Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New ShadowFAQ Rules Q's and A's
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Fortune
I have been collecting questions to send away to ShadowFAQ at info (at) shadowrunrpg.com. I have just received a response to these, and am posting both the answers and my questions (word-for-word) for your viewing pleasure/displeasure.

Question 1: In regards to Enhanced Aim, and other Directed Detection spells [range code D, as opposed to A]. Are these spells resisted by their targets [not subjects]? There seems to be some debate over whether it makes sense for them to be, or not.
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: Yes, while the target is alive it gets to resist. As a GM I don't allow players to bypass this rule by saying "I'm targeting his Armor".


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?
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: Stage up the melee damage normally. Do not stage up the Shock damage.


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?
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: Decker uses his Computer Skill just like for running other programs.


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.
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: Standard Dermal Sheathing is not obvious. Refresh my memory, if you would, on where these concealability ratings are in the books? Even I couldn't find them in 10 minutes...

(*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. frown.gif)

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].
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: The (Force >= OR/2) is only used when turning an Object invisible. For example, Improved Invisibility on a Computer would require Force 5 or higher, regardless of whether it will be viewed by cameras or people. Turning a Tree Limb (club) invisible only requires Force 2.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: The (Force >= OR/2) is only used when turning an Object invisible. For example, Improved Invisibility on a Computer would require Force 5 or higher, regardless of whether it will be viewed by cameras or people. Turning a Tree Limb (club) invisible only requires Force 2.

Hello naked mages. (And yes, I am suppressing a rant.)
Austere Emancipator
Maybe Dermal Plating has had a Concealability rating in an earlier edition? It doesn't in SR3, and I do not remember ever hearing about it having a Conc rating in SR3. Someone might even have confused it with Orthoskin in one of those threads.

As for Q&A #5: That's weird. I could see how the Force would not matter, since the Force vs. OR limitation is mention in a paragraph about Target Numbers, but the paragraph also makes it clear that this limitation comes into play based on what the spell is cast against. I do not see how Improved Invisibility is cast against the subject.

Meh. It's all about interpretation.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
I do not see how Improved Invisibility is cast against the subject.

Especially when you read the description for Mask, which is almost identical to Invisibility - except it says "against" in place of "affects". <deep breaths>
Jrayjoker
The "Answer" to numero 5 puts a lot of arguments to rest in the Invisible to cameras" topic.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE (Jrayjoker)
The "Answer" to numero 5 puts a lot of arguments to rest in the Invisible to cameras" topic.

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.
Fortune
QUOTE (Jrayjoker @ Jan 8 2005, 03:38 PM)
The "Answer" to numero 5 puts a lot of arguments to rest in the Invisible to cameras" topic.

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.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
Errata? Yes.

And not even that with any reliability. Witness the Called Shot Vs Armor argument/flamefest.
Jrayjoker
Yeah, I'm newish. And I don't always like seeing a dead horse flogged, but I like it here... wink.gif
Glyph
If you have Magic in the Shadows, the tables for Detection spells on pages 165 to 166 list which of them are resisted (they have ( R ) after the Target Number). It kind of boggles my mind that Night Vision is a resisted spell... so you can see in the dark, but might not be able to see everybody in the aforementioned dark. Okaaaay.


The Concealability Rating for dermal sheathing is found on the table on page 28 of Man & Machine. The confusion comes from it having a Concealability Rating of "-". If, for example, you look at the cyberskull on the same table, the synthetic one has a Concealablity of 8, while the obvious one has a Concealability of "-". So, the same "-" can mean either not concealable at all, or mean that Concealability is not applicable at all. If you agree with that answer, that is. Personally, I have a problem with a semi-synthetic skin sheath over non-bulky dermal plating (the description of dermal sheathing) being more concealable than orthoskin.
Tziluthi
Aye, usually when people are not in favour of a ruling, they fall back to the "FAQ is not canon, and therefore has no relevance." Ultimately, it is a matter of what the individual GM decides what is right for his game. Still, its nice to see the pyrotechnics.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
Aye, usually when people are not in favour of a ruling, they fall back to the "FAQ is not canon, and therefore has no relevance."

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...
Tziluthi
Meh. At the risk of sparking further argument, I would say, especially in the case where the 'canon' rules are ambigous or make no statement on the matter, that the line developer has some weight in the clarification of existing rules, or creation of new ones.
Kanada Ten
Oh, certainly. This isn't one of those cases though. In fact this actually raises more inconsistancies in the current rules than already exists.
Arethusa
Man, deja vu all oŚ yeah, you get the idea.
Kremlin KOA
Glyph just a minor niggle I am an old time player and I can say the ambiguity of Dermal Sheath is Entirely Mike Mulvihill's fault... in his desire to reduse the length of books he made the descriptions for many things shorter... dermal sheath was one as it's original description in Shadowtech had the sheath ad only being detectable as a "slight sheen in the skin under certain lighting."

oh and SHadowFAQ is doing a pretty damn good job if this reply is anything to go by... the only one I have a prob with is the enhance aim answer because of the Nightvision implications mentioned earlier

Keep up the good work ShadowFAQ, but please remember your answers don't exist in a vacuum
ShadowFaq
Thanks for the kind words. I try. Post #5
Kremlin KOA
Hey just being honest... with both the praise and criticism
DrJest
Personally I still have issues with personal detection spells like Enhance Aim and Nightvision being resisted. For one thing, when are they resisted? Every time you look at the target? Going to slow combat right down. Once per encounter? Watch the spellslinger bow out of a fight because he can't see diddly.

Realistically, most opponents aren't going to successfully oppose a decently cast spell anyway - even my phymage, with sorcery (spellcasting) 4 and allocating 4 dice from spell pool is going to average 4 successes on his Force 4 Enhance Aim, and realistically (considering he uses a sustaining focus) is going to have significantly more if only by doing a karma reroll to get a good result. The average security guard (according to SR2, since SR3 didn't have the Contacts section with so many examples in it) has a Willpower of 2 - forget it. All a resistance test is doing is slowing the game down. (Assuming Force 4 Enhance Aim because that gives you, with 4 successes, the equivalent to a smartlink).

Even a Guest Star is going to have stats comparable to the PC's. Sticking with the Force 4 Enhance Aim example, let's look at the templates for starting characters. Mercenary - Will 4. 50% successes = 2. Spell's still up. Sprawl Ganger: Will 3. Being generous and rounding up, 2 successes. Investigator: Will 5. Again rounding up, 3 successes. If you didn't exceed the basic 4 successes needed for your -2 modifier, these guys may conceivably reduce your bonus to -1, but I have to ask: is the slowdown worth it?

The only characters that have a respectable chance to resist your spell are other magical types with Willpowers of 6 and spell defence. And frankly, if they DO use spell defence against your enhance aim, your team mage should be buying you beers all night for screwing with the opposition's defence.

Just not convinced that it's worth the hassle, myself.
Kagetenshi
The inclusion of #3 in the FAQ is wholly inappropriate. Given that the text explicitly states the opposite, this is the sort of thing that goes in the errata, and into the next printing of the book, not on some web site somewhere.

~J
mfb
the book doesn't say the exact opposite. it says:

QUOTE (SR3 page 226)
To make an attack, the attacker makes a test with his offensive utility program.

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.
Fortune
I've never even seriously considered doing things any other way in my games. It's the only way that makes sense to me, and is consistent with the rest of the rules.
bitrunner
QUOTE
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].

QUOTE 
QUOTE
ShadowFAQ: The (Force >= OR/2) is only used when turning an Object invisible. For example, Improved Invisibility on a Computer would require Force 5 or higher, regardless of whether it will be viewed by cameras or people. Turning a Tree Limb (club) invisible only requires Force 2.



(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... smile.gif
mfb
he's right.
QUOTE (SR3 pg195)
They [indirect illusion spells] must be cast "around" a person, or over an area (Magic rating in meters) that is within the caster's line of sight.

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:
QUOTE (SR3 pg183)
Living targets may make a Spell Resistance Test against spells, unless the targets of the spell is willing. ...Non-living, non-magical targets may not make a Resistance Test.

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.
bitrunner
QUOTE
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... wink.gif
Fortune
bitrunner: Firstly, the 'co-coordinator' was a typo. I originally typed co-ordinator, but realized that the word was coordinator and somehow messed it up when correcting it (through the hotmail spellchecker even). I did notice when I transfered the email to the forum, but as I didn't want to be accused of editing the response in any way, I reprinted it word-for-word (as I stated in the first post), with no corrections. It was not meant as a slight. My apologies if you took it that way.

Secondly, they are not my examples! If you will re-read my question, you will find that I gave no examples of casting the spell on inanimate objects. I was quite clear (and correct) in relaying your SRM ruling on the matter, so I am having trouble figuring out exacly what point you are having trouble getting across to me?
Fortune
Since when do inanimate objects get any kind of roll to resist spells? Other than vehicles, can you give me another canon example?
bitrunner
that's why i put the smiley on the end...not offended...just hurt that no one loves me... smile.gif Seriously, there are a lot of people out there that think i'm, for lack of a better word, an "asshat"...there are others that think i'm doing good work for the game - i'll be 40 this year, and i grew up overweight with glasses and really good at math and science...i'm pretty sure i can ignore the first half and just continue to try to please the second half... cool.gif

as for the latter, it was not directed at you personally - that's why i quoted - the examples are in your quoting of ShadowFAQ...that's what i'm finding fault with...
mfb
er, point of interest: the camera does not get a resistance test.
QUOTE (SR3 pg 183)
Non-living, non-magical targets may not make a Resistance Test.


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".
bitrunner
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jan 8 2005, 09:06 PM)
Since when do inanimate objects get any kind of roll to resist spells? Other than vehicles, can you give me another canon example?

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.
Fortune
I understand where the examples are. I was referencing your statement that you were having trouble getting your point across, as I am sure I understood it quite well, and have relayed that point to more than one person since we discussed the matter at some length in another thread. Oh well, no harm, no foul. smile.gif
mfb
i disagree, bitrunner. if you allow cameras to get a resist roll against invisibility, why don't they get a resist roll against powerbolt? i don't see invisibility against cameras as being all that unbalancing; as others have pointed out, there are lots and lots and lots of other ways to detect intruders. in a world where magic is real, any corporation dumb enough to rely only on cameras for intrusion detection is too dumb to survive long anyway.
Fortune
QUOTE
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 yet that is canon. Any assumption of a resistance roll is a house rule ... until such time as it is errata'ed.
bitrunner
the difference is that you cast the powerbolt directly at the camera...the illusion is not casted at the camera, it is an INDIRECT illusion, and the camera is "looking" at a point in space. You are changing what the camera (and anyone/thing else that is looking at that area of effect) sees - you are not directly changing the data stream of the camera itself...

ok, so then do SENSORS get a Resistance Test?? And if so, why, because they aren't living either, yet the section on rigging mentions that they can make them.

pg 136, Sensor Test Modifiers, Concealed by Spell:
"Certain physical illusion spells, such as Improved Invisibility...require a Resistance Test to pierce the illusion."

therefore, drones, vehicles, and buildings - which all use sensors - can make an Active Sensor Test versus the Signature of the target (or area) to see if they detect anything.

Correct??
Fortune
So what you are now saying is that the Force sets the TN for the camera's resistance roll, but doesn't matter as far as OR is concerned.

So if a Mage gets 8 successes (against a TN of 4) on his Improved Invisibility spell, the camera (which has some arbitrary rating of ?) would need 8 successes against the Force of the spell to pierce the illusion.

Or would it be against a TN of the subject's signature?

If it's the latter, when does the Force of the spell come into play?
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (bitrunner)
pg 136, Sensor Test Modifiers, Concealed by Spell:
"Certain physical illusion spells, such as Improved Invisibility...require a Resistance Test to pierce the illusion."

therefore, drones, vehicles, and buildings - which all use sensors - can make an Active Sensor Test versus the Signature of the target (or area) to see if they detect anything.

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.
Kremlin KOA
remember bitrunner Active sensors includes little things like radar
Crusher Bob
The concealability rules he might be referring to are in the cyberlimb section, using those rules for a dermal sheath at well sounds simple enough (since they are both artificial skin anyway).
Fortune
No, I think I wrote 'Dermal Plating' when I should have written 'Orthoskin', as was said above. embarrassed.gif
bitrunner
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)
remember bitrunner Active sensors includes little things like radar

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??
Austere Emancipator
I would just errata it so that the Active Sensor Test to not be fooled by the spell would not be called a Resistance Test. Just call it an Active Sensor Test, which happens to have a Treshold of (Successes of the ImpInvis spell) with a TN of (Force of the ImpInvis Spell).

After all, it is implied that the Sensor suite is not actually resisting the spell as much as it is trying to use the other types of sensors it has to make up for the loss of cameras.
Kanada Ten
QUOTE
(SR3 pg195)
They [indirect illusion spells] must be cast "around" a person, or over an area (Magic rating in meters) that is within the caster's line of sight.

Vehicle Mask...
hyzmarca
Any building worth running against that only has optical cameras for security deserves what it gets. Improved Invis does nothing against ultrasound, radar, motion dectors, or therman sensors. Any decent security system will detect an invisable mage.
Fortune
To further muddy the waters, from the existing FAQ ...

QUOTE
Q: How does an improved invisibility spell function against a drone's sensors? Is it resisted by the drone or can the drone just not see the character? What if the drone's sensors include thermographic imaging?

A: Technically, Improved Invisibility requires a Resistance Test, and non-living things don't get to make Spell Resistance Tests. So the simple answer is that the spell automatically fools drones.

If you want to be picky, however, then you can note that Improved Invisibility works against any tech sensors that involve sight: video cameras, laser proximity detectors, rangefinders, thermo. As described on p. 135, SR3, however, vehicle sensors include other components such as ultrasound, radar, listening devices, etc. Theoretically, these sensors could pick up an invisible character. (The same as you might give an NPC a listening Perception Test as an invisible character moved by.)

If you allow a Sensor Test based on those components, you should apply some hefty modifiers, or perhaps only roll half the Sensor dice. Keep in mind that even if the drone detects the invisible character, it still won't be able to "see" him, so it may get confused or otherwise not act the same as if it had actually detected something walking by.
Fortune
Note to ShadowFAQ: The answer to the Magic Loss from Implants question is out-of-date.

From the M&M Errata ...

QUOTE
p. 78 Bioware and the Awakened [4]
Replace the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs with the following:

In game terms, bioware reduces an Awakened character's Magic rating in a way similar to Essence loss. Magic is reduced by the character's Bio Index divided by 2 (round down).

The effects of Bio Index and Essence reduction on Magic are cumulative, so the two should be combined before determining how Magic is affected. Magic has a starting value equal to the character's Essence minus (Bio Index ¸ 2), rounded down. So a starting magician with Essence 5.8 and a Bio Index of 1 begins with a Magic rating of 5 (5.8 - 0.5 = 5.3, rounded down to 5). Further increases in Bio Index (or reductions in Essence) may also affect the Magic rating whenever the total falls beneath a whole number. If the same magician later acquires more bioware, raising his Bio Index to 2, he will lose an additional point of Magic (5.8 - 1 = 4.8, rounded to 4).

Magic reduction from bioware functions like other forms of Magic loss-adepts lose some of their powers, for example. Geasa can be used to counteract magic loss from bioware and a character can still initiate to raise his Magic rating.
Club
QUOTE (Glyph)
It kind of boggles my mind that Night Vision is a resisted spell... so you can see in the dark, but might not be able to see everybody in the aforementioned dark. Okaaaay.


I manabolt the darkness
Adam
Hey - Just a note that there's an upcoming Shadowrun FAQ update; I'm just waiting on Rob to finalize some stuff, and then the fun of converting a heavily-revised FAQ to HTML. I don't have a timeframe, but it's "soon."
Fortune
In retrospect, I probably should have emailed that correction (there are one or two others) to ShadowFAQ, but this is specifically a thread on Shadowrun's official Q's and A's.

I'd do the grunt work, but I don't know too much about html.

Bsides, you should have more time now. wink.gif
Adam
You'd think that, but I'm not so sure it's true.

[Although I am getting to spend more time working on Shadowrun stuff.]
mfb
QUOTE (bitrunner)
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???


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.
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