NEWS

Imp Invis v. Phys Camo

  • 27 Replies
  • 7351 Views

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #15 on: <07-08-19/2300:32> »
Technically the spell never says that it isn't resisted, so based on that, we would go back to the rules for resisting Illusions, which says: "If the spell is not completely resisted, the target is fully affected by the illusion." So that means spells are all or nothing.

The text of the Camouflage spells(s) is that the bonus given by the spell is +1 per hit rolled on the Spellcasting Test. So if a target fails to resist the spell, then the full +1 per hit applies. This would be the strictest reading of the spell and how Illusions work.

Example: Spellcasting 5 hits. People attempting to view target of spell make resistance tests, if they succeed to get at least 5 hits or more to resist, the spell has no effect. Otherwise, the target gets to roll +5 dice to avoid being seen.


Based on the wording of the spell, it appears that the intent was for it to be a sort of "Aid Sneaking" spell, you cast it, and hits on the Spellcasting give the target a bonus dice on their sneaking tests. It is possible that the author of the spell didn't know or didn't remember the all-or-nothing nature of Illusion spells in Shadowrun.

Personally, I agree that the spell is poorly created. As is, even if the spell is 100% effective, the target can still be spotted if the viewer makes a good Perception test (since all it does is give bonus dice). I would save myself the extra dice rolls and let the spell just not bother with resistance rolls.


Extra Info: There is one other illusion spell that I know of that utilizes hits and not net hits from the Spellcasting Test: Hush/Silence. Now, the trick there is that it uses the hits on the spellcasting test for only part of the spell's effect. The spell itself is still all-or-nothing for whether or not you can hear while within the area of effect, but it also imposes a penalty to sonic attacks (or powers) that go in or out of the area.

HP15BS

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 123
« Reply #16 on: <07-09-19/0634:57> »
Maybe it would've been more appropriate in the manipulation category, as there's more precedent for those happening without resistance.

Regardless, the fact that they took pains to mention "this spell can be resisted"  in every other spell makes such verbiage very conspicuous in its absence here.

Either way, cgl should have made their intentions explicit. 
I wonder, if it had been brought up back when they were working on SG errata, would they have chosen to actually add a line making it explicit, or left the description as is, but reduced it to ~ F-5 / F-3 or something?   (Assuming they'd have even deigned to address it at all)
« Last Edit: <07-09-19/0636:36> by HP15BS »
To Deckers the Foundation really is a crazy place from Alice in Wonderland. How does that stuff just happen? How do they work when everything about them defies logic?
Then a Techno comes, high 5's Caterpillar, takes a swig of Mad Hatter's tea, & wanders away chatting up White Rabbit.
- Marcus Gideon

adzling

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #17 on: <07-11-19/1903:12> »
"Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility"

therefore if no net hits, then no modifier to sneaking

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
« Reply #18 on: <07-11-19/1918:35> »
"Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility"

therefore if no net hits, then no modifier to sneaking

By the rules correct. In home games I would not be surprised if people’s house ruled it as it’s silly. It looks like a system where two people wrote the section one writing up spells another writing the base rules on how magic worked and they didn’t talk to each other much.

adzling

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #19 on: <07-11-19/1923:59> »
It looks like a system where two people wrote the section one writing up spells another writing the base rules on how magic worked and they didn’t talk to each other much.

can confirm that's exactly how shadowrun rules authoring works

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 1471
« Reply #20 on: <07-11-19/1959:52> »
"Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility"

therefore if no net hits, then no modifier to sneaking

The issue is that Physical Camouflage never says that it is resisted, which is the reason why people have room to make the argument. We run into the same sort of argument as casting Armor on an involuntary subject. In the case of a spell not directly affecting the subjects that would potentially resist it, should they roll to resist it? It never gives a penalty to anyone, and in fact the only effect is a bonus to the target of the spell. So there is room to argue that no resistance roll is necessary.

It is also the only illusion spell that I know of that does something like this, so yeah...

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #21 on: <07-11-19/2109:31> »
The Physical Camouflage spell is pretty much a spell version of the Concealment critter power.  It has the same questions, like "can it be resisted."

Also: If there's nothing to hide in/among, does the Concealment/Camouflage even give any benefit at all?  E.G. if I don't need a Perception test to see something "in plain sight", then suffering a dice pool penalty to that test I'm not taking is of no mechanical benefit to you.
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.

HP15BS

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 123
« Reply #22 on: <07-13-19/1304:36> »
Also: If there's nothing to hide in/among, does the Concealment/Camouflage even give any benefit at all?  E.G. if I don't need a Perception test to see something "in plain sight", then suffering a dice pool penalty to that test I'm not taking is of no mechanical benefit to you.

Blending in and blocking LOS both work about equally well in practice.

Besides, just because something is "in plain sight" doesn't necessarily mean you notice it (at least, irl). I'm sure you've had times where you were looking for something for like a minute, even though it was right in front of you.
– Ever hear the phrase "If it was a snake, it would've bitten you." ? Or is that strictly a Southern-ism?
« Last Edit: <07-13-19/1307:15> by HP15BS »
To Deckers the Foundation really is a crazy place from Alice in Wonderland. How does that stuff just happen? How do they work when everything about them defies logic?
Then a Techno comes, high 5's Caterpillar, takes a swig of Mad Hatter's tea, & wanders away chatting up White Rabbit.
- Marcus Gideon

Singularity

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 178
« Reply #23 on: <07-14-19/1140:19> »
– Ever hear the phrase "If it was a snake, it would've bitten you." ? Or is that strictly a Southern-ism?

Nope! Yankees use it as well!  ;D

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #24 on: <07-15-19/1427:48> »
...
Besides, just because something is "in plain sight" doesn't necessarily mean you notice it (at least, irl). I'm sure you've had times where you were looking for something for like a minute, even though it was right in front of you.
– Ever hear the phrase "If it was a snake, it would've bitten you." ? Or is that strictly a Southern-ism?

Perhaps, but it's inherently a GM call as to what counts as requiring a Perception test.  Do you need a perception test to notice a table in a room? What if it's camouflaged?

There's also the issue of what senses invisibility and camouflage are effective against.  Well, not with invisibility actually.  If the sentry closes his eyes, suddenly your invisibility spell is worthless as it's doing nothing about his ability to HEAR you moving around.  Yeah that's silly, but what's NOT silly is the sentry behind a closed door.  Absolutely he might hear you sneaking down the hallway just outside his little watch station, but the fact that you're invisible is literally pointless.  It's all about whether he hears you or not.  So, arguably, critter or spell Camouflage isn't reducing his Perception pool, either.
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.

Typhus

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
« Reply #25 on: <07-18-19/1050:24> »
*raises hand*

Sorry if this too off topic, but am I to understand that I'm 5e, if someone detects an invisible target, the effect of the spell is 100% negated? And only for that one person (or camera)?


Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #26 on: <07-18-19/1057:24> »
In SR5 and SR4 (don't know about earlier editions), if you roll at least as many hits as the caster did, you know the Illusion isn't real. They even use the exact same line: "The spellcaster must generate more hits than the observer for the illusion to be considered real. If the spell is not completely resisted, the character is fully affected by the illusion."
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Typhus

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
« Reply #27 on: <07-18-19/1113:40> »
Detecting them is different from being able to see them, however. So, if they detect a target is there, seeing a predator-style outline for example, that is different than breaching the illusion fully and being able to see face, clothes, etc. We always played it that while you might be detected, there was still some benefit from a physical invis spell. Never knew any player to take the mana version though.