Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: improved invisibility
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Tarantula
Not really many... ultrasound, proximity detectors, radar are really it. As far as vehicle sensors go, first, they're under the armor, and they're still highly proccessed. (I mean, they are made to get translated down and sent via radio to a rigger fast enough for asist). So, they're be the same as if you took the drone as a whole highly proccessed, and armor and such.
Kanada Ten
Strictly by the rules, you can't make your doberman invisible without a custom spell or an area affect invisibility, so you're in house rule territory. Secondly, it's not like most runner gear is less than OR 10 or 12 at any rate, and somehow it's only a problem with a drone?
Tarantula
I didn't say the drone was the only problem kanada. Look up in the thread, I also asked about mages ending up having floating armor and the like. Why wouldn't you be able to cast it on a doberman?
Kanada Ten
The rules specifically state subject person or area.
Tarantula
So if its specifically person, why does anything on the person EVER go invis? It'd be the same as the invisible man. Sure, hes invisible, clothes he wears aren't, nor anything he carries. Time to strip mr. mage.
Moon-Hawk
Tarantula, I think of it as either being cast over a spherical area as defined by the caster's magical attribute(this is the 'area'), or over a more dynamic area as defined by the subject's aura(this is the 'person'). Anything inside the subject's aura (clothing, most gear, etc) is inside the spell area, and thus invisible. Anything grossly outside of the subject's aura (motorcycle, panther cannon, etc) isn't invisible. And for invisibility I use a very generous aura.
Cochise
QUOTE (Tarantula)
So if its specifically person, why does anything on the person EVER go invis?  It'd be the same as the invisible man.  Sure, hes invisible, clothes he wears aren't, nor anything he carries.  Time to strip mr. mage.

That's one of the general problems with SR magic wink.gif
And of course the reason why such discussions arose even before that OR/2 Errata that is still located in the target number section of the sorcery rules and thus lacks a certain connection to spells that do not have OR as target number.

It usually boils down to what is considered "part of a target / spell subject":

Clothes, cyberware and gear obviously are treated as being part in most cases (exception there: the shapechange spells), since clothes do not obstruct visibility of a target (the usual "Does a fullbody armor with mirrored helm prevent being targeted by a manabolt?" discussion) and the spell descriptions usually seem to imply that all that stuff is part of the illusion or other spell effects.

We also have the general saying that singel parts of such a target / spell subject cannot be targeted individually except for elemental manipulations. Yet the Levitation spell obviously can target a hand-held gun as individual target while the very same hand-held gun appearantly is part of the spell subject, when is comes to the discussed invis spells (or other indirect illusions for that matter).

So the suggested idea of "intent" is quite good for explaining such oddities. It doesn't however change the fact, that by the wording of the indirect illusion spell rules, objects cannot be subject to such a spell on their own ...

And as previously stated that also doesn't change anything about the fact that official spells (in this case vehicle mask) contradict these rules.

My personal approach is: Use the OR/2 rule only for spells that actually have OR as target number. All other spells are better left untouched, because they tend to cause even more headaches than before once you take a closer look ...
Tarantula
So what if my intent is to strap a dwarf on a doberman, make the dwarf and his stuff (the doberman) invisible, and then let the drone do its thing while the dwarf simply sits there being the invisibility anchor point? That works then yes?
Shaudes29
well if you wanted an invisibility spell that was castable on vehicles then you would make a vehicle Improved invisibility spell. with he same rules for effecting a vehicle. Would state that everything inside the vehicle would be invisible too. Someone sticking their hand out a window to shoot , the hand and gun attached to the gun would become visible.
Cochise
QUOTE (Tarantula)
So what if my intent is to strap a dwarf on a doberman, make the dwarf and his stuff (the doberman) invisible, and then let the drone do its thing while the dwarf simply sits there being the invisibility anchor point?  That works then yes?

I see the usual defiance that results in applying "logic" to "magic" biggrin.gif

My answer there:

I wouldn't consider the doberman "being part" of the spell's subject / entity "dwarf". => No turning the doberman invisible there, no matter what the intention is. Otherwise any magician is capable of turning the world invisible by the mere fact that a being is in touch with Earth and thus Earth can be seen as "part of the spell subject"
Tarantula
The earth has its own aura, and thus isn't the subject, and its a different entity as far as the spell is concerned. What if i strap the doberman to the dwarf, so the doberman can't function unless the dwarf helps it. Is it a part now? What if I remove the dwarfs legs, and cybernetically replace them with a doberman drone? Now does it go invis with the dwarf?

Shaudes, I'm using the principal that the clothing/guns/items/etc on a mage go invis when he does, so why doesn't a doberman strapped on a dwarf?
Moon-Hawk
Tarantula: I submit that it is because the clothes and gear are inside the subject's aura. As for the leg replacements; if he's paid essense for it, then I'd say yes.
James McMurray
QUOTE (Tarantula)
Shaudes, I'm using the principal that the clothing/guns/items/etc on a mage go invis when he does, so why doesn't a doberman strapped on a dwarf?

Game balance?
Moon-Hawk
Yes, yes, yes, obviously game balance. But we want a more complicated explanation to justify it.
Tarantula
Why isn't the doberman in a dwarfs aura? What if it was a dwarf with a naginata? No-dachi? What about a troll with those items? Cyclops? Wakyambi (or whatever the black super tall elves are called)? What if you have the cyclops hug the doberman, while holding it to his chest? Would it go invis with him then? obviously its in his aura, as his arms are complete encircling it. What if you sprinkled bacteria, or some other living organism in a coating on the drone. Then cast invisibility on that, the drone is definately in its aura.
Moon-Hawk
As a GM, I would have to seriously consider letting some of those ideas work.
James McMurray
There isn't one. And I don't think there can be one without some major changes to the way shadowrun works.

How about this: everything with even a modicum of intelligence (including things with a piloting rating) have their own "self". One thing's self cannot be used to make another thing's self invisible. thus a mage carrying a drone can't make the drone's self invisible. A drone carrying a mage (perhaps in an internal compartment) cannot make the mage invisible.

Yeah, its crap, but any explanation you try is likely to sound like crap.
Cochise
QUOTE (Tarantula)
The earth has its own aura, and thus isn't the subject, and its a different entity as far as the spell is concerned. 


Problem there: Auras do not have anything to do with being able to cast spell against something. Otherwise no spell could ever affect non-living entities ...
Spellcasting in SR3 is based on "bodies" (physical or astral ones) and certain spells only work against targets that not only have such a "body", but also a functional "mind" ...
Saying that Earth has it's own aura and thus can't be part of the subject will lead you nowhere: Foci also have their own aura (as anything that is magical in nature), yet the default assumption is that all carried gear also becomes "invisible". Including all carried foci wink.gif

QUOTE
What if i strap the doberman to the dwarf, so the doberman can't function unless the dwarf helps it.  Is it a part now?  What if I remove the dwarfs legs, and cybernetically replace them with a doberman drone?  Now does it go invis with the dwarf?


Trying to ridicule the issue won't help you. The thing is, that the dwarf would become part of the drone and not the other way round ...
And interesstingly enough that has nothing to do with the OR/2 debate at hand.

QUOTE
Shaudes, I'm using the principal that the clothing/guns/items/etc on a mage go invis when he does, so why doesn't a doberman strapped on a dwarf?


As I said: You're trying to apply logic to magic. Offplay the given rules define how magic works. Obviously those rules have certain grey areas where the individual GM has to use his own ability of decission making whereas other rules provide rather strict guidelines (said "subject" restrictions for indirect illusion spell) albeit the makers not necessarily following them to the letter. You're free do do whatever you want with objects and making them "invisible" (in terms of illusion spells). There's more than enough reason for both sides.
All I can do, is to present my personal opinion which can be summed up like this:

1. Although the rules do not allow to make objects invisible by the wording, I do allow magicians to do so in my games

2. I only use the OR/2 rule for spells that actually use OR as TN, since too many of the other spells just cause too many trouble there ...

As always YMMV
Tarantula
I'm going off what you guys say, because things don't have an aura, which is supposedly the basis for any spell that isn't physical.

On that note, how do you define intelligence? Anything alive? Does that count as intelligent? If so, when I cast invis on you, why can't I see all the bacteria that live on your eyelashes, and in your hair, and on your skin, and the plaque on your teeth? Coli in your intestine? etc etc....

What about just a hunk of metal with a few remote turrets on it that you strap to a troll, and then only have a rigger remotely control. No intelligence required, still goes invis, troll has the invisible backpack of death on him. Give the troll some foot anchors that the rigger can trigger when hes going to shoot, and you're set.
James McMurray
Tarantula: I can almost gaurantee you that you'll never find a decent answer to those questions. Sometimes its just best to ignore the whys and just take things as they are.

Trying to do differently will either drive you mad or end up causing you to rewrite huge portions of the SR magic system.
Tarantula
Hey, I'm taking what you guys say, and applying it to a very non-typical situation. You all suddenly say, "yeah, well, it doesn't go invis" to which I say "well, then your clothes and stuff don't go invis when you do yourself" You refute and say that stuff on the target goes invis, i say well, then the drone does, and you disagree again. You aren't the ones being consistant.
Cochise
QUOTE (Tarantula)
Hey, I'm taking what you guys say, and applying it to a very non-typical situation.  You all suddenly say, "yeah, well, it doesn't go invis"  to which I say "well, then your clothes and stuff don't go invis when you do yourself"  You refute and say that stuff on the target goes invis, i say well, then the drone does, and you disagree again.  You aren't the ones being consistant.

If you had taken the time to actually read what I have written, you'd have noticed that it's not "us" who are inconstistant, but the rules themselves.
We cannot change the "reality" of those rules, since we're not the "powers that be" in that regard. All we can do, is provide some insight on how we as individuals cope with those grey areas.

I've shown more than one point where SR magic rules have their grey areas and trying to apply logic to exactly those grey areas is not going to make "us" look inconsistant but you being needless stubborn.

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

Your not casting it around anything. You are attempting to fool the mind of whoever is looking at what you are trying to hide. The min Force = OR/2 is used to fool inanimate, non-living observers (cameras) since they get *no* resistance roll, and Intelligence is used by things that are alive since they get a resistance roll.

1-net success is ok for something not alive, while living observers get a chance to "beat" the successes rolled. House rule what you wish, but it's really not that complicated.
Shaudes29
QUOTE (GrinderTheTroll)

Your not casting it around anything. You are attempting to fool the mind of whoever is looking at what you are trying to hide. The min Force = OR/2 is used to fool inanimate, non-living observers (cameras) since they get *no* resistance roll, and Intelligence is used by things that are alive since they get a resistance roll.

1-net success is ok for something not alive, while living observers get a chance to "beat" the successes rolled. House rule what you wish, but it's really not that complicated.

Thats generaly what i would do when i run. I take the base OR 8 highly prosesed object and add 1/2 the rating to it(rounded down).

So

Security cam Rating 8 OR=(base+(1/2Rating)) OR(8+4)=OR12 1/2or=min Spell Force 6
This works for vehicel sesnors too, becouse the body and armor of the vehicel is not directly part of the sensors.

So even if the sensors are a rating 1 the spell would need to be minumum F4. This way a Force 6 Imp. Invis would get you past most Standard security cams and thermographic camras. Any place that a force 6 would not get past probably has sesors that would detect and even see an Imp. invis any way. This would help discuradge the abuse of F1 spells.
GrinderTheTroll
QUOTE (Shaudes29)
So even if the sensors are a rating 1 the spell would need to be  minumum F4. This way a Force 6 Imp. Invis would get you past most Standard security cams and thermographic camras. Any place that a force 6 would not get past probably has sesors that would detect and even see an Imp. invis any way. This would help discuradge the abuse of F1 spells.

We just usually don't allow Force < 3 spells more as a matter of principle, but I can see what you are driving at.

Also as its been pointed out, this just effects people or objects "seeing" you, you can still make noise, give off-heat, etc. A more complete and through invisibility would be needed to completely abscond you away.
DocMortand
I hate to bump an old thread, but rather than start yet another invisibility thread I decided to ask my question here after reading previous opinions.

Question: A Sammy has Improved Invisibility cast on him. All his normal equipment that's on his person goes invisible. Now, in mid-run (well after the initial spell cast), he has to pick up a target's briefcase which contains necessary documents for the run to succeed. Now, when he picks it up does it A)Immediately go invisible when he picks it up because it is part of his gear? B) Go invisible when he swirls his invisible cloak over it? or C) Not go invisible at all?

Thanks for any answer.
Eyeless Blond
Well, it would either be one of those or something entirely different. smile.gif

Um, the truth is it's tough to answer, as SR doesn't really define exactly whaat a target is, and what it includes. Even if you figure your question out, it brings others to light. For instance, can one person be carrying another person and thus both benefit (or be hurt by) a single-target spell that goes after the carrier? How about the passenger? What if the passenger is, say, being unknowingly carried along in a duffel bag/is dead/is playing dead? This is something I'd like to see defined more completely in SR4, but I doubt we'll see it; few RPGs really bother defining such things.
JaronK
Disclaimer: What I am about to say is entirely my oppinion, and is not contradicted nor supported by canon rules (because canon rules don't really discuss this).

In my games, I say that when you first put on clothing, your aura is covered by that clothing. The clothing is not "part of you" yet. Once this clothing has been on for a minute or so (less if it's familiar clothes, more if it's completely different from what you'd normally wear), at the point where you think of it as part of yourself (your mental image of yourself would include the clothing), your aura bleeds through the clothing, which is now part of you for purposes of spells.

Thus, in your Samurai example, when he first picks up the breifcase, it's not invisable, and seems to float in air. After a few minutes (unless it's his breifcase, that he's familiar with, in which case it would be less) the breifcase disappears.

If one invisible person carries another person, that other person will never become invisible... that person has their own aura, which is not subsumed by the carrier's aura.

JaronK
DocMortand
QUOTE (JaronK @ Apr 4 2005, 12:20 AM)
In my games, I say that when you first put on clothing, your aura is covered by that clothing.  The clothing is not "part of you" yet.  Once this clothing has been on for a minute or so (less if it's familiar clothes, more if it's completely different from what you'd normally wear), at the point where you think of it as part of yourself (your mental image of yourself would include the clothing), your aura bleeds through the clothing, which is now part of you for purposes of spells.

Thus, in your Samurai example, when he first picks up the breifcase, it's not invisable, and seems to float in air.  After a few minutes (unless it's his breifcase, that he's familiar with, in which case it would be less) the breifcase disappears.

If one invisible person carries another person, that other person will never become invisible... that person has their own aura, which is not subsumed by the carrier's aura.

JaronK

Is an interesting take on things - doesn't explain some concepts, tho - like grenades. Would a person ever view a grenade as part of himself? It is expendable. So why would it go invisible at all? Also isn't the idea of auras such that objects hold the aura of the person who owned it before, at least for hours? (I believe an action performed by someone lasts for hours, at least...) So a grenade, when thrown, would STAY invisible. The latter is more unsupportable, of course.

The flip side of the coin is that if invisibility requires self image to incorporate said item, then invisible kleptomaniacs would rule the world because they believe that anything somebody else has is really theirs by right. grinbig.gif

[edit] Another thing - if you cast invisibility on a cloak and drape the cloak over a rock, would you be able to see the rock or would it effectively disappear? This might answer the "invisible cloak to hide things" thought.
Astelaron
Is invisibility to powerful?

Low force improved invisibility spells are not very powerfull. All illusion spells are resisted by intelligence. If the resistor gets more successes than the caster then they are unaffected by the illusion. Resisting a force 2 invisibility spell should be pretty easy for just about every mundane. Anyone with astral perception need only make an assensing test (target 4) to determine that what they are seeing is an illusion. If the assensing test is successfull then they are unaffected by the illusion/invisibility. Read SR3 page 194 under Illusion Spells.

What can invisibility be cast on?
pg 195 of SR3 says.
QUOTE
Illusion spells can affect any target or area within the caster's line of sight.


What is the limit on how many things can be made invisible simulataneously? If the target of the invisibility spell is a wall do all the pictures, cameras, windows, doors, and everything else become invisible too? What about the rest of the building?

Under Indirect Illusion Spells pg 195 of SR3
QUOTE
They must be cast "around" a person, or over an area (Magic Rating in meters)...  All indirect Illusion spells are resisted by intelligence.


I hope that helps end the debate. People are of course free to do whatever they want but invisibility is fully explained in cannon, just not all in one place.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Astelaron)
Under Indirect Illusion Spells pg 195 of SR3
QUOTE
They must be cast "around" a person, or over an area (Magic Rating in meters)...  All indirect Illusion spells are resisted by intelligence.


I hope that helps end the debate. People are of course free to do whatever they want but invisibility is fully explained in cannon, just not all in one place.

The "over an area" quote indicated in the rules is for the situation of area-effect Indirect Illusions, such as Trid Phantasm. Invisibility still must be cast on a single target. You can't target an area with Invisibility unless you give it the "area effect" modifier during spell design.

It's basically a poorly written way of saying "If it's single target, you cast it "around" a person, if it's area-effect, you cast it at (Magic Rating) meters in area"
Astelaron
I suppose this is debatable for some but for me the wording
QUOTE
"around" a person, or over an area (Magic Rating in meters)

implies that all indirect illusion spells are area effect. The "around" suggests that a person under the effects of an invisibility spell would be invisible but only part of the 300 meter rope they were climbing would be invisible assuming that the mage that created the illusion wanted the rope to be invisible in the first place.

Invis is area affect "around" the target to allow for all of the metaphysical inconsistancies of what define an object. Does a motorcycle include the handle bars, seat, exhaust pipe, wheels, and the paint or is a motorcycle only the engine? What makes up an engine? ....

It's up to the GM to decide what he will allow to constitute the target of the spell. If a mage casts invisibility on the Space Needle (a legal target) the space needle doesn't entirely disappear. Only magic rating in meters of the Space Needle vanishes. Realizing that some sort of illusion was hiding part of the space needle would be quite easy and so would break the illusion.
John Campbell
QUOTE (DocMortand)
Question: A Sammy has Improved Invisibility cast on him. All his normal equipment that's on his person goes invisible. Now, in mid-run (well after the initial spell cast), he has to pick up a target's briefcase which contains necessary documents for the run to succeed. Now, when he picks it up does it A)Immediately go invisible when he picks it up because it is part of his gear? B) Go invisible when he swirls his invisible cloak over it? or C) Not go invisible at all?

IMAO, either A or C are supportable. I use C, but that's my personal GM ruling, and other GMs might quite sensibly rule for A. There's nothing in the rules, AFAICT, to support either position over the other.

B makes no sense to me... distinguishing between things that are being concealed by the invisible cloak, and should therefore be invisible, and things that are simply on the other side of the invisible cloak, and should therefore be visible through it, seems to me to require more judgment calls than spells are supposed to be able to make.
Fester
No spell has been the subject of more confusion; the damn thing should just be axed.
DocMortand
Thanks for the input guys - the varying perspectives allowed me to see which angle I wanted to take so I formulated my own House rulings on the matter. Gracias!
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Astelaron)
implies that all indirect illusion spells are area effect.

They aren't. (Improved) Invisibility, (Physical) Mask and Stealth all are single-target spells. (Trid) Phantasm and Silence are area-effect.
Astelaron
QUOTE (hahnsoo)
They aren't. (Improved) Invisibility, (Physical) Mask and Stealth all are single-target spells. (Trid) Phantasm and Silence are area-effect.

I agree that Invisbility and Mask are not area effect like Trid Phantasm. The difference is that Invisibility and Mask are targeted and can be sustained with a sustaining focus. The "around" target is for limiting the total volume that can be made invisible or masked. I think we are on the same page now but getting lost in semantics. At any rate that is just my take on what "around" means.
JaronK
QUOTE (DocMortand)
Is an interesting take on things - doesn't explain some concepts, tho - like grenades. Would a person ever view a grenade as part of himself? It is expendable. So why would it go invisible at all? Also isn't the idea of auras such that objects hold the aura of the person who owned it before, at least for hours? (I believe an action performed by someone lasts for hours, at least...) So a grenade, when thrown, would STAY invisible. The latter is more unsupportable, of course.

The flip side of the coin is that if invisibility requires self image to incorporate said item, then invisible kleptomaniacs would rule the world because they believe that anything somebody else has is really theirs by right. grinbig.gif

[edit] Another thing - if you cast invisibility on a cloak and drape the cloak over a rock, would you be able to see the rock or would it effectively disappear? This might answer the "invisible cloak to hide things" thought.

I would say that as long as it's "your" grenade on your person, it's invisible. Basically, if you could instinctually know where the grenade is on your person, it's probably invisible. Or, if you like, if you're past the point of thinking "I have a grenade on me" and just instinctually know you've got one, it's invisible. When you throw it, you detach it from yourself, so it would immediately become visible.

Kleptomaniacs might want things, but they're still seperate from them. Once they've got them on their person and forget about them, it's inivisible. Think about a new car. For a while, you think "hey, it's my new car, it's so new, and has that new car smell!" After a while, though, it's just your car.

If you drape the cloak over the rock, I'd let the rock stay visible. The rock is not part of the cloak in any way, nor is the cloak part of the rock. A painting on a wall is kind of part of the wall, though.

JaronK
hahnsoo
I've always played it that Invisibility encompasses all possessions on a character at the time of the casting, and is sustained that way. Dropped objects "appear" normally, as they become disconnected with your aura. Picked up objects do not "disappear", as they were not on your person at the time of the casting. You would need to recast the spell if you want to subsume the object into your cloak of invisibility.
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