NEWS

Targeting invisible targets in SR6, clarity.

  • 13 Replies
  • 2310 Views

Redwulfe

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
« on: <04-12-20/1107:40> »
So in our game the other day we were concealed by a spirit and got into a fight and I realized that it seems their is no penalty for the opposition when firing back at me. I get Edge of course cause they can't see me but their is no penalty for their attack it seems as they are not technically blind. I am not upset by this as gain the edge is good enough for me but I would like to make sure I am not missing something in the book.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't

Red

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
« Reply #1 on: <04-12-20/1131:47> »
Before they can fight back they first have to notice you.


Redwulfe

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
« Reply #2 on: <04-12-20/1154:49> »
Is that something int he targeting rules or somewhere you could reference. That seems like a pretty big swing in a sides favor if the invisibility status gives you that.

That would mean that you went from the -6 in previous editions to almost being unable to fight in this one. I was firing a gun at them so I would assume they know I am there and should be able to fight back without making a perception test with a threshold of 5 or 6 to be able to fight.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't

Red

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
« Reply #3 on: <04-12-20/1255:45> »
In this edition you can't shoot what you can't see (this is a good thing, just getting a negative dice pool of 6 dice while being blindfolded when you could have 20+ dice as it was in 5th edition was kinda silly to be honest).



If you are totally blinded (for whatever reason) and cannot see the target at all then your test will automatically fail.

6E p. 51 Blinded I, II, III
At the third level, characters automatically fail any tests involving visibility.



The threshold on your perception test is what the # after the invisible status effect indicate.

6E p. 52 Invisible #
The number after the status indicates the threshold people must hit on a Perception test to notice the character with this status.

6E p. 139 Invisibility Spell
Invisibility gives the targeted character the Invisible (#) status (p. 52), where the number after the status becomes the threshold on any tests to see the character.



If you have ultrasound you not only automatically see through the invisibility, you also gain a point of edge attacking targets that have the invisibility status effect.

6E p. 278 Ultrasound
Using the ultrasound sensor in dim light or total darkness offers a bonus Edge if opponents can’t see, offers a bonus Edge against targets who are invisible, and provides the ability to navigate in complete darkness by expending an extra Minor Action for movement.



When it comes to the concealment power your opponents have to explicitly spend an Observe in Detail Major Action before he is allowed to take a perception test. The threshold of the perception test is equal to the magic rating of the critter that used the power on you.

6E p. 223 Concealment
Concealment applies the Invisible (Improved) status equal to the critter’s Magic attribute. In combat, an Observe in Detail Major Action must be used to allow a Perception test to attempt to overcome the concealment...

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #4 on: <04-12-20/1316:34> »
There's a lot of ambiguity regarding shooting at invisible targets.  Deliberately so.  There's too many variables to codify everything, so virtually nothing is codified and everything is instead left to GM discretion via edge awards and whether the attack is even possible in the first place. And sure, I can even potentially see giving a dice pool and/or AR penalty for shooting at an invisible target.

Maybe the other guy has thermographic vision.  Sure, he can't see YOU, but he CAN potentially see an aura of warmer air in contact with your invisible body.  Or maybe he can only see the heat of your footprints you leave behind in the ground.

Maybe your invisible body is coated in visible rain, or you're moving around in smoke/water and your location is obvious even though you're invisible.

Maybe someone did the old "rip a bag of flour and toss the powder in the area of an invisible object" trick, covering you in non-invisible flour/novacoke/etc.

Maybe someone has a pretty good idea where you are, and is targeting you with a flamethrower.  Or an automatic/burst firing weapon.

Maybe someone doesn't know exactly where you are, so they just toss a grenade in your suspected direction.

Hell, maybe your GEAR doesn't become invisible, just you!  A suit of clothing walking around with a gun and apparently nobody inside it is still no problem to shoot at.

Ok, maybe most GMs won't say you have to run around naked to benefit from an invisibility spell (and/or cast invisibility on any and all gear you ALSO want to be invisible), but surely gear you pick up AFTER becoming invisible doesn't also become invisible.  The prototype you've been hired to steal can give away your location as you run with it.

And even if your gun IS invisible, there's no reason the muzzle flash will ALSO be invisible.  You go shooting, people can go shooting right back, aiming for the source of the fire coming at THEM.

Naturally, more and more contexts could be mentioned.  They each have unique considerations that are better served by trusting GMs to be fair rather than trying to protect against punitive GMs by pre-legislating what the modifiers should be in each of these (and all other possible) circumstances.



« Last Edit: <04-12-20/1324:46> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1092
« Reply #5 on: <04-12-20/1332:21> »
Personally I like the all or nothing approach .. especially regarding concealment. They (invisibility and concealment) should have great effect when stealthily but once you get spotted or reveal yourself by attacking i think it becomes moot point. I know it goes against the way SR has "always" done it but I prefer the way dnd does it

I can see the argument that invisibility still applies as long as it is sustained,  etc ... but I would leave it as is and you either see them or not ... if not you can't attack or miss unless using and AoE

Now in addition though doing something that obviously reveals you are there somewhere should be awarding an automatic perception check and giving edge to the character trying to detect you on their perception checks too.
« Last Edit: <04-12-20/1340:17> by Banshee »
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #6 on: <04-12-20/1342:47> »
Yeah, in 5e concealment had a different mechanic than invisibility, which in turn made what I felt to be a HUGE 2nd order impact.  In 5e, concealment "only" penalized the perception roll to spot you.  If there is no roll to spot you (i.e. you're obvious and not trying to hide) then concealment does nothing.  Like, while you're trying to punch someone in the face.

Now that 6we treats invisibility the way 5e treated concealment... yeah I suppose I can buy the argument that SR's days of "invisible targets remain unseen after attacking" are now over.  This wouldn't be the first time the rules of magic changed.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Redwulfe

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 770
« Reply #7 on: <04-12-20/1437:43> »
Ok, Thank you all. I was specifically looking to see if it was explicitly called out in the book or was left to GM Fiat. it seems the latter is true, which I don't find Ideal for Organized play but do find very good for Home games.

it seems with many of the discussions I have been having that leaving it up to the individual table GM, such as delay action/initiative, is the way 6th is dealing with things.

This is not me putting that philosophy down. I actually like that I am not hammered into one way to GM. Though not ideal for table consistency in SRM but I guess there needs to be some give to get a better home game feel.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't

Red

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
« Reply #8 on: <04-12-20/1449:18> »
In previous edition you just had a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice if you had no idea where the target was (because you could not see it due to an invisible spell, because it was 100% behind opaque cover, because you are blindfolded, because you are firing blindly around a corner without peaking around the corner or using a camera, because it is total darkness and you don't have thermographic vision, because you have the Blind negative quality and is not using astral perception etc etc). The blind fire modifier was also to be treated as the total darkness environmental modifier. To hit a target behind mirror glass, 1300 meters away, in  strong winds without using a smartgun, through smoke without having thermographic vision, in the middle of a clouded night without any lights using a sniper rifle without any optics and while being blind folded - would result in a negative dice pool modifier of 10 dice (which mean a decent sniper would still have 10+ dice left, even more if he was allowed to spend a few actions to Take Aim first). And since the target would be considered unaware he would not be allowed to defend against the attack.

In this edition it seem as if your test will automatically fail if you can't see your target (I like this better).



In previous edition the Invisibility spell were resisted by mental attributes. If the spell was resisted then the target could be noticed (and attacked without the blind fire modifier, but if it was hiding then a perception test might be required in addition to resisting the spell). There was no negative dice pool modifier hitting a subject with an invisibility spell if you resisted the spell. Ultrasound ignored the invisibility spell.

In this edition it seem as if the Invisible # status effect is opposed by perception. If you beat the invisibility status effect then you can see (and attack) the target. There does not seem to be any negative dice pool modifier for hitting a subject with an invisibility spell that you successfully spotted. Ultrasound not only ignore the invisible # status effect, it now also grant the attacker an edge for attacking invisible opponents.



...SR's days of "invisible targets remain unseen after attacking" are now over. 
Invisible subjects don't suddenly become visible just because they are attacking.

To see (so you can attack) a subject with the invisible # status effect you first need to beat the threshold with a perception test. This does not change just because the subject is attacking you (but if you have been made aware that there is someone out there then you might want to spend some major observe in detail actions on finding him).

At least that is how I read the rules.



Ok, Thank you all. I was specifically looking to see if it was explicitly called out in the book or was left to GM Fiat.
But.... It is?

They need to take Observer in Detail major action to have a chance to spot you.
They must be successful with their Perception test to spot you.

This part is RAW and not under any debate at all.


6E p. 223 Concealment
In combat, an Observe in Detail Major Action must be used to allow a Perception test to attempt to overcome the concealment.



What people seem to debate is if you can shoot at someone that you cannot see. In 5th edition this was explicitly allowed (as long you accepted a negative dice pool modifier of 6 dice). In this edition it is not (and it seem as if characters will instead automatically fail any tests involving visibility if they can't see their target).
« Last Edit: <04-12-20/1458:42> by Xenon »

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #9 on: <04-12-20/1457:54> »
...SR's days of "invisible targets remain unseen after attacking" are now over. 
Invisible subjects don't suddenly become visible just because they are attacking.

To see (so you can attack) a subject with the invisible # status effect you first need to beat the threshold with a perception test. This does not change just because the subject is attacking you (but if you have been made aware that there is someone out there then you might want to spend some major observe in detail actions on finding him).

At least that is how I read the rules.

To be clear: that's not what I'm arguing.  Just saying I can see that being a valid argument.

My position is if someone wants to shoot at you, and they have "reasonable" knowledge of where you are (where reasonable is defined by GM's common sense rather than rulebook rules) then the penalty they suffer is normally just a very strong probability they're giving away the circumstantial edge in the edge triad.  -AR, -dice, or something else entirely may be circumstantially applied, still.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
« Reply #10 on: <04-12-20/1538:18> »
Before answering that. Let us first compare the status effect that will apply during bad lightning, flashing glare, bad weather conditions etc (Blinded I, II, III).

It will give you a negative dice pool modifier of 3 dice during less severe conditions and 6 dice during severe conditions (this is basically the same environmental modifiers from 5th edition that you suffered in "Partial light / Weak glare" and "Dim light / Moderate glare").

However, if conditions are so bad (Blinded III) that you cannot see at all (this is basically the "Blind Fire / Total Darkness / Blinding Glare" modifiers from 5th edition) then your test will now "automatically fail".

This seem to be an explicit and conscious change, agreed?


...if someone wants to shoot at you, and they have "reasonable" knowledge of where you are...
If I may continue my reasoning from above.....

In 5th edition it was -6 dice ("Blind Fire") to return fire (if you did not resist the invisibility spell) while in 6E it seem as if returning fire will "automatically fail" (as long as your perception checks to spot the invisible target keep failing).

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9900
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #11 on: <04-12-20/1541:38> »
As GM, I'd argue that attacking an Invisible target you Perceive (through the test, or because they're way too audible, or because they're firing a gun) should just face a Blinded I penalty (aka -3 dice). If you pierce the illusion, there's no Invisible left for you, so no penalty. If you know roughly where they are through descriptions, Blinded II = -6 dice. If you have no clue, Blinded III, aka impossible. And Edge for the defender in Blinded I/II cases.

For SRM, I'd like a base guideline for a base situation, not touching on all kinds of possible tweaks but just a basic guideline that they can use as base for whatever situation they run into.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

markelphoenix

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 596
« Reply #12 on: <05-23-20/0027:43> »
Bringing this back up:
From Concealment, which applies Invisibility @ Magic of Creature/Spirit Rank
Quote
In combat, an Observe in Detail Major
Action must be used to allow a Perception test
to attempt to overcome the concealment. Success
means the target is spotted by that character until
the critter can hide again or the end of the character’s
next player turn, whichever comes last.

Way I read this, can't fight what you can't see. Part that DOES confuse me is the following:
Success
means the target is spotted by that character until
the critter can hide again or the end of the character’s
next player turn, whichever comes last.


Tried to unpack the 'or the end of the 'character's nest player turn, whichever comes last.' Soooo, whaaa....? If I don't tell my spirit to do anything and just maintain current Concealment, on the next turn of the SPOTTING creature that succeeded, I will be invisible again, requiring a new Observe in Detail Major action?

Furthermore, the way this reads, if I attack  4 people, all of them need to do their own Observe in Detail and pass their checks or be unable to attack.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #13 on: <05-23-20/0033:36> »
Ok you're invisible.  On their turn, someone spots you.  Since Observe in Detail is a Major action, they're probably not also attacking you.

When you go, you re-cast Invisibility so you're invisible "again".  However, since it's the LAST of "hiding again or end of spotter's next turn", you are still spotted.

When the spotter goes, he can attack you.  NOW it's the last of "hiding again or the end of the spotter's next turn", so subsequently he'll have to successfully spot you again before attacking you again.

Now when it comes to attacking a target you haven't "spotted", that's a more GM-handwaivy concept.  You might KNOW right where someone is due to circumstantial clues (footprints in ankle deep water, or so on) and so still be reasonably able to attack despite not being able to see thru the invisibility.  Of course, if spells/gunfire are coming from a given direction, return fire is always a possibility.  And you only need to suspect the general area of a target to lob a grenade that way.  This kind of stuff where the circumstantial edge and GM discretion comes into play.
« Last Edit: <05-23-20/0037:33> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.