[Odsh]

New edition, same old questions.

To see someone affected by an Improved Invisibility spell with X hits:

• People must succeed on an Intuition + Perception (X) test.
• Drones acting on their own must succeed on a Sensor + Clearsight (X) test I assume.
• Against a camera recording on their own, do you have to beat its Object Resistance, likely 9? So X needs to be at least 9 (quite unlikely)?
• How do you handle someone watching a video feed recorded in real time by a drone or camera?
• How do you handle a rigger jumped into a vehicle or drone? I assume it's a standard perception test?

I remember an old discussion or FAQ that stated that it was the (meta)human who made the perception test when he was seeing through technological devices he paid for in Essence (like cybereyes), otherwise it was the technological device itself. I assume this ruling still stands.

[Xenon]

Living observers resist both Invisibility and Improved Invisibility with Perception + Intuition.

Non-living observers (cameras, drones, sensors etc) resist Improved Invisibility (which is a physical spell) with Object resistance and are immune to regular Invisibility (which is a mana spell).

I remember an old discussion or FAQ that stated that it was the (meta)human who made the perception test when he was seeing through technological devices he paid for in Essence (like cybereyes), otherwise it was the technological device itself. I assume this ruling still stands.

Still the same.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

1. Yes.
2. Drones roll Object Resistance. 15 dice.
3. Sensors such as cameras usually roll 9 dice.  Note that not every die will likely result in a hit.  9 dice will return on average 3 hits, so scoring Improved Invisibility 4 will PROBABLY make you ok. But yes theoretically you need 10 hits to guarantee a CCTV camera can't see you. 16 hits to guarantee a drone can't see you.
4. Object Resistance
5. Object Resistance

Bonus: yes that ruling still stands.  You roll your usual dice rather than object resistance when you're seeing thru cybereyes.  By the same rationale cybereyes won't make you automatically see thru mana invisibility.

[Michael Chandra]

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.

[Xenon]

Seems to be pretty clear that non-living observers resist with their Object Resistance (in both SR5 and SR6).


SR5 p. 290 Illusion Spells - Physical Illusions
They are resisted by Intuition + Logic; non-living devices resist with their Object Resistance.


SR6 p. 129 Magic, Technology and Resistance
The other main effect is that the more technology and artifice there is in an object, the harder it is for it to be affected by magic. This is measured in what’s called Object Resistance, and it often figures in to how well spells cast on items succeed.

SR6 p. 137 Illusion Spells
Illusion spells of the Mana type affect living beings only; Physical Illusion spells affect cameras and other technology as well.

[Odsh]

Ah I didn't realize Object Resistance was now used as a dice pool in opposed tests rather than a threshold like it was in (some?) previous editions (maybe older ones, or maybe it's just my imagination).

Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.

But what would a simple camera resist such a spell with then? It hasn't any Pilot nor Clearsight rating. I don't even think it's given a Device rating anywhere (except in Banshee's 6we Matrix FAQ).

To me the only somewhat confusing part is that, in 6e, living beings resist with a Perception test, but drones do not.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

Well, per the Object Resistance Table on pg 129, if a drone is rolling Object Resistance then it's rolling 15 dice.  The only matter of ambiguity there is whether it's MORE than 15 dice, since drones are listed on the 15+ line.

Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.

Ok, some relevant citations before I go further:

They are cast with an Opposed test,
where Sorcery + Magic is opposed by various combinations
of attributes, listed with each spell.
The other main effect is that the more technology
and artifice there is in an object, the harder it
is for it to be affected by magic. This is measured
in what’s called Object Resistance, and it often figures
in to how well spells cast on items succeed.
The Object Resistance table provides guidelines
for this rating.

Illusion spells are meant to convince people that
the unreal is real, that something not there is there,
or vice versa. They are cast with an Opposed test,
where Sorcery + Magic is opposed by various combinations
of attributes, listed with each spell.
Illusion spells of the Mana type affect living
beings only; Physical Illusion spells affect cameras
and other technology as well.
Illusion spells might be Single Sense (meaning
they affect only one sense) or Multi-Sense (meaning
they affect multiple senses).

Bolded for emphasis.

Short Answer: Yes, physical devices (are supposed to) roll Object Resistance vs Improved Invisibility.

Long Answer: There's no universal resistance called out for Illusion spells, it's left to the spell itself to say.  Invis/Imp Invis doesn't say what you roll... instead it just invokes the Invisible/Improved Invisible status (pg. 52 for both).  The mechanic given THERE is "Perception test".  So, yes, arguably there's the possibility that the intent is that you ignore object resistance since it was never invoked.  However I reject that argument, and prefer the reading that Object Resistance applies more often that strictly when "the spell invokes it." 
1) The spell in this case doesn't have its own mechanics and instead invokes status rules, which do not in turn qualify as spells and therefore don't trigger the "the spell failed to invoke OR" clause. 
2) other critter powers, that could plausibly affect drones, should also invoke OR due to giving resistance pools that drones cannot generate (for example, see Accident pg. 221.  Either a drone rolls Reaction+Charisma for a total of 0 dice... surely not the intent... or OR. )  And if OR can exist where it's not explicitly invoked, then it can exist while not being explicitly invoked on the Invisible/Improved Invisible statuses. 

My reading is that just because the spell deferred resistance rules to another section of the book, where that section of the book had no reason to account for object resistance, doesn't mean that object resistance should be ignored.  Although, yes, granted MC, you do have a point that purely by RAW OR is never invoked AND cameras/drones aren't necessarily left with 0s for dice pools, as they could reasonably find an analogue for a perception test (sensor + clearsight, for example).  But surely you recognize that's just as much of a leap as bringing in OR, yes?  It's not any MORE correct.  If you want to go pure RAW and to hell with any intent, then physical devices must roll Intuition (which they don't have) and Perception skill (which they don't have) which ends up meaning they can never score a single hit.  Which, I can GUARANTEE you is not the intent.

[Shinobi Killfist]

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.

Same, its seeing with its sensors that would be the resist test.

SR3 magic needs a comeback for OR, they had a chart of spells that used OR.  Or more obviously they should have defined spells as their direct or indirect, indirect spells do not use OR, direct spells do. Most physical illusions should fall under indirect. You are not casting a illusion on the drone, its an illusion on you. Where is object resist coming into play setting wise here, the spell never targets them. the magic section is just full of misses, in this case a missed opportunity to clean things up.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.

Same, its seeing with its sensors that would be the resist test.

I'm not sure if you (and/or MC) are saying that a Drone's OR should only be 9 due to "seeing through sensors".  If not, never mind what I'm about to say.  But if you are:

SR magic does not recognize parts of the whole.  You can't manabolt someone's arm, you can only target their aura.  That's how it's been in every edition.  So it doesn't matter what PART of the drone is doing the seeing, a drone rolls 15 dice when it rolls OR.  In a magical context, the drone's sensors cannot be differentiated from the drone itself.

SR3 magic needs a comeback for OR, they had a chart of spells that used OR.  Or more obviously they should have defined spells as their direct or indirect, indirect spells do not use OR, direct spells do. Most physical illusions should fall under indirect. You are not casting a illusion on the drone, its an illusion on you. Where is object resist coming into play setting wise here, the spell never targets them. the magic section is just full of misses, in this case a missed opportunity to clean things up.

Indeed.  The concept of spell targeting, in its entirety, is a casualty of the press to cut word count.  If you want to get super RAW, this omission means they neglected to ever specify that you cannot target mundane auras with spells while you're projecting and not manifesting.  They only said it's prohibited while you're manifesting.  I mean.. OBVIOUSLY the intent is you can't, but it never got said.  I'm crossing fingers Street Wyrd patches this hole... if done right it should also be able to answer whether sustained spells can "go with" you while you project.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I wasn't sure on the numbers, its not the sensors I'd have them resists.  I'd just have the drone make a sensors test like a perception test just by the drone. It gets enough hits its sees enough flaws in the illusion to know it for what it is. I don;t think OR comes into play at all for a drone against a physical illusion, except maybe something like vehicle mask when you cast the mask on the drone.

[Odsh]

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

If you go that way, you could also argue that a cybereye should not work better because it's part of a metahuman.

Setting aside what is - or should have been - RAW, I'm curious, what would you use as dice pool for a camera resisting an Improved Invisibility spell?

[Michael Chandra]

Cyber-eyes are an exception because they're paid for with essence. They have become part of the human. In fact, they can function WORSE inside the human.

Anyway, I'm going to guess OR being a threshold is from SR3. As far as I recall, it's always been a dicepool in SR4-SR6.

As for what a camera would resist with: I do agree with going with Object Resistance, I simply find it frustrating the rules don't state it as explicitly as they do with Manipulation and Detection spells. As far as I'm concerned: The footage won't show if the camera fails, but will show if the camera succeeds. So no retries later, can't have six people look at the footage to still pierce the invisibility. So a camera rolls 9 dice. But at my table, a drone's camera also rolls 9 dice to pierce the invisibility, not 15. It would roll 15 when resisting a Levitate, though.

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

Yes, SSDR, I eagerly promote that drones should roll Sensor OR against Illusions. I've found records of that opinion of mine going several years back. In my personal opinion, having drones roll their Object Resistance for sensor observation is rubbish, since it makes invisibility spells way too weak. Cheap spy-drones functioning far better than cameras against magic, makes said magic way too useless against security.

I mean, yes, you don't target single drone parts with combat spells, makes sense. But there's no proper explanation on whether a drone's OR applies even when it's sensing. Of course even if the rules did say so, I'd still argue it's rubbish. A drone observes through its sensors. That camera doesn't suddenly become better when it's a part of a drone. If you want to turn a drone into a Vessel, or Fling or Animate it, it makes sense that you face its 15+ OR. But I don't buy that a drone or commlink outbeats a camera when it's just using the onboard camera.

When you are navigating an area with many cameras, that 9 OR is already a big threat even against 5-hit Improved Invisibility. 4 Cameras already bring it to 50-50 odds. When you're facing a spydrone, which can be as cheap as 450 nuyen, an OR of 15 vs Improved Invisibility would already equal six cameras. To me, that is too easy. So I find it imbalancing, and would always go with the sensor OR myself. Otherwise, all it'd take to pierce invisibility is a car looking at it.

[Odsh]

I see your point. At some point, ease of play and rule concision has also to be taken into account though. If you rule that drones sometimes have an OR of 15, sometimes 9 because you target that part of the drone that is deemed to be technologically less complex (which in itself is also debatable), i.m.h.o. that's just adding another layer of complexity that SR really doesn't need more of.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Setting aside what is - or should have been - RAW, I'm curious, what would you use as dice pool for a camera resisting an Improved Invisibility spell?

For the reasons I already went into upthread: I believe the best thing to do is go with Object Resistance.  Sensors are called out as being on the 9+ line.
MC is correct that one could also argue a case for Sensor + Clearsight, but it only makes sense in the context of drones and doesn't help in the case of CCTV cameras and such.  So again IMO OR makes more sense as the same ruling (if different dice pools) works equally well for both.

Cyber-eyes are an exception because they're paid for with essence. They have become part of the human. In fact, they can function WORSE inside the human.

Anyway, I'm going to guess OR being a threshold is from SR3. As far as I recall, it's always been a dicepool in SR4-SR6.

As for what a camera would resist with: I do agree with going with Object Resistance, I simply find it frustrating the rules don't state it as explicitly as they do with Manipulation and Detection spells. As far as I'm concerned: The footage won't show if the camera fails, but will show if the camera succeeds. So no retries later, can't have six people look at the footage to still pierce the invisibility. So a camera rolls 9 dice. But at my table, a drone's camera also rolls 9 dice to pierce the invisibility, not 15. It would roll 15 when resisting a Levitate, though.

First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.

Yes, SSDR, I eagerly promote that drones should roll Sensor OR against Illusions. I've found records of that opinion of mine going several years back. In my personal opinion, having drones roll their Object Resistance for sensor observation is rubbish, since it makes invisibility spells way too weak. Cheap spy-drones functioning far better than cameras against magic, makes said magic way too useless against security.

I mean, yes, you don't target single drone parts with combat spells, makes sense. But there's no proper explanation on whether a drone's OR applies even when it's sensing. Of course even if the rules did say so, I'd still argue it's rubbish. A drone observes through its sensors. That camera doesn't suddenly become better when it's a part of a drone. If you want to turn a drone into a Vessel, or Fling or Animate it, it makes sense that you face its 15+ OR. But I don't buy that a drone or commlink outbeats a camera when it's just using the onboard camera.

See, taking a CCTV camera off the wall and fixing it to a drone and suddenly that "same camera" is rolling 15 dice instead of 9 dice makes sense to me.  When it's a stand-alone sensor, it doesn't have the drone's complicated systems integrated into its function.  The intent, in my opinion, is clear that once you get into the realm of something as complex as a computer, it's a case of 15+ OR dice.  A camera that's just feeding data to an outside recipient (whether that recipient is a metahuman or Host)?  Sure, 9 dice.  But by what's in effect the same logic as cybereyes counting as "part of you" rather than external/standalone devices, a camera that's integrated into a drone's complicated systems is part of the drone rather than a standalone component.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

So, related to the OP's question but unexplored in the thread so far is "how many perception tests do you make when an invisible person is trying to sneak past you".

To me it's clear that it's 1 opposed test versus Agility + Stealth, and 1 success test vs the status threshold.  Of course in the case of sensors/drones, that success test becomes an OR test vs same threshold rather than a 2nd perception test.  And actually, you need to do the latter first, as whether you pierce or fail to pierce the invisibility is pretty relevant to the circumstantial edge for the Stealth test...

What it absolutely is not is 1 test combining the two.  a) Opposed tests don't have thresholds and b) if it did, suddenly being invisible would dramatically help you be silent and undetectable by other non-visual means, when invisibility certainly shouldn't be.