If you cast invisibility, and the target resists, they can see you. Fine. But can they see that you have an invisibility illusion up?

Where I'm going with this is a thought I had when I read that the Object Resistance of cameras doesn't matter for invisibility. If I cast force 1 improved invisibility on myself, and withhold all but one casting die, the spell will be easily resisted by anyone watching at the time, but any camera or recording equipment won't see I'm there. So, in theory, I could cast this when going to a meet... the Johnson and the other teammates wouldn't notice anything, but if anyone was covertly spying on us, their recording wouldn't have me in it if they played it back later.

The only snag in this plan is if people can tell that I have the invisibility spell up. So can they tell?

JaronK

You know, I thought I had Invisibility figured out. Then I read the FAQ. I'd love to answer your question, but I just don't know anymore.

SR invisibility makes baby Jesus cry...

Of course the Johnson it likely to have spell defense up, which will now eat your invisibility spell...

I would guess they don't see anything unusual, since SR spells don't normally have visible effects...

Does it says anything in the description of entertainment, phantasm, etc about what people see when the resist?

Nothing ever says anything about what you see if you resist an illusion. I always assumed with phantasm and the like that you'd see a transparent version of the illusion that didn't block line of sight to what was really going on... but that doesn't really work with invisibility, and by canon nothing really happens as far as I know.

As to the Johnson having spell defense... that doesn't really matter, as it will just make him resist even more (and I'd assume he doesn't have to resist at all, really... with one die rolled, I'm unlikely to even get one success against a TN of 6, which is the int of the Johnson in the book).

JaronK

Tough call. I'd have to say, if illusions are mental, then resisting it means you see nothing.

Check the latest FAQ on spells defense and area of effect spells... Spells defense apparently eats spells under the new FAQ ruling (spell defense and area of effect spells)... Thankfully, such things are easily house ruled...

No matter whether physical or mental, a resisted illusion is not seen. There's absolutely nothing in the rules about knowing whether or not an illusion is real or "disbelieving" it, so someone who resists is simply not affected at all.

~J

Don't forget the FAQ IS NOT CANNON, so, if it contradicts the book (as in the case of invis) don't follow it.

The FAQ is not, in fact, a cannon. It is also not canon

~J

I've always said that they can initially see the illusion since the resistance test doesn't occur until coming in contact with it. For Invisibility, I describe a successful resistance as the peeling back of a shroud that still lingers afterwards. Remember that one can choose not to resist a spell, and that could lead to an interesting situation when the Johnson wishes you gone.

Of course, the simple answer is to create a restricted spell that only affects cameras.

The only way that I have found for it to work right is that if resisted they are aware the illusion is there but it does not negatively impact them.

While resisting an illusory wall they know it is an illusion and they can see through it with no penalty while ebing aware of it's existance.

While resisting an invisibility spell they know the person is supposed to be invisible, but they can still see them with no penalty.

I have the illusion flicker or give them telltale notice.

Out of interest, why do you do that?

~J

Two reasons, to avoid the following scenarios:

First, in cases where if the illusion is resisted the person still sees the illusion would totally screw people in some cases whether they resisted it or not. An example of which is the prick wall phantasm. A group wants to stop a firefight so casts an illusory brick wall between the two parties. Even if resisted, you know it's an illusion so it's still blind fire to shoot through it, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.

Second, in cases where a mage will voluntarily fail a spell resistance roll for a cheezy effect. For example, a mage casting invisibility at a wall at force one and witholding all but one dice. Everyone will resist it, except him. Then he can see through the wall while noone else even knows a spell is there.

Well, by the new FAQ you'd have to be higher than force one to get the wall to drop, since you'd need to beat it's OR, but the point still stands I suppose. But the ability to use illusions to create blindfire situations where resisting doesn't help? I don't buy it.

JaronK

DrJest said that resisting means you see 'nothing'. Damn that's tough.
"I'm blind! Damn those sixes!"

From the description of Illusion Spells (SR3 p. 195), if a target gets enough successes to resist an illusion he "will determine that the illusion is not real."

Our team plays that successfully resisting a visual illusion results in obvious visual disturbances, such that a trained observer could determine there was an illusion spell going on. So, in our campaign, resisting an illusion of a wall could result in seeing a ghostly form of the wall and seeing what is beyond it. Resisting an illusion of invisibility might result in the subject being seen but various parts of him flicker in and out. A GM can describe this any way he likes, just like he can choose his own descriptions for wound affects.

In any event, we play that a target resisting an illusion spell can determine that the illusion is not real.

Page 195 of SR3 states that when resisted, the target determines that the illusion is not real. By my reading, that implies that target is then aware that there is an illusion, but it does not affect them. If they resisted an Invisibility spell, then the caster is a little shimmery, undefined, or slightly transparent. For an illusory brick wall, they might see the vague details of it, but it's not distinct enough to actually incur penalties.

As for making walls invisible, that's a no go, just like if you had a full scale vid screen showing what was on the other side. It's not a direct line of sight (as I believe that both magic and electronic enhancements to vision are mentioned as not creating a valid LOS).

I have no problem with (Improved) Invisibility making walls invisible. I just disagree with it creating LOS for spellcasting purposes.

I handle this the same way as BitBasher, if nothing else for the effect. I guess you could handle it like it was directly affecting the minds of someone, so if they resist, they can't see it. I like that point of view for mana based illusion spells, but for Physical ones, they bring forth an image that can fool cameras, not just minds. Since it is resisted by Intelligence I tend to think of it like a perception test against the image, if the resist, the image still exists, but they see it for what it really is, an illusion, and are therefore not tricked or hindered by it.

I think the LOS rules for the invisible wall should be about the same as those for Clairvoyance... What were they again?

Having an illusion restricted to cameras? That'd be like stacking physical invisbility under a mana illusion of yourself, right?

For some reason I recollect reading in the novels situations where a character senses a spell was cast, but can't tell anything else about it, which would indicate you don't see the illusion at all. I do generally allow people to voluntarily lower their resistance (that's why you're rolling against a 4 in some cases and willpower in others), in which case, assuming the spellcaster can get those basic successes, they'll see the illusion. But that's just for ease of play.