The question of how far an aura extends brings up an interesting point. If I cast improved invisibility on myself, what exactly does it make invisible? I'd say that it's pretty standard to make me and my clothes, armor, etc. invisable. The idea I'd heard explaining this is because it is within your aura, though there isn't any cannon I can find backing this up. Well, what about a hiking backpack? That's pretty big. Or an assault rifle? Or a deck? Is that still in your aura? How about in your invisibility? What if I put my invisibility spell into a sustaining focus? Then the focus is magically active, with it's own astral presence . . . most people would argue that it isn't in my aura any more, but would it be invisible? What if I'm holding a kitten? Is the kitten invisible, or do I have to cast it on the kitten as well? What if the kitten is under a jacket? Or in the hiking backpack? Hiding behind something that is invisible doesn't make you invisible, so would this result in a kitten appearing to float through mid-air? If a guard sees said kitten, would he get a reduced target number/a second chance to see the runner holding the cat?
EDIT: If you pick up the kitten after you cast the spell, would that be different than if you're holding the kitten at the time of casting?
Full Version: Auras, invisibility, foci, and kittens
In my opinion:
Invisibility makes one target invisible, and is not related to the target's aura in any way (in fact, invisible characters are not hidden at all from astral perception). I would rule that anything you are wearing, carrying, or holding at the time the spell is cast would be invisible along with you. If you pick up something else after the spell is cast, I would say that the item in question would be visible, since it was not part of the original casting of the spell. Other GMs might disagree with that point. The invisibility spell is cast on a subject, singular, so making something like a kitten invisible would require a second spell, even if the target was holding said kitten while the spell was being cast. Sustaining foci would be treated the same as sustaining the spell normally. The spell is cast on a subject, but the targets of the spell are anyone looking at the illusion.
Invisibility makes one target invisible, and is not related to the target's aura in any way (in fact, invisible characters are not hidden at all from astral perception). I would rule that anything you are wearing, carrying, or holding at the time the spell is cast would be invisible along with you. If you pick up something else after the spell is cast, I would say that the item in question would be visible, since it was not part of the original casting of the spell. Other GMs might disagree with that point. The invisibility spell is cast on a subject, singular, so making something like a kitten invisible would require a second spell, even if the target was holding said kitten while the spell was being cast. Sustaining foci would be treated the same as sustaining the spell normally. The spell is cast on a subject, but the targets of the spell are anyone looking at the illusion.
But then the Schröedinger's cat problem, what counts as a subject? Is a cat a subject? A trout? A grasshopper? A sea monkey?
~J
~J
A cat is not a subject, because cats have no king. 
| QUOTE |
| I would rule that anything you are wearing, carrying, or holding at the time the spell is cast would be invisible along with you. |
Alright, I pick up a 20 foot ladder in one hand, and a drone in the other, and then cast invisibility on myself. Those are then both invisible?
| QUOTE |
| If you pick up something else after the spell is cast, I would say that the item in question would be visible, since it was not part of the original casting of the spell. |
So far, I could have the ladder invisible if I was holding it at the time of casting, but can't pick up an optical chip without it being visible. That doesn't make sense to me.
| QUOTE |
| The invisibility spell is cast on a subject, singular, so making something like a kitten invisible would require a second spell, even if the target was holding said kitten while the spell was being cast. |
As has already been mentioned, what counts as a subject? Also, the description of indirect illusions in SR3 is that they are cast arounda subject, which basically leads to the core of my question, which is how far around?
| QUOTE |
| Sustaining foci would be treated the same as sustaining the spell normally. |
But as far as things like assensing is concerned, foci are just as much different subjects than kittens. Why would active foci be invisible if a kitten wouldn't be?
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| But then the Schröedinger's cat problem, what counts as a subject? |
What on earth does that have to do with Schrodinger's cat?
I have always worked it in this fashion.
You cast invisibility on your self and anything that constitutes "standard gear" goes with you. Standard gear is whatever you wear/carry. Overly large items require there own spell, as would the kitten since it's alive.
Auras are not affected by invisibility, in fact, as you know, the invisibility spell itself will have it's own astal form.
Sunday.
This does however show the inherent dangers of carrying kittens while shadowrunning.
You cast invisibility on your self and anything that constitutes "standard gear" goes with you. Standard gear is whatever you wear/carry. Overly large items require there own spell, as would the kitten since it's alive.
Auras are not affected by invisibility, in fact, as you know, the invisibility spell itself will have it's own astal form.
Sunday.
This does however show the inherent dangers of carrying kittens while shadowrunning.
Does it make a difference if it's a blackberry kitten?
Only to the troll, and only if he gets really hungry.
| QUOTE | ||
Alright, I pick up a 20 foot ladder in one hand, and a drone in the other, and then cast invisibility on myself. Those are then both invisible? |
I have always assumed that invisibility included gear and things carried, since it would be a pretty useless spell otherwise. If someone tried something like that, I would be halfway tempted to let it work, just to see how far they got holding an invisible ladder and an invisible drone, before dropping it.
| QUOTE | ||
So far, I could have the ladder invisible if I was holding it at the time of casting, but can't pick up an optical chip without it being visible. That doesn't make sense to me. |
The way that I always think of it is that you cast an illusion, and to add something new to the illusion, you would have to recast the spell. I also prefaced this by saying others might see it differently. But hopefully this explains my logic, even if you still disagree with it.
| QUOTE | ||
As has already been mentioned, what counts as a subject? Also, the description of indirect illusions in SR3 is that they are cast arounda subject, which basically leads to the core of my question, which is how far around? |
I would treat any living being of greater than insect size, or any object not being held, carried, or worn (and some held objects might be iffy - but since people can only lug big, bulky things around for so long, that problem is mostly self-correcting), as a separate subject for purposes of the spell. An area spell can cover something like Magic x meters in radius, so it is unlikely that something will be too big for improved invisibility to cover, unless you are trying to make a building invisible. This kind of falls under the category of fine detail that the GM has to rule on for his/her own campaign. It's a good idea to ask the GM how he/she handles touchy subjects such as how invisibility works. There have been debates on the subject that have gone on for many pages without reaching a consensus.
| QUOTE | ||
But as far as things like assensing is concerned, foci are just as much different subjects than kittens. Why would active foci be invisible if a kitten wouldn't be? |
Why would you use astral aura to determine whether something is a separate subject or not? The "one subject" thing is part of the limitations of the spell design. Letting it work on more than one living being is letting the players get more out of the spell than it is supposed to do, in my opinion. If you want to have an invisibility spell affect another living being who is held by the first subject, go ahead. It opens the spell up to a bit of potential abuse by players, but it won't unbalance the campaign.
| QUOTE (Zazen) |
| What on earth does that have to do with Schrodinger's cat? |
The entire basis for saying that the cat is both alive and dead is that the cat is both alive and dead until the cat is observed. If the cat itself is an observer, it collapses its own dual state and is either alive or dead.
~J
What if the cat is a cyberzombie?
I mean slap in beta Move By Wire 4, some dermal armor, maybe a smartpaw link.
Who will stop the ravenous hordes of cyberzombie kittens? EH?!? WHO?!?
WE'RE DOOMED!!!
Sunday.
I mean slap in beta Move By Wire 4, some dermal armor, maybe a smartpaw link.
Who will stop the ravenous hordes of cyberzombie kittens? EH?!? WHO?!?
WE'RE DOOMED!!!
Sunday.
If you've read the powers of a blackberry cat, you would realize that they are almost as powerful as cyberzombies already.
Note to self, get blackberry kitten, teach it tricks like "make that man rob a bank" and watch the hilarity ensue.
Note to self, get blackberry kitten, teach it tricks like "make that man rob a bank" and watch the hilarity ensue.
Or Cheshire cats - invisible on their own but for the disembodied smile.
Don't forget Talis Cats too... the urban predators of the city... housecat of doooom!
I'm sorry, my brain's still fizzing out over a cat with MbW.
"Honey, I think our cat has TLE-x."
"How can you tell?"
"Well, remember when I installed that MbW-4 in him? Now all he does is lie on the couch and stare out the window; he doesn't come to me when I call, and he doesn't do anything when I put toys in front of him."
"And this is different from how the cat normally acts in what way...?"
"Honey, I think our cat has TLE-x."
"How can you tell?"
"Well, remember when I installed that MbW-4 in him? Now all he does is lie on the couch and stare out the window; he doesn't come to me when I call, and he doesn't do anything when I put toys in front of him."
"And this is different from how the cat normally acts in what way...?"
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| The entire basis for saying that the cat is both alive and dead is that the cat is both alive and dead until the cat is observed. If the cat itself is an observer, it collapses its own dual state and is either alive or dead. |
I knew about that, I just don't understand what it has to do with targeting an invisibility spell.
The question being whether the kitten counts as a seperate entity with respect to the spell.
~J
~J
But that's just a yes or no answer on the part of the GM. There's no mind-bending paradox here.
The paradox must be established in order to get the answer you choose:
M: I hide the kitten in my inner coat pocket and give it a tiny leaf of catnip to keep it happy.
20 minutes of events
M: I cast invisibility on myself to sneak past the guards.
20 more minutes of stuff, invis the entire time
M: Alright, we're out. I pull the kitten out of my pocket.
GM: Kitten?
And thus the paradox must be settled and 20 minutes of gaming may be undone to correct an option.
M: I hide the kitten in my inner coat pocket and give it a tiny leaf of catnip to keep it happy.
20 minutes of events
M: I cast invisibility on myself to sneak past the guards.
20 more minutes of stuff, invis the entire time
M: Alright, we're out. I pull the kitten out of my pocket.
GM: Kitten?
And thus the paradox must be settled and 20 minutes of gaming may be undone to correct an option.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.