Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: BIG BAD BEESTE on <12-21-10/1341:12>
-
OK, we all know that players can come up with unusual uses of things and especially so in regard to creative use of spells. This post is to get some feedback on how you guys treat your version of the Invisibility spells.
First up, is not so much the mechanics - I've got those down, but more on the interpretation on how the spell works in tregard to game environment/magical theory. IE: what exactly does invisibility do for its "wearer/user"? Let me explain with the following example from a recent gaming session of mine...
Mage casts Improved Invisibility on the troll adept to sneak him past the cameras on a building they have to infiltrate. Adept also has power of Traceless Walk so he won't set off the pressure pad sensors either. Thing is, I've always classed the spell as inveloping the target in a shroud of invisibility which includes any objects they are wearing and carrying. Thus, his armour and gear are also covered by the spell.
Now, here's a querey - what happens to objects he picks up while "shrouded" by the spell? Or ones he drops for that matter. I've gone with the fact that released objects reappear because they are no longer within the shroud and because they're not the original target of the spell. Kind of secondary effected by it as it were. But if the target picks up his gun would it become invisible again? what about if he then hid it under his still invisible longcoat? If the shroud theory stands to effect, then yes, it is covered byt the spell's contiuing effect and thus becomes cloaked by its effects. another view is that once released from the original focus area of the casting it cannot be cloaked and will thus remain visible as a floating weapon.
Now, here's the player logic against spirit of the rules ploy. Said troll adapt will be able to carry smaller human rigger and thus the rigger will also be cloaked by the same spell, and thus save the mage the problem of casting and maintaining two invisibility spells. My quick decision ruiling was to allow it, but the spell had to be cast at a higher Force to cover the rigger's added mass (+Body Attribute) and it wouldn't re-envelop him if dropped off and picked up again as he had left the original target area of the spell - the troll adept.
So thoughts and theories people?
(This also brings up the question of ploys used to reveal invisible objects/people - say someone srays a substance over them, does that substance become invisible as it contacts the "shroud" or does it remain visible and thus reveal the target?)
-
If it has an aura, it needs its own spell. So carrying a gun, armor or a Dodge Scoot is fine. Carrying a Dwarf, ancient evil artifact or rabid lemming doesn't turn them invisible.
(This is opinion, no I can't cite a particular reference)
-
"Improved Invisibility creates an actual warping of light around the subject that affects technological sensors as well." - SR4A, pg. 209
Between that, and the fact that it would be useless to have it not affect worn / carried objects (and, for comparison, shapechange specifically does not affect worn / carried objects, suggesting that a spell which doesn't will say it doesn't), I favor the shroud approach myself. As such, a dropped item becomes visible, an item picked up becomes invisible when pulled inside the "shroud" of the invisibility.
The question is, where does the shroud begin? Personally, I say it directly conforms to the outer layer of the person, clothing worn, and gear carried. Since the target of the spell is the person, once an item originally cloaked in this manner is removed, it loses the benefits of that cloak. Thus, it would be visible when he picked it up (except where he's holding it), then fully invisible if tucked inside his jacket.
I favor this method in no small part because I like classic tropes such as tossing flour in the air to find the invisible guy, since the field ends at the clothing/skin and doesn't extend out onto new objects. But, if you stick the lemming inside your coat, I'd let it go invisible, too.
All personal preference, of course, since the rules are completely silent on the topic.
-
As a gamemaster I would rule the following:
Invisibility effects the "subject". A seperate invisibility spell would have to be cast on on the second subject. One invisible subject can't pick up another subject and cause that subject to become invisible. Gear or equipment is not a subject, therefore it would become invisible when picked up and visible when set down. IMHO
-
The only question I would have is if Subject A (invisible) opens his great coat (invisible because it is worn) and wraps it around Subject B (visible), is subject B still visible despite being inside the invisible great coat? Remember, the spell is literally bending light AROUND the great coat, we're talking Improved Invis, not regular Invis.
Regular invisibility, which works by making viewers not see the subject, I would definitely rule that Subject B is visible. It's that tricky "bending light around the subject" portion to address.
Nothing wrong with the "Subject B cannot become invisible without a spell specifically cast on him" approach, it just doesn't seem to jive with how they describe improved invisibility (page 204, SR4A).
I can certainly accept the idea that anything Subject A picks up becomes invisible since it is now, in some sense, "part" of Subject A. I just prefer me my flour and water related tropes that defeat invisibility.
-
The only question I would have is if Subject A (invisible) opens his great coat (invisible because it is worn) and wraps it around Subject B (visible), is subject B still visible despite being inside the invisible great coat? Remember, the spell is literally bending light AROUND the great coat, we're talking Improved Invis, not regular Invis.
Regular invisibility, which works by making viewers not see the subject, I would definitely rule that Subject B is visible. It's that tricky "bending light around the subject" portion to address.
Nothing wrong with the "Subject B cannot become invisible without a spell specifically cast on him" approach, it just doesn't seem to jive with how they describe improved invisibility (page 204, SR4A).
I can certainly accept the idea that anything Subject A picks up becomes invisible since it is now, in some sense, "part" of Subject A. I just prefer me my flour and water related tropes that defeat invisibility.
+1
Regular Invisibility is an illusion that makes it so the target isn't "seen" by viewers. It's not warping physical space, merely "tweaking" the optic nerve so that there's a blind spot when the viewer tries to see the target. Improved Invisibility is making a physical change to the world around the target, creating a "pocket" of space that's not showing up in the visible spectrum. So, if you have regular invisibility, the rabid lemming you stick in your pants will be visible to all viewers as it goes crazy. If you do the same with Improved Invisibility, the lemming disappears (but the scars will remain).
-
Regular Invisibility is an illusion that makes it so the target isn't "seen" by viewers. It's not warping physical space, merely "tweaking" the optic nerve so that there's a blind spot when the viewer tries to see the target.
I would argue that regular invisibility would affect the occipital lobe/visual cortex rather than the optic nerve primarily based on the following;
"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers." (SR4A pg 209, last paragraph of Invisibility/Improved Invisibility Description)
"Mana-based illusion spells affect the mind..." (SR4A pg 208, first paragraph of the Mana Illusions section under "Illusion Spells")
While then next paragraph of the Mana Illusions section specifically talks about "senses" I'd argue to my players that it is the parts of the brain which interpret those senses which are actually affected as they are the source of those senses.
[Inset long winded magic theory rambling, about how regular invisibility is a spell cast upon a subject but the spell is actually affecting all living creatures within line of sight of the subject, here]
Improved Invisibility is making a physical change to the world around the target, creating a "pocket" of space that's not showing up in the visible spectrum. So, if you have regular invisibility, the rabid lemming you stick in your pants will be visible to all viewers as it goes crazy. If you do the same with Improved Invisibility, the lemming disappears (but the scars will remain).
Agreed. But if you wrap your long coat around a person you're trying to hide, their feet below the long coat would still be visible.
What about this idea...for an Improved Invisibility test, the subject (or original caster) can "split" hits from the Spellcasting test for objects dropped. For example. the Improved Invisible (4 hits) Rat Shaman decides to drop a grenade while evading the guards who heard (and smelt) him run by. The Shaman decides to give the grenade 1 of his hits to the grenade with the hope that the guards will not notice it waiting for them as they round the corner. Later on, while scrambling over the security fence, his jacket gets caught on the fence. Instead of taking the time to free it, he slips out of it and assigns it 2 hits because he loves the jacket, doesn't want the guards to find it, and wants to come back for it later. After he runs into the bushes, he turns around, watches the guards pass the spot where his jacket invisibly hangs. The guards pass it but a squirrel scrambles up the sleeve and begins chirping. On of the guard looks back, but not seeing it, keeps moving. The shaman waits a bit more, runs back, grabs the jacket, gives the squirrel an acorn to get it out of the sleeve, and then he puts it on and is back up to 3 hits (still -1 from the grenade). Of course he has to sustain the spell the whole time and if at any time he drops the spell then it drops for all items/persons. ???
Again, just an idea...does it work? No? How? Eh? hehe.
-
... Improved Invisibility is making a physical change to the world around the target, creating a "pocket" of space that's not showing up in the visible spectrum.
Which has often made me wonder if Improved Invisibility shouldn't be classified as a manipulation spell. Then I remember that it's a gray area in a game, and go back to having fun. But, interesting thought experiment for someone to ponder, I suppose.
While then next paragraph of the Mana Illusions section specifically talks about "senses" I'd argue to my players that it is the parts of the brain which interpret those senses which are actually affected,since mana illusions affect the mind and SR4A does not presume to postulate on the Mind-Body Disconnect as they are the source of those senses.
Fixed that for ya. ;)
Brain interprets sensory data provided by sensory organs, it does not provide the origin of the sense.
As to the mind... that's a fuzzy lump unexplainable by science, maybe it resides entirely in the left pinky toe.
Side note, having dissected a brain before, it's honestly a little hard to decide where "brain" stops and "peripheral nervous system" begins when you're talking eyes, ears and nose.
What about this idea...for an Improved Invisibility test, the subject (or original caster) can "split" hits from the Spellcasting test for objects dropped. For example. the Improved Invisible (4 hits) Rat Shaman decides to drop a grenade while evading the guards who heard (and smelt) him run by. The Shaman decides to give the grenade 1 of his hits to the grenade with the hope that the guards will not notice it waiting for them as they round the corner. Later on, while scrambling over the security fence, his jacket gets caught on the fence. Instead of taking the time to free it, he slips out of it and assigns it 2 hits because he loves the jacket, doesn't want the guards to find it, and wants to come back for it later. After he runs into the bushes, he turns around, watches the guards pass the spot where his jacket invisibly hangs. The guards pass it but a squirrel scrambles up the sleeve and begins chirping. On of the guard looks back, but not seeing it, keeps moving. The shaman waits a bit more, runs back, grabs the jacket, gives the squirrel an acorn to get it out of the sleeve, and then he puts it on and is back up to 3 hits (still -1 from the grenade). Of course he has to sustain the spell the whole time and if at any time he drops the spell then it drops for all items/persons. ???
Again, just an idea...does it work? No? How? Eh? hehe.
Me likey, me not sure what it implies to game balance, but me likey. Question? Since grenade is out of LOS of the shaman when he dives into the bushes, wouldn't the spell end? My understanding is that line of sight is required for spell sustainment. I could be wrong, I haven't found anything that directly supports LOS to sustain in the minute I looked.
-
Chaemera, I'm going off older editions for the Sustaining more than current, but I also have not found anything that counters it in the current rules. LOS is needed to cast the spell, but once cast, the caster only has to focus on the astral "link" that manifests the spell and does not need to remain in LOS. For example, if a caster casts an invisibility spell (Improved or not) on someone, and that someone runs off and into the corporate building the spell is still maintained as long as the caster sustains the spell (even though the subject is now out of LOS).
Hehe, thanks for the fix :) Yeah, I shouldn't have used the word "source" or rather I should have said, "source of interpretation of the sensory data; where the sense-information is translated into meaning by the brain." And yeah...the nerves are like extended branches of the brain, which is why I prefer to have the spell affect the brain. Even though the rules specifically state that cyberware paid for with essence count as living, having invisibility affect the brain further bypasses player arguments.
As for the mind, eh...cut off my left pinky toe and I'd be willing to bet I'd still be "me" in personality (though a little pissed at the toe-assassin). But cut off my head and I'd say my personality would be severely changed. :)
The physicist in me says, yeah, Improved Invisibility should be manipulation and the GM in me says regular invisibility should be an area affect spell causing those in the area to be affected with a blind spot for the subject. But I'm happy with the rules as they are :)
-
Chaemera, I'm going off older editions for the Sustaining more than current, but I also have not found anything that counters it in the current rules. LOS is needed to cast the spell, but once cast, the caster only has to focus on the astral "link" that manifests the spell and does not need to remain in LOS. For example, if a caster casts an invisibility spell (Improved or not) on someone, and that someone runs off and into the corporate building the spell is still maintained as long as the caster sustains the spell (even though the subject is now out of LOS).
That indirectly answers some ritual magic questions I had (regarding sustaining a spell cast via ritual), my players will despise the name Fizzygoo.
As for the mind, eh...cut off my left pinky toe and I'd be willing to bet I'd still be "me" in personality (though a little pissed at the toe-assassin). But cut off my head and I'd say my personality would be severely changed. :)
Ah, but since no one can honestly tell you what a "mind" is supposed to do, how could you know? How could you know...
The physicist in me says, yeah, Improved Invisibility should be manipulation and the GM in me says regular invisibility should be an area affect spell causing those in the area to be affected with a blind spot for the subject. But I'm happy with the rules as they are :)
In my case it's the engineer, that physics stuff is only useful to keep my electrons moving, anyways. :P
-
Ah the old Engineer vs Physicist battle...or Chemist vs Physicist...or Mathematician vs Physicist...hehe, I've had them all. Engineering/Chemistry = Applied Physics, Physics = Applied Math, Math = a waste of time unless you apply it :P
Very true, the science is still "working" on the mind-body connection/meaning...I just don't buy there's a distinction (and given Haber's (sp) Babies in Shadowrun., it would appear that the game takes the path that at the very least if there is a distinction between mind and body, then the brain is still the seat of the mind...but the essence loss from cyberlimbs indicates its more than just brain = mind, though in real life I'd still argue that an amputee is still fully human).
...my players will despise the name Fizzygoo.
[Begin Mr. Burns voice] Excellent. [End Mr. Burns voice]
:)
-
I would argue that regular invisibility would affect the occipital lobe/visual cortex rather than the optic nerve primarily based on the following;
Yeah, I just used Optic Nerve as a catchall since most people are that knowledgeable in neurology/optometry and the biology that goes with it. ;)
-
:)
-
I would argue that regular invisibility would affect the occipital lobe/visual cortex rather than the optic nerve primarily based on the following;
Yeah, I just used Optic Nerve as a catchall since most people are that knowledgeable in neurology/optometry and the biology that goes with it. ;)
But isn't the whole point of being in a "geek" hobby like roleplaying to get a chance to flex your cerebral muscles and go off on the finer points of esoteric details regarding which particular neuron of the occipital lobe should be affected, thus causing the less well informed players' eyes to glaze over and the GM to rule in your favor just to shut you up?
Okay, no, I hate it when players try to pull that stuff on me, but it's still funny to consider how often we wander down these tangent paths. Kind of reminds me of the conversations at work that devolve into theorizing about what could happen if someone poured mountain dew into the reactor...
(to head off that speculation here, not too much, you'd just have to start doing some serious coolant dumping and cycling in properly balanced coolant)
-
OK, back again guys. Cheers for the commentary chummers - I see a few points that I hadn't time to post originally. One of the main ones that cropped up is the classification of Invisibility under Illusion spells. Sure, the standard version affects the senses of the target viewers as an indirect illusion so that's fine. But if the spell actually warps light in the shroud effect, then that's more aking to Manipulation as already suggested, because it affects a physical physics.
Right then, lets not get too side-tracked though. The main reason I brought the situation up was the use of one spell on what essentially is two targets. Two separate living auras of metahumans. Avoiding the comparrissons of area effect Combat spells affecting more than one target with a single casting (oh-ho heres a spark for the area effect version of Invisibility), lets continue along discussing the relationship of what constitutes the actual spell's target.
Now, I'm going by 3rd Edition ruleset here, but the theory still applies to 4th Edition. (I'll read up on all the rules over Crimbo break.) Originally, the casting Target Number for Improved Invisibility was set at 4. It was not reliant on the Willpower or Body of the target like Combat spells were. Also, it means that it could be cast on non-living aurae objects instead of using their natural object resistance ratings.
-
Two separate living auras of metahumans. Avoiding the comparrissons of area effect Combat spells affecting more than one target with a single casting (oh-ho heres a spark for the area effect version of Inisibility), lets ontinue along discussing the relationship of what constitutes the actual spell's target.
Now, I'm going by 3rd Edition ruleset here, but the theory still applies to 4th Edition. (I'll read up on all the rules over Crimbo break.) Originally, the casting Target Number for Improved Invisibility was set at 4. It was not reliant on the Willpower or Body of the target like Combat spells were. Also, it maens that it could be cast on non-living aurae objects instead of using their natural object resistance ratings.
Improved invisibility has no interaction with a subject's aura, as the aura is an astral issue, not a physical one. I go astral, I can see you all day long, no matter how many piles of improved invisibility you're under.
Also, the second "target" in our example (the one picked up subsequently) isn't actually invisible, he's inside the other person's invisible nature. As with the example given earlier where the person wrapped in the jacket of an invisible person, their feet are perfectly visible below the hem of the coat. Would a GM be within his right to rule one spell, one target? Sure, but he has no more basis to stand on than the people who say the person's invisible (perhaps less, since the illusion "bends" light, and therefore, logic dictates that anything within the confines of the coat would not be visible.
Further, this interpretation supports the idea that you cast the spell once for the target, plus gear. If you have to target each object due to them having separate auras (if I understand what you're getting at correctly), they you would, necessarily, have to cast the spell 1 + n times (where n is the number of objects the person is wearing / carrying).
-
This spell makes the subject more difficult to detect by normal visual senses (including low-light, thermographic, and other senses that rely on the visual spectrum). The subject is completely tangible and detectable by the other senses (hearing, smell, touch, etc.). Her aura is still visible to astral perception.
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.
So, that's all covered here i think.
-
OK, back again guys. Apologies for the untimely cut-off on my last post - internet time ran out. (Yeah, I don't have home access -what a dinosaur, eh?).
Right, just to clarify a few points here. This post is really to confront the theory part for roleplaying purposes rather than the actual game mechanics/rules bit (although such evaluation on logic and theory can lead to rule revisions).
@ Chaemera: I should have been clearer in my wording there because, as you so correctly point out, a spell's energies show up on the astral plane to anyone capable of assensing (and within LOS of) the target. Sure, the target is Invisible on the mundane plane, but his arua is shrouded by the active spell on the astral and thus a dead giveaway.
What I actually meant to convey, is that successfully casting a spell requires the caster to create an astral circuit/link between themselves and the target through which the astral energies of the spell can flow and "ground out" in the spell effect. This is referred to as "aural targeting" as the auras of the caster and target must be aligned for the spell's circuit to be completed. Hence the rules for mundane to mundane plane / astral to astral plane / mundane to astral plane targeting. In my example i'm sticking to the general mundane to mundane plane effects where the aura is the representation of the target rather than meaning the target is actually astrally active.
The other main point, that I'm trying to debate, is what the Invisibility / Improved Invisibility spell actually affects. If it only affected a single target being, then by rights all their equipment would be visible and as you suggest a separate spell would be required for each individual item. This is, of course, a little impractical in game terms. So surely the spell should cover everything that the target is wearing/holding?
Otherwise, theoretically, if a gun were the target of the spell it wouldn't affect the bullets in it's clip as they aren't really part of the weapon. The same might apply to casting it upon a vehicle like a motorcycle. It would become invisible, but the rider would not as be seen zooming about on thin air. Or a car, which would then become invisible, but not affect its contents/occupant.
This is where the question of actually how the spell affects the target, (such as by cloaking it in a shroud), becomes important, as it can have direct impact on the players/characters actions and plans in the game. The incident i brought up was to illustrate that if a single casting affected whatever the target was holding/wearing, then as game mechanics for Encumbrance allow, a troll carrying a lightweight human is certainly possible. Thus,because the spell is not listed as being restricted by the mass of its target, it would cover both in a single casting.
It is not dependant on affecting only the physical or mana attributes of its target either, otherwise surely it would target the subject's Body, Willpower, or Object Resistance Rating instead. (3rd Edition gave its casting Target Number as a flat 4). So really how much could this spell affect. Example that came to mind recently are:
The subject is riding a motorcycle, or even a living mount. Is this also affected? What if the vehicle is the target, could it also affect a passenger riding pillion too? Or, for that matter, if cast upon a car/van/truck/plane, would all passengers and things inside be cloaked by the same single casting of the spell? How about if the target were a building, say a wall or a gate/door. How about the local Corp HQ skyraker or the Golden Gate Bridge?
In quering these situations its led me to deeply ponder the mechanics coupled with the "spirit" of the rules. So sure, if my players can come up with a logical explanation and reasonable creative use of such spells, then why shouldn't they be able to get away with them?
So far, I've concluded that the spell's Force should have some determination upon how much area/mass the spell can effectively shroud with a single casting. It's still limited to a single target, but a larger mass requires more power/man to conceal. plus it also limits the abuse of a simplistic one target casting making landmarks disappear (unless they're using ritual sorcery of course).
OK, any further comments people?
-
The easy answer is, read it exactly as written in the book, it's a single target spell, so when you cast it, it affects a single living target (and all the non-living junk he's carrying / physically attached to). For simplicity we're ignoring the bacteria, fungus, etc that cling to a person.
If it's Improved Invisibility, it creates a light-bending shroud about the person + gear. Therefore, anything (including a living thing like a person) which is brought wholly inside the shroud (such as by being draped within the invisible person's cloak) is not invisible, but cannot be seen because they are within the area affected by the shroud, any part of them which drops out of the shroud is plainly visible for all to see.
This is the best way to approach it because now you don't need to invent any weird house rules relating to Force, you don't have to worry about stymieing your players' creativity, because the spell works the way the people expect it to (look at every fantasy example of invisibility, from Harry Potter to Tolkien's One Ring, to DnD Invisibility, to how people are consistently presenting Invisibility in this thread).
Your motorcycle/horse example? if the guy is carrying the motorcycle, sure, it disappears. If he's riding it? No. Anything that has an aura (vice a shadow) that he's carrying? No invisibility, because they're not the target of the spell. Do not let your players cheese a fluffy interpretation of Imp Invisibility to avoid having to cast a spell twice, it just begs for abuse. Trust me, trying to keep a person hidden inside your coat / cloak is in no way easy and would probably result in them both getting shot, hence why I would allow that.
Use it as written, all the questions, concerns and comments you've mentioned go out the window and you've got no problems.