

Under the description for Illusion Spells (the category):
"Mana-based illusion spells...are ineffective against technological viewing systems like cameras. Physical illusion spells...are effective against such systems. If the observer generates equal or more successes in a Resistance Test, then the observer determines that the illusion is not real."

Under the spell itself:
"Improved Invisibility affects technological sensors as well."

the camera/sensor is the "observer" and therefore it is implied that it should make a Resistance Test using its Intelligence/Perception, which for a camera/sensor is based on its Device Rating.

if you (generic) are following the letter of the law, then it becomes a trivial matter and there is no chance at all for a camera to see something invisible that only requires ONE SUCCESS against a TN of 4 - that's just WAY to easy...and it just FEELS wrong (to me) that someone can do the same against Rating 1 cameras and Rating 10 cameras, just ONE SUCCESS against a TN of 4, and the Rating 10 camera can't do anything about it...the rating of the camera is never taken into account...

If that is the case, then I suggest making all cameras count as Sensors - whether they are in a vehicle or building should not matter...now, how do you handle the situation where a guard is watching the monitor - is that just a Passive Sensor Test, using the guards Intelligence? or does the guard get no chance at all, since the sensor is between him and the spell effect.

And yet that is canon. Any assumption of a resistance roll is a house rule ... until such time as it is errata'ed.

Probably. Don't have my book right here. If it is true, it makes perfect sense: the Sensor system of a drone, a vehicle or a building uses a number separate spotting methods, only two of which might be visible light and IR camera.

The higher the rating of the Sensors, the more likely it is that the drone/vehicle/building effectively uses the other spotting methods to realize that there really is something there even when the cameras show otherwise. Therefore, the Active Sensor Test still does not imply that the cameras are any less fooled than if they were stand-alone security cameras.

granted...

and cameras are just sensors with visual components only then...

but back to my question - if everyone is so hard and fast on the rule that a non-living thing cannot have a Resistance Test, then why do sensors???

it all comes down to one thing - the book and rules are still unclear and open to interpretation - at the least, errata needs to be put out in the magic section that talks about Resistance Tests that adds Sensors to those things that can make the test.

so now you have a technological device that can make the test - where do you draw the line??

Vehicle Mask...

I manabolt the darkness

as others have noted, sensors include non-visual means of detection. why they chose to make this a resistance test, instead of a simple sensor test against a higher TN, i don't know. it may have something to do with the fact that everything in SR that involves vision in any way also involves stark, raving madness. smartlinks, invisibility, visual magnification, spell targeting--if it's vision-related, and it's in SR, it's got deep-seated flaws.