hey guys ,fortune wrote questions into shadoqfax ,one of the questions was about improved invisibility and turning objects invisible.and did the force have anything to do with fooling cameras ect....

the answer was basically this only time the force is important is when your trying to turn an object invisible ie...like a camera you have to beat the o/r of it by the force to actually turn the camera invisible.

thats all good we dont run around turning cameras and stop signs invisible even though that could be usefull.my question is this [do you have to beat the o/r of the items your carrying to turn them invisible? i mean lets think ....your carrying a gun,credstick,armored clothing,sunglasses ect...do you have to beat those o/r to turn invisible ? i hope you all understand what im trying to ask....it would put a limit on the improved invisibility spell that everymage runs around with at force 1.

If you want an official position just go the FAQ in the shadowrunrpg.com. There is a question/answer about sensors and improv. invisibility. Hope that helps.

Lycan you misuderstood.

ShadowFAQ answered stating that in order to turn any OBJECTs invisible, the force of the spell has to exceed half the objects OR rating.

No, because of this, if you are wanting to make yourself invisible, does that mean the force of your imp invis spell has to exceed half of any items you are carring on you in order to turn them invisible as well. (Glasses, vest, clothes, boots, shades, foci, fetishes, armor, gun, ammo, etc etc etc). Otherwise, will say you turn invisible, except now you only look like a floating armor jacket with a holster and pistol with a few foci sticking out.

i understand what it says on shadowfaq ,blaa blaa blaa........but if you can cast invisibility improved onyourself and all your gear goes invisible regardless of force ...what keeps you from strapping a large combat drone on the mages back help with a levitate spell if its too heavy and then cast a force 1 improved invisibility on himself and the drone is also invisible.....anyone see a problem with this ,wouldnt the force of the spell have to beat the o/r of whatever gear the mage is carrying?

so tarantula ,whats your answer you do need to beat the o/r of your gear or not?

I would say no, the spell's Force does not have to be at least 1/2 of the OR of everything you are carrying, because you are in fact carrying them. Magic works on intent, and your intent in turning yourself invisible intrinsically includes your equipment.

If you were trying to turn only a car (or pocket secretary, or stop sign, or camera, or whatever) invisible, independant of everything else, the the Force restriction would then apply.

Is your intent to destroy the computer? If yes, then you need to overcome the OR. If not, it is not destroyed anyway.

I deal with the clothing and armour and other stuff for invisibility like targeting fully clad people with combat spells.

My character's intent is to go back in time and teleport into Chicago to rob banks before the Containment Zone wall is put up. Since I'm a spellcaster, and I'm sure my magic works on my intent ...

Canon says you can't.

Why would you want to destroy the Computer? The Computer is your friend! *ZAP* *ZAP* *ZAP*

But in [game] reality magic does not work on intent. That's a myth. Magic has a set of rules that determines what it affects and intent has nothing to do with it.

[]=edit

Oh no. He said in Reality.

Reality meaning a bunch of guys following rules for playing a game called shadowrun in which magic is defined by a set of rules.

Some thoughts here again (previously stated in similar threads, but nonetheless my opinion:

• The errataed text regarding the minimum of OR/2 for minimum spell force is located within the section for target numbers of the spell casting rules => The direct application of that rule is restricted to spells that actually use OR as target number, just by the wording. Spells with other TNs (like the aforementioned indirect illusions or elemental manipulation spells) pose some serious problems when trying to apply that OR/2 rule ...
• Usually whenever this discussion concerning objects and invis (or any other indirect illusion) arises, people tend to forget, that by the wording of indirect illusion spells it's impossible to even cast such spells onto single objects.
• While I do understand people arguing for the OR/2 being applied to spells like improved invis as well, in order to prevent a force 1 version being enough to deceive any sensory system that operates on "sight", it's rather dubious to apply that rule to spells like Levitation (the spell restricts itself via weight and at least to me it looks rather funny when a mage needs a force 5 spell to levitate a cyberdeck [OR 10] but levitates the same cyberdeck held by a decker at TN 4 with any spell force 1+), Fling and various others.
  As for secondary effects of elemental manipulations: The secondary effects already are influenced by damage level (that's why I usually prefer using the chosen base damage level instead of staged damage codes on individual target through spell successes) and already involves OR (the 2d6 roll must meet OR of any given object to cause a secondary effect) => Doubling the effect of OR in that regard doesn't look too good to me, especially when looking at the often (not rightfully) critizised 1 D fireball: This spell has a 5D Drain code and on the secondary effects roll (which can be made for any individual target within the area of effect, but usually is only made once, due to reasons of convenience) needs to be high enough to ignite objects with OR 8 and higher in most surroundings where the common shadowrunner operates. More then selfbalancing enough to me.

As always: YMMV

Damn, sorry, I read my SR2 book the other night a further tainted my brain, doh.

Right. You can't add more Spell Pool dice than Socery Dice allocated for the Sorcery Test. Spell Rating functions alot like weapon power, where it only really comes into play when it's time for the Target to resist. So yeah, L1 invis (or Imp Invis) is still a bad choice!

Thanks for catching my mistake!

In my group we frown at Spells with force <3, so it's never really been an issue. From a game stand point what we are talking about a few thousand nuyen an 2 Karma Points? Well there is the whole legal/illegal argument vs. Force too.

Check this thread for some other thoughts on "OR or not OR", this was my comment there:

So Grinder, by your logic to affect a doberman drone you would need a force 13 imp.invis and thus it would almost never be fooled.

If I'm reading his quote right, his logic says you need a force 4 effect to beat a drone (1/2 of OR .

you forget to add in the drones body and 1/2 its armor to the OR test

That's for generating the target number. The necessary force being cited is OR/2. I don't have a book handy, is it only combat spells that need to have force higher than armor rating? i.e. can a force 4 levitate affect a doberman, but you need a force 7 power bolt?

A drone's object rating is always 8 (or at least the target for a combat spell against a drone always uses an OR of .

Combat spells need a force higher than the drone's armor rating, and have a target number of 8 (OR) + body + 1/2 Armor rating). That makes spells against most drones a touch proposition. All you need is an armor of 3 to shut down most spellcasters.

Got it. SR3.150.

So OR + Body + 1/2 armor is the TN for the Sorcery Test. Vehicle get no resistance test and if the Armor > spell rating, then there is no effect.

Cool.

To use Invisibility on a Vehicle one needs to make a Invisibility spell specifically for vehicles. This is evident by the Mask and Vehicle Mask spells.

You're still casting the spell *around* the object not on it, so OR has no effect on the spell.

We house rule that all illusion spells have a maximum number of successes = 1.5 x force of the spell for purposes of resistance (round down). The number of successes rolled is still tracked for dispelling.

i.e. 6 successes at force 3 = 4 successes on a resistance test to beat, 6 successes to dispel it.

This cuts down on munchkin 8 successes on force one Imp. Invis. spells.

And don't forget, spell defense dice work on illusion spells too. The one who allocated spell defense knows spell defense dice have been used up, but does not know how or why.

Mum, still shows that Indirect Illusions can be cast upon objects.

okay guys ,i understand what your all saying and it all makes sence.i guess what doesnt seem to fit is this ....if i want to turn a steel dor invisible i have to beat the or/2 of the steel door.but if i was to have that same steel door strapped to me it would automatically turn invisisble because im carrying it.that makes no sense.......i mean lets imagine a troll that has a mage friend ....the mage cant turn the motorcycle invisible because he doesnt have vehicle mask or improved invisibility at a high enough level to beat the or/2 but the same spell would work if the troll decieded to pick up the bike with his strength and was carrying it .? does anybody else see a problem with this?

I've always said the same thing about it:

"Those that observe an Indirect Illusion are targets of the spell"
"Improved Invisibility affects cameras as well."
"The Force of a spell must be greater than 1/2 OR to affect an object"

What's Improved Invisibility affect? Cameras.
Who's OR need it beat? Cameras'.

Yeah. and I disgaree it works that way, if the spell tries to affect anything that is too high OR then that item does not turn invisible. Period. IMHO anyway.

The whole "Magic works on intent" is false. It doesn't. magic workes on the rules of magic, and the rules of magic say you have to beat half the OR to affect it.

I like the idea that intent is inherent in magic. Simply if you intend to cheat the rules of magic: it won't work (as you intend).

The item never turns invisible, nothing does. All the targets just can't see it.

The other issue is that Mana spells cannot affect physical objects. Therefore, were you to say Invisibility can make one's clothes invisible, it cannot worry about the clothing's OR since it can't be affecting inanimate objects.

I agree with Kanada Ten.
We're very used to spells having two main objects involved; a caster and a target. Caster casts spell at target, target resists.
We've added another object with indirect illusions. (that's what makes them indirect) Now there's a subject. Caster casts spell on subject, target resists spell when looking at subject. Target still resists.

MH. Yes, target still resists, however casting spell on subject, spells force must been subjects for by OR/2 to be abel to make spell work.

But the spell isn't affecting the subject in any way. The subject is not invisible. The target believes that the subject is invisible. The target is the only one being affected.
By my thinking, the OR should only matter for the target. But I can certainly see the other side of the argument.

Subject is what the spell is cast on. In order for it to work, the force must be at least subject OR/2 in order to work on subject. Doesn't matter what spell.

No where in the rules about OR does it talk about the subject. It says to "affect an object". Think about all the other Illusions, like Hotpotato, which is cast over an area (subject) and affects people (targets) that enter the area. The same goes for Trid Phantasam. What OR do I need to beat now?

Alright, so to tie this into the doberman thread...

I can make my doberman completely invisible with a force 1 imp invis spell, but in order to make something invisible to my doberman, it needs to be at least force 6/7?