If you haven't seen the poll I'm talking about:

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=7493


OK – I’ve been thinking a lot about Invisibility and it’s ramifications and effects.

It’s the main reason why I made a Poll about size of area effects being proportional to the Force of the spell cast.

I’m trying to approach this from a logical standpoint, which might be my first mistake

When talking about Invisibility I’m referring to both Mana and Physical versions, except where note.

I’m treating Invisibility as an illusion – things are not made transparent or see-through; an illusion is created that appears to make things invisible, without actually making something truly invisible i.e. light passes through it.

The two closest analogies to the Invisibility illusion are Ruthenium suits/cloaks, and the “Cloaking Device” from Star Trek.

This illusions works on the visible and infrared light frequencies – infrared being Thermal Vision, which Trolls and Dwarves have, is considered to be “normal vision” for them. Since the invisibility illusion works against “Normal Vision”, it stands to reason that it works against Infrared frequencies. Improved Invisibility would also work against Infrared Cameras.

As I picture how this illusion works (of course, if you disagree with this, it all falls apart):
You cast the spell, and the illusion recreates the environment without the subject of the spell. So when the invisible subject stands against a wall, when you look at him, you see the wall around the invisible subject… but when you look directly at the subject… you see an illusion of the wall that’s behind them – not the actual wall.

And by environment, I mean indoors, outdoors, above ground, in the sewer… wherever you happen to cast the spell.

http://homepage.mac.com/sweeneycolors67/In...visibility2.jpg

I’ve attached an pic to illustrate what I mean – from the point of view of someone looking directly at the invisible person and wall are on the left, while on the right shows a different viewpoint for ‘illustration’ purposes only.

On the bottom left, a white outline is indicated around the “invisible” character – outside that white outline, you see the real, actual wall. Inside that outline, you see an illusion of the wall.

On the bottom right, you don’t see the character, but the illusion on them (the wall) that has been created by the Invisibility spell.

Of course, if you changed your viewpoint In Game – you’d still only see what was behind them – the illusions matches the environment around the subject, no matter what angle you perceive it at.

Still with me? Still awake? Kudos to you!

So, even *if* you could make a wall invisible – things you perceive through the wall are just illusions, even if they exactly match what is on the other side. So trying to manabolt a target “through” the invisible wall just doesn’t work – you’re hitting an illusion. Spell fizzles. You take Drain if you’re unlucky.

***

And now the Second Half of the Post…

Now onto the Force of an Invisibility illusion, and limitations of force as it applies to area.

Force 1 improved Invisibility. Lots of people like it. Lots hate it. For the same reason. The mage throws all his sorcery, spell pool, totem bonuses and foci into casting the spell. Uses 1 karma to re-roll. Has 10 successes. No mundane will *ever* see through this illusion. Under Canon rules, there’s no limit to the number of successes on an illusion spell (which is a debate for another time).

Now for a suggestion to change illusions spells just a little bit…

The maximum area for an Invisibility Spell (or any illusion spell) would be Force, in meters Radius.

Why limit the size to force?

Because, (and this is a biggie!)… under the right conditions, mundanes can follow the invisible subject with OMG successes on a Force 1 invisibility spell, even though they can’t see it. And they follow it using normal eyesight only. I’ll explain before ya start screaming and throwing rule books (but if you must throw sourcebooks I can use Rigger 3, and both SOTA sourcebooks, please!).

The normal area for a spell is Magic Attribute, no matter what force it is cast at. But if you limit illusion spells to Area = Radius(Force), you can limit the effectiveness of low force spells.

Picture the mage standing on a sidewalk under a streetlight at night. His shadow falls directly beneath him. (light still hits him, the illusion just hides that). The Invisibility illusion covers that shadow with an illusion that looks like light is still hitting the sidewalk.

Now the mage starts walking away from the streetlight. His shadow falls in front of him. The further away from the light he walks, the longer his shadow gets. As long as his shadow falls inside the radius of the spell, the illusion makes it look like there’s no shadow on the sidewalk.

Once his shadow falls OUTSIDE the radius of the illusion spell…. It shows up on the sidewalk, from the edge of the illusion spell to where the shadow normally ends.

http://homepage.mac.com/sweeneycolors67/In...nvisibility.jpg

So, a force 1 Invisibility illusion works just dandy… providing you don’t cast much of a shadow – the spell has a one meter radius – anything outside that shows up, as show in the pic above.

Force 6 invisibility…. You shadow can fall as much as 6 meters, or 19.6 feet and still be covered up by the illusion – i.e. no shadow exists to people who can’t see through the illusion. i.e. like the second example in the pic above - the size of the spell is big enough to cover the cast shadow.

Another advantage for using Force to limit area – Trolls would require a Force 2 minimum to become invisible – they’re almost 3 meters tall – too big for a force 1 spell.

And if said Troll carries a polearm? You just might need Force 3 to make him “invisible.”

However, since the size of the area effect has bugger-all to do with force, it makes the second half of my point moot.

Unless someone wants to use this as a house rule.

***

And one other reason I don’t like the “You can’t see yourself if you cast invisibility on yourself rule”….

All mages/shamans can now be kamikaze mana-bombers…. Just ground a whopper of a stunball/manaball etc on yourself in the middle of a rumble… everyone but you is hit… you can’t see yourself, so you’re not a valid target.

Invisibility, as listed in the MitS design section, isn't an Area effect spell, so technically, Magic Rating has nothing to do with the radius of people viewing it.

Check the Arcane Lore/Spell Table in the back of MitS: Invis and ImpInvis are listed as LOS, not LOS(A). Hence they are not Area of Effect spells.

Vehicle Mask is also listed as LOS only - not LOS(A) - so a 2x3x4M truck has no area (volume) then?

It's another one of those ambiguities.... a subject has area and volume, ergo the effect of a spell should have area.

I think for those illusions listed as LOS(A), you cannot cast it on a subject, only over an area.

And the opposite for LOS illusion spells - they can only be cast on a subject, not over an area.

i.e. Hot Potato is an area spell - you can't actually cast in on a subject, but you can centre it on a subject (area).

Please.

Of course the truck has volume. However, vehicle mask targets one truck... not every truck within a radius. I suppose you're going to say stunbolt is an area spell too, because the people it targets have volume?

Invisibility is not an area spell. Sorry.

JaronK

So perhaps you're saying that you should need a higher Force Invisibility spell to cover up a giant than you would need for a dwarf?

100% agreed with JaronK about the truck and volume silliness.

What I'm saying is that with Indrect Illusions spells, they can only be cast on either A: a subject, or B an area. There isn't a single indirect illusion spell that can be cast on either.

Invisibility or Vehicle Mask i.e. LOS can only be cast on a Subject - that doesn't mean it isn't an area spell.

Hot Potato or Forboding i.e. LOS(A) can only be cast on an area, not a subject or "target". i.e. you can centre a Hot Potato spell on someone, but you can't cast it at someone.

This does not hold true for Directed Illusion spells.

Why do you feel the need to create three seperate threads for the same topic? Couldn't you have covered this all in the one thread (or two if you really needed to create the poll)?

And I concur with jaronK and AE myself. (That's Austere Emancipator not Area Effect )

As for why I made it a separate topic - for the poll I wanted an honest, gut reaction, not a reaction tailored to one thing in particluar (Indirect Illusions).

People hate some things with the FAQ - I'd like to try to come up with something that works for the FAQ, while keeping Canon (if possible), and eliminating things people don't like (such as casting through invisible walls).

Making a new thread where I could throw out ideas, and get people to respond only to that, instead o reading through responses to things where the thread goes OT several times just makes it a little easier for me. I'm Sorry if I irritate you with that.


So, with respect to the category of Indirect Illusions only:

1. LOS(A) spells can only be cast on an Area, not a Subject? Is this Right or Wrong?

2. LOS spells can only be cast on a Subject, not an Area? Is this Right or Wrong?

3. If 1 & 2 are right, then: If an Three Dimensional Subject has an LOS (Subject only) indirect illusion on them, would the spell not have to be three dimenionsional as well?? Yes or No?

4. If the spell is Three-Dimensional, then doesn't it have area, even though it is not an Area Effect Spell - LOS(A)?

That's a line of thought I'm throwing out and trying to follow. And yes, I'm grateful for when people pokes holes in my theories... chances are I usually learn something new.

If either 1. or 2. is wrong, then the rest is a moot point.

If the answer to 3. is "No" then 4. is a moot point.

Not irritated, just curious, as you already had the other, non-poll thread, which would have served for this purpose.

There is some basis for saying you need higher force for a larger subject - Mask and Physical Mask.

Both spells can only mask vehiclsls equal to or less than the force.

In general, bigger vehicles have bigger bodies. I admit I don't have Rigger 3 to check it for average body/size.

I do have trouble with using OR as a TN of spells. If only because I stand 20 m away from an ordinary security camera, have magic 6, cast Imp. Invisbility on myself at force 12.

In theory, that's enough to beat the OR test. However, the magic is cast 20 m from the camera. So does something effect two different things 20 m apart, of the spell is cast on a subject, and is not an area effect spell?

With my 'theory' (and that's all it is - I'm in no way saying what I've written is canon), you cast a spell. If successful, the illusion is created. Camera records physical illusion. No TN modifer is added or modified via OR.

All I really want to do is try to come up with a way to fix invisibility with a more "rational" explanation that doesn't screw game balance, change TNs, or allow spells to be cast through invisible objects.

And with the later - I'd like to see the original clause enforced from SR3 (not MitS) concerning Indirect Illusions "They must be cast “around” a person or subject"- (Italics are my words to be added to the phrase).

Since a wall or closed door would act as it's own barrier to being "surrounded" by the Improved Invisbility spell, it eleminates the possibility of firing spells, or shooting at targets through an invisibile wall, as you can now, under the FAQ.

You don't have to beat the OR of the camera, as the camera is not the Subject of the spell.

This is one part of the FAQ ruling I agree with.

...and yet another part I, personally, don't agree with. I rather think it's the target's Object Resistance (if any) which counts.

Which only goes to show that you can't please everyone.

Of course, since you don't need to beat the OR of the camera, I'm thinking of casting force 1 Improved Invisibility on myself during meets, withholding all but one die on the casting test (and casting again if I get less than a four). Result: Everyone will completely resist it, so the Johnson and the like won't even notice. But any camera recording the event won't be able to resist, and won't see me there at all. Tada! No evidence left that I was there if someone's snooping.

JaronK