I think they need to re-write the rules for illusion spells.

I've always pictured invisibility spells as an illusion that recreates the environment perfectly, without the subject of the spell, by creating that illusion around them.

I know there's different interpretations for Improved Invisibility "affecting" cameras - some say it must have a force = 1/2 OR in order for the illusion to be seen by a camera.

My take is that when the spell is cast by a mage, creating a physical illusion, cameras automatically see the illusion. However they are not "affected" by the illusion.... i.e. the camera is not physically changed in any way by the spell, so IMO, OR has nothing to do with the force it must be cast at in order for the illusion to be seen by the camera.

Ditto for making an object "invisible"... you're not casting the spell on the object, but creating an illusion around it... and illusion that recreates the environment *without* the object. Since you haven't changed the object in any way, OR shouldn't apply to the sorcery test to create the illusion Improved Invisibility.

That's only my opinion, and this has been done to death, and will be done again... and again.

However, allowing someone to cast this spell on a wall so you can cast spells through it (except the aforementioned Elemental Manipulations).... is utterly wrong, IMO.

Improved Invisibility must still be "cast around the subject".... and how to you do that with a wall?

When casting on a person, even though you cannot see their backside, at least you are capable of seeing their backside, just by walking around. And, unless they are standing up against a wall, the illusion is "cast around the subject".... but with a wall, it blocks the capability of "casting it around" the wall.

And now it introduces other stupid things.... if we can cast it on a wall and make part of a wall invisible.... can we now make 1/2 a person invisible? just the top half so they can shoot over a low wall without being seen?

Can we make someone's armor invisible while they're wearing it so it doesn't look like they are wearing armor?

How about a long hedge? Can we make that invisible so we can shoot people and avoid cover modifiers?

This really screws things up, IMO.

If that were the case then the mage in question wouldn't be able to see anything as the light wouldn't be refracted in the eye. He'd generally have worse problems than just ot seeing his own body (NB: I've never been into biology so deliberately didn't go into further detail!)

How can that be reconciled with the FAQ?

If the spell did just affect the minds of potential viewers this would not be an issue.

Actually - the opening story of BBB describes Animal under an invisibility spell - he can see himself and wonders if the spell has actually worked...

To which his neighbor would respond, "it's invisible, dumbass. Need to label the pages in your spellbook better?"


The novels, and if memory serves the story in the front of SR2 both have examples of people not being able to see their own body.


As for the FAQ ruling... Come on, weren't they reading the forums?? We ARE the canon lynch-mob, after all! I don't suppose we can write them e-mails saying 'no, you're wrong!', can we? (Or, more precisely, will doing so be productive?)

Where did you find this phrase? The closest thing I could find is:

Would cover it too.

EDIT: and no book quote from me right now cause I left my pocket PC at home with the PDF's on it.

<Bangs head on wall>

This is where we could use a Shadowrun GM Guide.... one that handles answers to all these types of questions while respecting what is Canon, and Game Balance.

Not really - he is seeing an illusion of the targets... the wall is not invisible.... it's an illusion that makes the wall 'appear' invisible.

I've written to Rob Boyle, and here's part of what I wrote that would explain why casting spells at targets through an invisible wall wouldn't work.:

From the descriptions of Indirect Illusion Spells, I picture Invisibility & Improved Invisibility as illusions that are cast around the subject, recreating the environment without the subject of the spell. The subject is not actually invisible, just covered by an illusion that shows the environment without the subject of the spell. So looking at an "invisible" person, the illusion recreates the wall behind them, the floor beneath them, the rays of the sun beaming "through" them; all of this is recreated on the illusion surrounding the subject.

This is similar to how Ruthenium works - essentially creating a picture on the ruthenium of the environment around the suit.... but using magic, instead of technology. The subject is not actually invisible, merely covered by an illusion that recreates the environment around them, without the subject.

My definition of "environment" is wherever the subject of the spell happens to be; indoors, outdoors, underground, etc.

In trying to cast this spell "around" the wall to make it "invisible", one would think it would fail, as the spell cannot "surround" the wall - much like trying to draw a circle on the floor that will surround the wall - the circle is stopped by the wall, unless you leave the room you are in, go to the room on the other side of the wall and continue drawing the circle. The wall acts as it's own barrier to being surrounded by the illusion.

Line of Sight is required for all spells, and to cast it on a wall where you are incapable of having a line of sight on the other side would violate the LOS rule.

While it's true you do not see the the far side of a character you are casting this spell on, at least you're capable of casting the spell AROUND them - there are no barriers or physical impediments to the spell surrounding them, unless they are standing up against a wall or similar barrier.

Even if one wishes to ignore my suggestion (that the spell must surround the subject), and rule the wall can be made invisible, you're still looking at an illusion - the wall is not "invisible".... you are looking at an illusion that makes the wall appear as if it is no longer there. So any spells you cast are targeting illusions created by the invisibility spell - they are not cast at the actual Targets, but a illusion(picture) of them. This would be the same as casting a combat spell at an image of a target on a security monitor, something expressly forbidden by SR3 Canon:

Since you don't have a valid LOS on the target (You're looking at an illusion of the target), one shouldn't be able to cast spells at a target through an invisible wall.

I agree, Bleh.

There is no light-bending going on, just the "Illusion" that the wall isn't there. I am still confused how making a wall invisible gives you LOS since you'd only see what "you think" should be on the otherside of the wall.

I don't like it sir, don't like it one bit.

The caster can't see the backside of characters he casts the spell on either... this is one of those situations where I let "magic" take care of the details.

The caster only needs to have LOS when casting the spell. So if he casts Improved Invisibility illusion onto the character, and into a sustaining focus the character takes with them, and that character leaves the room; does the Improved Invisibility illusion automatically fail because the mage no longer has line of sight, even though the sustaining focus sustains the spell on the subject?

As I said, this is somthing where I let the "magic" take care of the details of the illusion of invisibility - so the magic would take care of recreating the details on the other side of the wall, details the mage cannot even see.

That said, I don't believe you should be able to cast the Improved Invisibility illusion onto a wall in the first place - for reasons I outlined above.

How so?

Details and page quotes please, so I can look up and confirm, deny, debate, agree, whichever the case may be.

"Over an area" here could mean "plane", i.e. the surface of the wall, but since the wall is three-dimensional, I assume then the spell should "surround" the wall, meaning contain the wall entirely - but since the wall itself acts as a barrier to the spell, it would stop the spell.

This will be subject to endless debate I'm sure.

Since the spell would have to go through the wall, floors and ceiling, into areas you cannot possibly have LOS, I would think that it wouldn't work - it can't surround the wall.

So we're back to arguing if one can make a wall invisible.

I would argue that LOS means not only can you see an target, but wouldn't have to lose sight of it when walking around it. With a wall, that means being able to see both sides without losing sight of the wall. i.e casting it at a person, you could easily walk around them. Casting at a wall, you'd have to leave the room you're in to see the other side, and would lose sight of it as you go through a doorway, as Doorframes are constructed separately from walls.

Again, there needs to be a set of rules to follow for magic and buildings, much like there is for vehicles - i.e. you cannot target a part of a vehicle with a spell - you must target it in its entirety.

that's not really a valid definition of LOS. it fits neither the common useage of the phrase, nor the specific usage of the phrase in SR.

edit: in other news, i am the master of all time. according to the clock on this computer, i made this post after my post in the Pistols thread. according to dumpshock, i made it before. bow to my timeocity.

If i is still within the radius of the spell and was part of the subject the spell was cast on, objects you put down are still 'invisible'. Move away so that the object leaves the area effect of the spell, and it is now longer covered by the illusion - it's visible to all views.

Pick something up that was not part of the area of illusion when the spell was cast... it stays visible. Put it inside a backpack you were wearing when the spell was cast.... it's now covered by the illusion.

my humble opinion.

Unless I'm forgetting, you are explicitly disallowed from using any magical means to achieve line of sight.

The wall NEVER becomes invisible - it's an illusion. Everything you see through that "invisible" space is an illusion.



You do not see a target... you see an illusion of the target. i.e. a magical representation of a target.

Invisibilty spells (both types) are indirect illusions.

They "fool the senses"... hence, when you look at something that has Improved Invisibility cast on it, you see an illusion... not what is really there, not what is really behind it - you see an illusion.

So when you cast your manabolt, you are casting it at an illusion of the target.... not the target itself.

...and make it a free downloadble PDF

And to try to simply a little further.... Does the Improved Invisibility illusion actually make the wall transparent, or is it just an illusion that the wall is transparent?

If it's the former, then LOS is established. If it's an illusion of transparency, then LOS does not exist - your target is an illusion.


Which raises another question... if you manabolt a sustained illusion.... is the illusion destroyed?

<grin, duck and run>

Maybe they should just write shit that isn't so goddamn vague, careless, and sloppily amphibolous to begin with. It ain't just the binding, the artwork, cheesy writing, and marketing keeping SR out of the big leagues with D20.

It would have to be the later, unless it was a Manipulation version of Invisability.

Exactly what I was going to chime in with. Manipulation should be the only thing that makes matter turn into a transparent source so that a spell can be cast through it. "Turn to Glass" or some other such DnD-esque nonsense. Without Invisibility actually transforming the wall into a transparent material, there shouldn't be any way that a casting can take place through said wall.

Agreed that it is a bit ambiguous, but applying the definitions of the class of spell that it is helps.

That may have been SR1 or SR2, but SR3 makes no mention of "synching auras" to cast spells.

It's purely line of sight (LOS) EXCEPT for elemental manipulation Area Effect spells, Detection Spells, and Touch Range Spells.

With the BALL variants of Elemental Manipulation, you do not need LOS - however, Blind Fire or Cover modifiers apply to the base TN of 4.

So if something is within the Area Effect of Elemental Manipulations Area Effect Spells, it's entirely possible to hit targets even if you don't even know they are there, much less can see them.

Other spells that don't require LOS are detection spells - they have specific tables for these TNs in SR3, and touch range spells - as touch replaces LOS.

Now the examples in the second quote are technological, but the the statement itself is not exclusively technological. Removing the samples listed the statement says:

"Anything that modifies the original image of the target before it reaches the caster prevents the caster from casting spells on the target."

This does not limit itself to technological means, and the invis spell on the intervening wall, in addition to a spell that is altering the caster's vision in such a way making the wall transparent (remember, Illusions are not real, they are in the mind of the perciever), it also is altering the image of the target.