Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: todeath6655 on <05-29-18/1840:20>

Title: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: todeath6655 on <05-29-18/1840:20>
I am starting a Shadowrun campaign 5th edition and I have a question about a mechanic one of my players brought up. This player wants to be a sniper and they're trying to argue that even if a enemies behind full cover they can't see them they're behind the wall or some such, that if they have a drone or some other device with image link and it's being uploaded to them they can shoot through this wall and hit the enemy without the -6 dice penalty. I can't find anything in the rules how should I handle this. Thanks in advance sincerely todeath6655
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Marcus on <05-29-18/2012:51>
A Tac-Net I think can reduce the penalty, and add bonus dice. But those are not cheap and it take a some setting up to do.
There are some piece of tech for seeing through barriers, and there are rules for shooting at approximate location which i do think is like -6 penalty.

There are qualities for reducing shooting penalties. I suspect you could mitigate that penalty a fair amount, but I doubt you could fully negate  it, but with maybe the exception of really high grade tac-net. However a -6 for a well built sniper is hardly a deal breaker.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-29-18/2106:25>
Indeed.  Something akin to a teammate or drone spotting a target and tagging it with an ARO would simply allow the blind fire through a wall rather than negating the penalty for blind fire.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Reaver on <05-29-18/2244:27>
All an image link allows is for pictures and video from one point (the transmitter) to an other point (the receiver). In some ways, its no different then using SnapCHat. One person takes a pic on their phone, then someone can view it on their end.

Sadly, you buddy doesn't really know what he is talking about. Even with an image link focused on the target, directly in the room WITH the target, would not negate the blind fire penalty because the perspective from the camera does not match up with the perspective of looking down the sights of the weapon. All he knows for sure, is that the target is in the room and the general location of the target thanks to the image link, that is not enough to place a precise shot.

However, if it makes him feel better, the target is also -4 dice to reaction test... so there's that. 
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Michael Chandra on <05-30-18/0050:56>
Yeah, this is the definition of Blind fire: You know where they are, but don't have a direct LoS, so you're firing without knowing exactly where to fire. I've allowed Snipers to fire through walls with AROs or spotters, but it always came with the Blind Fire penalty.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <05-30-18/1451:35>
If the shooter doesn’t know where the target is, they apply the Blind Fire modifier (SR5 p. 178). If the defender is completely hidden behind the barrier, the attacker suffers a –6 Blind Fire dice pool modifier for not being able to see his intended target, but the hidden defender is considered unaware of the attack (SR5 p. 197). Attacks against invisible targets suffer the Blind Fire modifier if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise sense the subject of the spell (SR5 p. 291)

If the shooter know where the target is then they don't apply the Blind Fire modifier. If the defender is not completely hidden behind a barrier then attacker does not suffer a -6 Blind Fire dice pool modifier. Attacks against invisible targets does not suffer the Blind Fire modifier if the attacker is able to see or otherwise sense (hear, smell, touch, taste, assessing, using an ultra sound sensor etc) the subject of the spell.



However, if it makes him feel better, the target is also -4 dice to reaction test... so there's that.
The target does normally not get to take a defense test at all since he is unaware of (can't see) the ranged shooter. However, in this case the target may roll 4 dice as a pool of its own because his body happen to be more than 75% behind cover.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Tecumseh on <05-30-18/1736:42>
I'm not usually one to say that the SR5 rules aren't granular enough but Blind Fire is a case where a bunch of situations events all get dumped in the same bucket. Specifically, the rules don't really distinguish between "target location uncertain" and "target location totally fragging unknown". For example:

1) Target hiding behind a small piece of cover where there's no real question where they could be = Blind Fire
2) Target hiding behind a large piece of cover where it's uncertain where exactly they are = Blind Fire
3) Shooter firing at an invisible target whose vicinity is suspected but not definitely known = Blind Fire
4) Shooter firing in total darkness, target location could be anywhere up/down/left/right/wherever = Blind Fire

I personally change the penalty based on the situation. For situation #1 I would apply a limited modifier, like -2. My personal opinion is that the -6 Blind Fire penalty is best applied to situations where the shooter has a notion of where the target is but isn't 100% certain. For example, if the target is behind a large piece of cover, or if the target just went invisible but you know their last location, then -6 is appropriate. For situations where the target location is a mystery - i.e. the shooter is basically firing randomly - then I change course completely and make it an Edge test (or even Intuition) because it's now about luck more than about skill. Other GMs may rule differently per their own preferences, their interpretations of the rules, and the exact situation at hand.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Marcus on <06-02-18/0037:16>
Was this settled? Did OP find answer he was looking for?
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-02-18/0438:21>
Gut feeling (and how I think many of us might apply the Blind Fire modifier) is that:

If you have a "rough idea" on where the target is (maybe because you see 1% of his body or because you hear an invisible target) you take a Blind Fire penalty of -6 dice.

And "if the shooter doesn't know where the target it" you are not even allowed to take a test to hit the target (save for maybe suppressive fire or getting lucky with AoE attacks).


A strict reading of rules as written, however, seem to suggest that:

If you have a "rough idea" of where the target is located (maybe because you see 1% of his body or because you hear, smell, touch, or even taste an invisible target) then Blind Fire does not apply.

And that you only suffer the Blind Fire penalty of -6 dice if "the shooter doesn’t know where the target is".




Gut feeling (and how I think many of us might apply the Blind Fire modifier) is that the only reason you are allowed to take a test to hit the subject in the first place is because the shooter have a drone in there giving the shooter a "rough idea" on where he should aim but that he need to take the Blind Fire penalty while doing it.


A strict reading of rules as written, however, seem to suggest that the shooter would suffer the Blind Fire modifier if "the shooter doesn't know where the target is" by blindly shooting at the wall that the subject is hiding behind... and if the shooter have a drone in the room showing him the target then the shooter is now made aware of where the target is and "the shooter doesn’t know where the target is" would no longer apply.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Marcus on <06-02-18/1812:55>
While that's quite lovely Xenon, it still doesn't tell me if OP go the answer he was looking for.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: farothel on <06-03-18/0410:14>
I have just another question concerning this.  What is your sniper running around with?  A panther assault cannon?  If not, he's going to have quite a hard time getting through the wall to the target at the other side, blind fire penalty or not.  Unless it's a paper wall, but anything like brick or concrete will normally stop a bullet from a sniper rifle without too much trouble.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-03-18/0545:14>
If the purpose was to destroy the wall you would probably have to use cannons or explosives, but in this case we are just trying to penetrate the wall.

Sniper rifles in core have an unmodified DV between 11P and 14P and an armor piercing rating between -3 and -5. APDS add another -4 to that. Structural material (like brick) have an unmodified armor rating of 16 while heavy structural material (like concrete) have an unmodified armor rating of 20.

If the modified DV is higher than the modified armor rating then the barrier will take 1 box of damage (or no damage at all, GM call) and the rest (modified DV - 1) will continue through and hit the target on the other side of the barrier.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Lorebane24 on <06-03-18/1050:01>
Imma play devils's advocate here and say that, as a GM, I love this, because it means players are coordinating and thinking tactically, which I like to reward in my games.  I would add in some house rules to handle this, but it would involve a few steps.  First they would need to create an AR overlay for the image link so they could see it while still having some sort of access to their own sights or smartlink.  I look at this as a not-difficult but not-basic computer check (skill level of a tech hobbyist, maybe threshold 2).  Then I would call for a logic + intuition check from the sniper with a variable threshold to see whether they can pinpoint the target that way, which could reduce the blind fire penalty to -4 on a succesd, and if a player really wanted to make this one of their characyer's shticks, I woukd create a 5 point quality for them that further reduces the blind fire penalty to -2 on a success. 

The way I look at this, the tram has to succeed on 2 other checks before the attack roll is even made, and the attack still comes with a minor penalty, AND you have to contend with a potentially very high barrier rating.  It opens up new angles when they coordinate and plan, but there is no guarantee that a mark is going to be in a room or hallway near the building's edge (I wouldn't allow any personal weapon to penetrate deeper than that, even a Barret with APDS rounds), but this could also lead to interesting runs where the party needs to find a way tp lure a fortified target out to a better spot in the building.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-03-18/1132:35>
this is very clearly a blind fire situation at -6.

You cannot directly target him and you are relying on positional data (GPS located ARO targeting icons set by a third party with image link) that has a precision level of @3-4 meters.

So no, this will not remove the -6 blind fire targeting penalty as the target could be anywhere +/- 12 feet in any direction.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Nelphine on <06-05-18/1613:41>
Where do you get +- 3 or 4 meters from? I would think taking a video of a room, and then putting that onto an image link, would get much closer. (Imagine having someone with a video camera that is directly uploading onto your phone in your hand - you could cesonly tell within a few inches of where everyone is on that video; the main problem would be perception, and possible time lag, but with even modern day technology time lag would be close to nil, so mostly just perception - I would think -4, with a 5 point quality to reduce to -1 or -2 seems just about perfect. I wouldn't require any checks though, as video up/downloading is basic with any image software). But if there is distances like you've indicated somewhere, that would definitely put it into the -6 territory.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Michael Chandra on <06-05-18/1630:28>
I have just another question concerning this.  What is your sniper running around with?  A panther assault cannon?  If not, he's going to have quite a hard time getting through the wall to the target at the other side, blind fire penalty or not.  Unless it's a paper wall, but anything like brick or concrete will normally stop a bullet from a sniper rifle without too much trouble.
APDS or AV rounds in an Ares Barrett 122. -10 AP at the very least. -22 if you do a Double Tap with a Semi-Automatic Burst. Won't work on big walls, but those of small buildings, or non-structural, are a piece of cake.

The first time I had a Sniper fire through a wall based on first person camera footage, without AROs on Traced Commlinks, was when another player threw a big attack at a gangster and the guy came out unscratched. That was the point where he realised what they were in for, so he called for a Sniper shot. Aaaah... Good times... Hello Beetle Spirits!
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Reaver on <06-05-18/1632:26>
Where do you get +- 3 or 4 meters from? I would think taking a video of a room, and then putting that onto an image link, would get much closer. (Imagine having someone with a video camera that is directly uploading onto your phone in your hand - you could cesonly tell within a few inches of where everyone is on that video; the main problem would be perception, and possible time lag, but with even modern day technology time lag would be close to nil, so mostly just perception - I would think -4, with a 5 point quality to reduce to -1 or -2 seems just about perfect. I wouldn't require any checks though, as video up/downloading is basic with any image software). But if there is distances like you've indicated somewhere, that would definitely put it into the -6 territory.


OK, look at this way:

You are staring at a wall, wondering where to place your shot. The wall is 3 Meters (10 feet) high, by 6 meters (20 feet) long. Total area: 18 meters, or 200 feet.
A human body is roughly 2 meters tall, by 1 meter wide - at the largest facing. (shoulders facing you, standing tall.) but can be as small as .25 meters by 1 meter (laying on the ground, feet towards you.) Total area. 2 meters (6 feet) to .25 meters (1 foot).

The average rifle cartridge diameter is 0.008m. (8 mm). Heck even the largest heavy machine gun round in the world is only 1.47 cm. (14.7mm).

Starting to see the problem?
You are trying to place a bullet, which is less then 1% the size of the human, through a wall where the target is less then 3% of the wall....

This isn't horseshoes, and this isn't a hand grenade!

Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Kincaid on <06-05-18/1659:15>
Xenon covered the most important (from a player's perspective) point.  You want the -6 penalty because that means you're eliminating, or vastly reducing, their Defense Test.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Michael Chandra on <06-05-18/1715:06>
Yeah, they got what, 4 dice from Cover, Deflection dice (NOT Combat Sense dice), and that's it?_?
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Overbyte on <06-05-18/1808:52>
Where do you get +- 3 or 4 meters from? I would think taking a video of a room, and then putting that onto an image link, would get much closer. (Imagine having someone with a video camera that is directly uploading onto your phone in your hand - you could cesonly tell within a few inches of where everyone is on that video; the main problem would be perception, and possible time lag, but with even modern day technology time lag would be close to nil, so mostly just perception - I would think -4, with a 5 point quality to reduce to -1 or -2 seems just about perfect. I wouldn't require any checks though, as video up/downloading is basic with any image software). But if there is distances like you've indicated somewhere, that would definitely put it into the -6 territory.


OK, look at this way:

You are staring at a wall, wondering where to place your shot. The wall is 3 Meters (10 feet) high, by 6 meters (20 feet) long. Total area: 18 meters, or 200 feet.
A human body is roughly 2 meters tall, by 1 meter wide - at the largest facing. (shoulders facing you, standing tall.) but can be as small as .25 meters by 1 meter (laying on the ground, feet towards you.) Total area. 2 meters (6 feet) to .25 meters (1 foot).

The average rifle cartridge diameter is 0.008m. (8 mm). Heck even the largest heavy machine gun round in the world is only 1.47 cm. (14.7mm).

Starting to see the problem?
You are trying to place a bullet, which is less then 1% the size of the human, through a wall where the target is less then 3% of the wall....

This isn't horseshoes, and this isn't a hand grenade!

Just to throw some fuel on the fire, the part that you are missing in this little analysis is that if you have a smartlink you may very well be able to compute the distance to the camera, the angle and distance of the target from the camera, triangulate and compute relatively accurately where your target is in relation to you.

p.214
Everybody uses the Matrix. Most shadowrunners have multiple pieces of gear that use it, often interacting with the Matrix without them knowing it. Smartlinks use it to look up local conditions and calculate firing solutions,
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Lormyr on <06-05-18/1854:17>
The surprise vs. unaware defender vs. firing through walls is one of the messiest combat mechanics in SR in my opinion. My interpretation of when a defender counts as totally unaware is typically only when they have absolutely no chance of noticing their attacker. All other situations fall under the surprise rules.

What situations constitute as absolutely no chance of noticing their attacker? Pretty much just the firing through walls situation, or attacking someone in their sleep. Even then, I would allow a character with combat sense, detect enemies, detect life, ect. a surprise test in most circumstances. Those things all lend a supernatural sense of positioning, trouble, or a 6th sense for trouble.

This, chunky salsa, semi-auto grenades/missles/rockets, and no defense tests for AoE attacks are the main combat mechanics I would love to see re-balanced.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-05-18/2002:07>
The "I'll just spend an edge point to GET a defense test" mechanic from R&G doesn't technically neaten up the unaware defender rule, but it does render moot much of the messiness over whether someone does or doesn't get one.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Marcus on <06-05-18/2024:33>
There an infinite number of what if cases. The easier ones are  I had detect enemies up, I have adept danger sense power, I have maxed levels of combat sense, I'm an initiate of divination and mega danger sense.

I believe in common sense. If your player has a solid argument as to why they should get a test vs the surprise then give it to them, but had better be something more then b/c I'm always paranoid. But on other side if the go in blind and dumb just b/c they jumped first and asked questions never, well then sh!t happens, and you can always burn a point of edge to live.

Surprise mechanics are intended to be painful. If they are not, then odds are you're doing it wrong. But that said folks who put points into not being surprised need to get value from those points. Nature system no sense losing sleep over it.

Chunkie salsa is one most interesting parts of SR, it may well be overly simulationist, but it takes me back to casting fireball in the dungeon days. A sphere of X Volume compressed in Y area extends the radius of destruction by Z amount. How close was your party?

That all said I don't think i have a chunkie Salsa come up for real in 4+ years. So it's also just not that common.


Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Michael Chandra on <06-06-18/0209:35>
I've had runners cast Invisibility on 6 Grenades and a drone, and cast a heavily edged Manascape on one of the grenades and another on the drone, as well as a Stealth spell, just so those 10 spells allowed them to snipe a Master Shedim with two Semi-Automatic grenade bursts. Aaaah, the massacre.

Meanwhile, a Bug Queen spent like 5 Interrupt actions to dodge the KE IV grenades they kept throwing at her. XD

Back on topic: I only grant a free attack if they really earned it. In a situation where they suspect there might be attackers they can't see, you're right that there should be a defense test. Mind you, in that case there should still be a penalty for the defender as well. Maybe eliminating the cover bonus to their defense test, since they're no longer using the cover (asides from the Blind Fire penalty) to help make them harder to hit.

As for Detect Enemies: To quote a character's motto I played in a short campaign: I WANT people to know me and hate me. That way I can see them coming. (The character was, of course, a blind mage. Possession even, so he made his enemies turn on each other by various means of Mind Control. Which leads me to a potential third scenario: A possessed ally shooting you in the back.)
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-06-18/0343:51>
Ranged attacks in this post also include indirect combat spells with range code: LOS

Melee attacks in this post also include touch-only attacks and indirect combat spells with range code: Touch


Good cover act as a positive dice pool modifier of 4 dice (partial cover act as a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice) against ranged attacks, but only if the defender actually spend a Simple Action to Take Cover and only as long as the defender can see the ranged attacker.

Good and Partial cover does not act as a positive dice pool modifier against melee attacks, not even if the defender spend a Simple Action to Take Cover.

A ranged attacker does not gain a positive dice pool modifier to attack from behind or from another location where the defender cannot see the attacker, however, the defender is considered unaware of the attack and does not get to take a defense test. The defender still get to roll 2 or 4 dice as a defense pool of its own if they happen to be behind partial or good cover. While under the effect of Combat Sense (either the spell or the adept power) the defender always get to roll a perception test to see an attacker.

A melee attacker gain a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice if attacking from behind or above (due to superior position), however, if the defender is already engaged in combat then he is not considered unaware of the attack and get to take a defense test.


A defender that is currently surprised by an attacker is also considered unaware of the attack (applies to both ranged attacks even if defender see the attacker and melee attacks even if defender is already engaged in combat).
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-19-18/1024:10>
im surprised they beat the object resistance test of 15 for the drone with enough successes to spare to make a decent invis effect.

im also surprised the shedim (whose dual natured) didn't notice a mundane object glowing on the astral as it approached him.

I've had runners cast Invisibility on 6 Grenades and a drone, and cast a heavily edged Manascape on one of the grenades and another on the drone, as well as a Stealth spell,
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Michael Chandra on <06-19-18/1047:43>
The invisible manascaped stealthed concealed sneaking mundane object you mean? Yeah no idea how that caught him by surprise.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-19-18/1101:40>
manascape would certainly do the trick, the challenge would be getting enough net hits on the invis against object rating 15. that would require a serious spellcasting pool (@30 dice).
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Beta on <06-19-18/1230:09>
manascape would certainly do the trick, the challenge would be getting enough net hits on the invis against object rating 15. that would require a serious spellcasting pool (@30 dice).

I didn't think that illusions cared about what they were making invisible, only on the dice pool of the observer?

Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-19-18/1238:09>
sure do, you cast invisibility (or any illusion spell) on an item so that it moves with the item then you are affecting the item.

therefore you must first beat it's object resistance.

which is exactly why this type of thing is so hard (unless you cast on an item that is lower tech).

when you cast a spell on a WILLING person there is no resistance test.

when you cast the spell on an unwilling person (such as an enemy who doesn't want to be invisible) then they would get a "saving throw" or resistance test like any other illusion spell for it to even take effect. then your net hits would apply to any observer trying to see said invisible enemy.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-19-18/1509:02>
Wait what...?

Most Illusion spells either affect the mind of each and every potential observer (for spells such as Invisibility) or the subject of the spell (for spells such as Agony) and your spell casting test is either resisted by each and every potential observer (for spells such as Invisibility) or the subject of the spell (for spells such as Agony).

Illusion spells that affect the minds of the observers are not opposed twice
(they are not first opposed by the subject or target of your spell and then opposed once again by each and every potential observer)


SR5 p. 290 Illusion Spells
Some mana illusions affect the target’s senses directly; others affect the senses of anyone perceiving the subject of the spell (though you’re never affected by your own illusion spell).
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/0956:35>
yeah your right Xenon.

i'm getting confused because normally a spell effect that is tied to a person or thing requires the person or thing to resist before it takes effect while an area effect spell (manascape and other area effect spells) can be moved by the caster if they concentrate.

Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-20-18/1009:07>
Wait what...?

Most Illusion spells either affect the mind of each and every potential observer (for spells such as Invisibility) or the subject of the spell (for spells such as Agony) and your spell casting test is either resisted by each and every potential observer (for spells such as Invisibility) or the subject of the spell (for spells such as Agony).

Illusion spells that affect the minds of the observers are not opposed twice
(they are not first opposed by the subject or target of your spell and then opposed once again by each and every potential observer)


SR5 p. 290 Illusion Spells
Some mana illusions affect the target’s senses directly; others affect the senses of anyone perceiving the subject of the spell (though you’re never affected by your own illusion spell).

I think that's right most of the time.  Object Resistance being an exception because it gives a resist test where one normally doesn't exist.  You cast Imp Invis on the Drone- maybe it just doesn't stick because it's a Drone/Object Resist.  THEN, assuming success, everyone who gets near the drone naturally gets their resist called out by the spell to see if they see through the spell.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1040:21>
yeah Stainless there is some odd breakdown in srun magic's internal logic when you look at this scenario.

i think Xenon has it right per RAW but it does seem iffy when you consider thee deeper mechanics.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Kiirnodel on <06-20-18/1349:33>
Whether or not the target of the spell is supposed to resist being affected by it, I just want to make sure it is clear that Object Resistance is an opposed dice pool, not a threshold. Extremely advanced objects roll 15+ dice to resist, not set a threshold of 15...
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-20-18/1355:17>
Whether or not the target of the spell is supposed to resist being affected by it, I just want to make sure it is clear that Object Resistance is an opposed dice pool, not a threshold. Extremely advanced objects roll 15+ dice to resist, not set a threshold of 15...

But it's less clear what impact the OR has, if any, on the subsequent checks observers have to see the invisible drone.

Example:  Mage casts imp invis on the drone, as an advanced/technical object it resists the magic.  Lets say mage scores 5 hits, OR scores 4 hits.  Ok, the Drone is invisible since there's at least 1 net hit.

But when the drone tries to not be seen by observers, does the observer have a threshold set by the mages total hits or net hits vs the OR?  I'm not sure that's clear.  And it's in this case a big deal... 5 hits vs 1 hit to resist the invis...  I'd personally lean towards the net hits after OR (so 1 hit is all that's needed to resist the invis in this example) but I can see where others would argue use the total/original hits (5 in this example)
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1451:16>
correct!

Whether or not the target of the spell is supposed to resist being affected by it, I just want to make sure it is clear that Object Resistance is an opposed dice pool, not a threshold. Extremely advanced objects roll 15+ dice to resist, not set a threshold of 15...
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1500:58>
lots of stuff to unpack here.

1). First off per RAW i think Xenon has it right; the rules do not even mention anything about making something other than a willing person invisible.

2). IMHO I do think that some kind of resistance test by an unwilling person (or the tech resistance table for an object) makes complete sense. It's just not spelled out in the Illusion spells section, hence Xenon likely has the RAW of it.

3). If you accept the logic of item 2 above then imho it also makes sense to take the net hits above the resistance check as the net successes for someone to pierce the invisibility. That way it's only ever one roll for the caster (instead of "one roll to effect the unwilling thing" and "another roll to gauge how invisible it is").

4). This does open up another interesting question. Which is "what is a target"? I mean if you put 6 grenades in a bag and you cast invisibility on the bag will the grenades inside still be invisible? If you cast invisibility on a van full of runners will the van become invisible with all the runners still visible inside floating in the "air"?

5). Given the problems that item 4 opens up then it might be better/ easier to rule that invisibility only affects something with an aura (i.e. a living being) and instead require a different spell (such as Trid Phantasm) to make a bag of grenades or van full of runners "invisible" then have the mage concentrate on the illusion to move it with the item/ items in question. This would infer a clarification on invisibility that it only works on a single living being per casting.

what do you folks think?

Whether or not the target of the spell is supposed to resist being affected by it, I just want to make sure it is clear that Object Resistance is an opposed dice pool, not a threshold. Extremely advanced objects roll 15+ dice to resist, not set a threshold of 15...

But it's less clear what impact the OR has, if any, on the subsequent checks observers have to see the invisible drone.

Example:  Mage casts imp invis on the drone, as an advanced/technical object it resists the magic.  Lets say mage scores 5 hits, OR scores 4 hits.  Ok, the Drone is invisible since there's at least 1 net hit.

But when the drone tries to not be seen by observers, does the observer have a threshold set by the mages total hits or net hits vs the OR?  I'm not sure that's clear.  And it's in this case a big deal... 5 hits vs 1 hit to resist the invis...  I'd personally lean towards the net hits after OR (so 1 hit is all that's needed to resist the invis in this example) but I can see where others would argue use the total/original hits (5 in this example)
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Spooky on <06-20-18/1507:30>
Ah! So I've got a rigger who likes having the mage turn his drone invisible. If the mage casts the spell while the rigger is jumped in, does it become cast on a willing target? Does it have to deal with OR? Questions abound....
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-20-18/1507:48>
what do you folks think?

As fascinating a topic for rules discsussion it is... I think it's needing its own thread.  Very tangential to the original question
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Kincaid on <06-20-18/1512:45>
I'd be a little concerned about over-litigating fringe cases.  Which, I know, is antithetical to the history of Shadowrun.

Making something invisible isn't making it translucent.  If the mind of the viewer fails to see the van, it doesn't suddenly perceive the passengers who, absent magic, it wouldn't be able to see in any event.

I also agree that RAW, Xenon--as is often the case--is correct.

The target thing is tricky and could/should be better defined.  RAW, it sounds as though invisible people can see themselves (perceiver and subject are distinct), which means it would be possible to make someone invisible and not have her/him notice.  All kinds of friendly fire/crossfire/even more creative ideas could stem from this.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-20-18/1520:50>
...does the observer have a threshold set by the mages total hits or net hits vs the OR?

SR5 p. 290 Illusion Spells
The magician must generate more hits than the observer for the illusion to be considered real. If the spell is not completely resisted, the target is fully affected by the illusion.

"...more hits" (not "net" hits).
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1543:24>
ok well i think, after a reading of the spell description it's mostly clear that invisibility only works on living things, not objects (drones, cars, etc).

that's what Trid Phantasm is for.

the text in the spell I am referring to are the mentions of "subject" in lieu of "target", the use of personal pronouns ("her") and the mention that the "subject's Aura is still visible" (dead/ non living things have no aura).

It also specifically mentions "invisible characters" but not "invisible things".

Given the above, at my table I would rule that invisibility only works on living things, for everything else you would use Trid Phantasm (which also solves the "runners in a van" problem outlined above).


Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-20-18/1600:06>
...does the observer have a threshold set by the mages total hits or net hits vs the OR?

SR5 p. 290 Illusion Spells
The magician must generate more hits than the observer for the illusion to be considered real. If the spell is not completely resisted, the target is fully affected by the illusion.

"...more hits" (not "net" hits).

Actually I think you might have convinced me with that quote, but not for the parts you thought were most important.  "the target is fully affected" convinces me.. if the Drone gets 4 hits to your 5 hits through OR, the spell works as if it had 5 hits.

The question of whether an aura-less Drone even IS a legit target for invisbility still appears to remain questionable, however.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Kincaid on <06-20-18/1607:18>
I think you might be giving too much credit to word choice.  Invisibility hides, Mask changes, Phantasm creates.  Spells in Shadowrun are generally categorical in nature and follow fairly predictable delineations.

I'm a little hesitant to talk about casting invisibility "on" something in the same way we do in D&D, for example.  Invisibility spells affect (and trigger mechanically with) people/things who attempt to interact with the illusion, so it's more akin to casting "around" someone/thing.  It's harder to be invisible in a crowded room because you've got to beat 30 rolls and the bell curve will eventually get you.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1611:53>
yeah i hear you kincaid but the issue is that invisibility moves with the target.

no other spell that i know of moves with a target without first giving unwilling target a resistance test.

this is logical because the caster is binding the spell to the target.

whereas Trid Phantasm is moved by the caster and is not bound to a person or thing.

also, you need to solve the "runners in an invisible van" problem.

the only way I can see to solve this without rewriting the invisibility spell entirely is to require invisibility to be used on a live being (where the spell can be bound to it's aura) and retain Trid Phantasm for creating area effect illusions that solve the "runners in a van" problem.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-20-18/1636:38>
I think it is pretty clear that the intent of Invisibility and Improved Invisibility is to cast it on yourself or on a teammate.

...same as I think it is pretty clear that the intent of Mask or Physical Mask is to cast it on yourself or on a teammate.


If you want to mask a drone or a vehicle you would use Vehicle Mask from Street Grimoire.

SG p. 113 Vehicle Mask
Vehicle Mask is a variant of Physical Mask (p. 291, SR5) designed to mask the identities of vehicles and drones. By touching the targeted vehicle, the spellcaster creates an illusion that masks it to appear to be a completely different vehicle of roughly the same size. In addition to the visual mask, this spell affects the vehicle’s sound, smell, and other identifiable characteristics. Vehicle Mask can also modify a vehicle’s Signature (p. 184, SR5); each net hit scored by the caster can be used to raise or lower the vehicle’s Signature modifier by 1. The caster must be actively touching the vehicle being masked to sustain the spell.



To my knowledge there is no Vehicle Invisibility Spell.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1647:18>
Sure Vehicle Mask is the right spell if you want to change it's appearance.

But if you want to make it invisible then Trid Phantasm is your go to spell imho (make the area encompassing the Van-chock-full-o-runners appear to not have a van-chock-full-o-runners be there).

I do think a dedicated vehicle invisibility type spell is another option if some enterprising writer decides to add one to a future supplement.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-20-18/1715:05>
When you wrote "Trid Phantasm" I thought you meant creating an illusion of something you seen before to obscure the van and then spend a complex action to move the illusion as the van moves. Totally doable.

I didn't think you were actually trying to turn the van and everyone inside invisible (=observers on both sides of the van can still see each other as you drive between them).

Is this really something you can do with Trid Phantasm....?
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-20-18/1718:54>
no, sorry poor writing on my part.

I meant using Trid Phantasm to make the "van go away" by replacing it with an illusory image of the scene missing the van.

Then have the mage concentrate to move the "scene minus van" Trid Phantasm around to make the van "disappear" as it drives around.

However using the same approach you could make a Trid Phantasm of a bunch of runners sitting in an "invisible" van as it "drives" down the road. It just wouldn't be an actual image of the runners but rather an illusory simulcram of them.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-20-18/1929:59>
Another wrinkle in the Invisibility magic is it doesn't actually turn anything invisible.  Not even the Physical version (Imp. Invisibility)

Proof: Logically, it can't be invisible as people who successfully resist the spell ARE still able to perceive the light bouncing off the object.  If light were just magically passing through un-altered (i.e. it actually WERE invisible) there'd be nothing to see even if you resisted.

So, with regards to whether objects inside the invisible object are themselves visible through the invisible container... I'd have to assume not.   Light IS still being reflected/bounced by the body of the invisible object before hitting anything inside, so there's no way to visually see what's inside the "invisible" object unless they were perceptible even before the spell factored in.  Even if the Invisibility spell was somenow magically "jamming" or suppressing the reflected light coming off the invisible object, then what would be perceivable is a black blob. (which kinda defeats the purpose of invisibility)
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Reaver on <06-20-18/1951:05>
I think you are all missing a key point of the "invisable grenade" trick:
The spell doesn't affect the grenade, it affects whatever tries to view the grenade. Big difference.

This is no different then casting invisibility on yourself - you don't actually disappear, but the minds/devices that fail to resist the spell think you do!

It is entirely possible in SR to be invisible to a single group of people, while being entirely visible to another group.

Using the example above of 30 people in a room, its possible a mage's invisibility spell is resisted by one, some, or all the people.... with various consquences.
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Xenon on <06-21-18/0236:22>
Light IS still being reflected/bounced by the body of the invisible object before hitting anything inside...
The light that is reflected by the body of the invisible subject is the light that would have been reflected back to the observer if the subject would not have been there. The spell mimics the surroundings from all angels.

SR5 p. 291 Improved Invisibility
Improved Invisibility mimics the subject’s surroundings from all angles.


This can be read as if it mimics the inside of the van (flying shadowrunners and visible flying grenades in the bag) or that it mimics the outside of the other side of the van (invisible shadowrunners and invisible grenades).


However, the whole question is moot since you can't use Improved Invisibility on a drone or vehicle just as little as you can't use Physical Mask on a drone or vehicle. To use mask on a drone or vehicle you need the Vehicle Mask spell... And there is currently no Vehicle Invisibility spell.

IF they add a Vehicle Invisibility spell in the future THEN I am sure this spell will explicitly specify that it i will mimic the outside surroundings from all angels, making everything inside the drone or vehicle invisible as well.

If you rule that you can use the current invisibility spell on objekts you also need to classify where the limit is drawn. Can you make a drone invisible? What about a van? A bus? A helicopter? A ship? A passenger plane? Can you use it on other objects.... A table? A weapon? A bag with grenades? A house? Why stop there.... what about a skyscraper?
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: Beta on <06-21-18/0923:36>
Why stop there.... what about a skyscraper?

The ultimate solution to old arcologies becoming eye-sores.  Just make 'em invisible!
Title: Re: Image link and shooting through walls.
Post by: adzling on <06-21-18/1514:32>
Why stop there.... what about a skyscraper?

The ultimate solution to old arcologies becoming eye-sores.  Just make 'em invisible!

that would a fun one for air traffic ;-)