NEWS

Casting Improved invisibility on Cover or a Wall

  • 11 Replies
  • 339 Views

Wu Jen

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • The only true paradises are those that are lost.
« on: <05-31-20/1650:36> »
Object gets to resist with Object Resistance, then what happens.

Can you suddenly see through a wall in front of you? Can you see a target that has full cover because the cover is now invisible?

Sorry, breaking the game again...I know. :P

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3656
« Reply #1 on: <05-31-20/1709:29> »
Improved Invisibility is a funny spell.  Its metaphysics are kind of wack.

It can't be physically allowing light to pass through, as this isn't happening for observers who resist the spell. It's the bizarre circumstance where the wall is potentially invisible for some people and not for others.

Yet it's a "physical spell", so what IS going on?

Who the heck knows.  My headcanon is it works just like the mana-based Invisibility in which it tricks observers into thinking the target is invisible.  Imp Invis just happens to also somehow trick physical sensors.  Either way... if you THINK you can't see the wall, what WOULD you imagine you're seeing in its place?  Damned if I know.  But it certainly can't be what's truthfully behind it if you don't already know what you'd be seeing if the wall weren't there...

I'd say this is a question that can't be answered "officially", not that any answers I give are official anyway.  What I'm saying is this is gonna have to go to your GM.
« Last Edit: <05-31-20/1712:20> 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.

Wu Jen

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • The only true paradises are those that are lost.
« Reply #2 on: <05-31-20/1711:49> »
Improved Invisibility is a funny spell.  Its metaphysics are kind of wack.

It can't be physically allowing light to pass through, as this isn't happening for observers who resist the spell. It's the bizarre circumstance where the wall is potentially invisible for some people and not for others.

Yet it's a "physical spell", so what IS going on?

Who the heck knows. 

I'd say this is an answer that can't be answered "officially", not that any answers I give are official anyway.  What I'm saying is this is gonna have to go to your GM.

I'm the GM, always the problem......trying to find all the crazy stuff so when it pops up I know how to handle it.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3656
« Reply #3 on: <05-31-20/1714:23> »
Well, if you want advice...

going with my vision I'd say you think you see what you expect to be on the other side of the wall.  Which doesn't have any bearing on what's actually there.  Not elegant, I know.  But if the specific purpose is to deny someone concealment by making an intervening object invisible, I'd just say "that doesn't work" and leave it at that.

If you want to know what's inside the safe so you want to make it invisible?  No.  "that doesn't work".  That's what Clairvoyance is for.  Use that instead.

Etc.
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.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9481
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #4 on: <05-31-20/1734:46> »
Honestly, I wouldn't let you make a wall invisible to begin with. The spell talks about target and person, so a person-sized object, maybe, but not an actual wall.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Reaver

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6206
  • 60% alcohol 40% asshole...
« Reply #5 on: <05-31-20/1837:24> »
Invisibility (both versions), are an odd duck of spells....

The 'person' that resists the spell, isn't actually the 'person' that receives the spell: its everyone who views the receiver of the spell...

And now  you get into all wacky things, like you're invisiblie wall... can you maje a wall invisible? Arguably, you couldn't as the wall, is part of a larger structure intrinsicly...
Its kind of like asking to just make the soles of your shoes invisibile while wearing them....

On the otherside of the coin, its STILL a barrier, even if you csn see through it. (See shooting through barriers in the CRB....
Where am I going? And why am I in a hand basket ???

Remember: You can't fix Stupid. But you can beat on it with a 2x4 until it smartens up! Or dies.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5667
« Reply #6 on: <06-01-20/0411:33> »
Illusion spells are typically cast on either a single living subject (T or LOS) or a physical location (LOS(A))
Illusion spells are typically opposed by potential observers (in some cases the only observer is the subject itself).

Silence is cast on a location. If you cast it on a location close to a wall then any observers get to oppose the spell and if they fail they will not hear hear stuff that happens close to the wall. This spell can not be cast on a subject.

Invisibility is cast on a subject (a person with a living aura). If you cast it on a subject then potential observers of the subject get to oppose the spell and if they fail they will not see the subject. This spell can not be cast on a location.

Quote from: SR5 p. 291 Invisibility
This spell makes the subject more difficult to detect by normal visual senses (...). Her aura is still visible to astral perception... An invisible character may still be detected by non-visual means...

Non living observers are unaffected by mental illusion spells (such as hush or invisibility). Potential non living observers of a physical illusion spell (such as an ultrasound sensor in the case of a silence spell or a recording surveillance camera in case of an improved invisibility spell) use their object resistance while opposing the spell.

Supplements add a few illusion spells that specifically target a specific type of non-living objects rather than a location or a living subject, but they explicitly mention this (for example decoy which is the regular chaos spell but this spell only work on a non-living sensor objects - that will oppose the spell with its own object resistance rating).



Object gets to resist with Object Resistance, then what happens.
The subject does not resist invisibility or improved invisibility at all.

Any potential observers, such as a surveillance camera in case of the improved version of the spell, get to oppose the spell if the subject get into its line of sight.


Can you suddenly see through a wall in front of you?
You don't target the wall. You target a living subject.

If an observer fail to oppose the test then the observer will not see the subject (and will still see the wall behind the subject).


Can you see a target that has full cover because the cover is now invisible?
You don't target the cover. You target a living subject.

If an observer fail to oppose the test then the observer can't see the subject no matter if the subject has full cover or not.



I'm the GM, always the problem......trying to find all the crazy stuff so when it pops up I know how to handle it.
The reason we have a GM is for the GM to step in and make rulings to prevent shenanigans that the rules might not fully cover in the first place.


Having said that;

IF you rule that you can also target non-living objects without an aura with the invisibility spell
THEN you resolve it with a spell casting test and any potential observers get to oppose the test (but not the wall itself).

IF a potential observer fail to oppose the spell
THEN he would see what is behind the wall (but the wall will still prevent astral perception and targeting spells on the other side of the wall and barrier rules apply to indirect combat spells and firearms) and he would also see a target hiding behind cover (there will be no cover to obstruct sight if you attack but again, barrier rules still apply).

For the mental variant of the spell you would perhaps only see what you 'think' is behind the wall.
But for the physical variant of the spell light would bend and you would actually see through the wall.
https://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/valeo-invisible-trailer-camera-2019-ces.jpg


But note, this is not RAI (and I would argue nor RAW) and would probably be considered a house rule. You also need to be prepared for that this line of ruling potentially also opens up several other strange situations that you would have to deal with as well...

The supported method of looking behind a wall is the clairvoyance spell.
« Last Edit: <06-01-20/0513:17> by Xenon »

Wu Jen

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • The only true paradises are those that are lost.
« Reply #7 on: <06-01-20/0749:05> »
Illusion spells are typically cast on either a single living subject (T or LOS) or a physical location (LOS(A))
Illusion spells are typically opposed by potential observers (in some cases the only observer is the subject itself).

Silence is cast on a location. If you cast it on a location close to a wall then any observers get to oppose the spell and if they fail they will not hear hear stuff that happens close to the wall. This spell can not be cast on a subject.

Invisibility is cast on a subject (a person with a living aura). If you cast it on a subject then potential observers of the subject get to oppose the spell and if they fail they will not see the subject. This spell can not be cast on a location.

Quote from: SR5 p. 291 Invisibility
This spell makes the subject more difficult to detect by normal visual senses (...). Her aura is still visible to astral perception... An invisible character may still be detected by non-visual means...

Non living observers are unaffected by mental illusion spells (such as hush or invisibility). Potential non living observers of a physical illusion spell (such as an ultrasound sensor in the case of a silence spell or a recording surveillance camera in case of an improved invisibility spell) use their object resistance while opposing the spell.

Supplements add a few illusion spells that specifically target a specific type of non-living objects rather than a location or a living subject, but they explicitly mention this (for example decoy which is the regular chaos spell but this spell only work on a non-living sensor objects - that will oppose the spell with its own object resistance rating).



Object gets to resist with Object Resistance, then what happens.
The subject does not resist invisibility or improved invisibility at all.

Any potential observers, such as a surveillance camera in case of the improved version of the spell, get to oppose the spell if the subject get into its line of sight.


Can you suddenly see through a wall in front of you?
You don't target the wall. You target a living subject.

If an observer fail to oppose the test then the observer will not see the subject (and will still see the wall behind the subject).


Can you see a target that has full cover because the cover is now invisible?
You don't target the cover. You target a living subject.

If an observer fail to oppose the test then the observer can't see the subject no matter if the subject has full cover or not.



I'm the GM, always the problem......trying to find all the crazy stuff so when it pops up I know how to handle it.
The reason we have a GM is for the GM to step in and make rulings to prevent shenanigans that the rules might not fully cover in the first place.


Having said that;

IF you rule that you can also target non-living objects without an aura with the invisibility spell
THEN you resolve it with a spell casting test and any potential observers get to oppose the test (but not the wall itself).

IF a potential observer fail to oppose the spell
THEN he would see what is behind the wall (but the wall will still prevent astral perception and targeting spells on the other side of the wall and barrier rules apply to indirect combat spells and firearms) and he would also see a target hiding behind cover (there will be no cover to obstruct sight if you attack but again, barrier rules still apply).

For the mental variant of the spell you would perhaps only see what you 'think' is behind the wall.
But for the physical variant of the spell light would bend and you would actually see through the wall.
https://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/valeo-invisible-trailer-camera-2019-ces.jpg


But note, this is not RAI (and I would argue nor RAW) and would probably be considered a house rule. You also need to be prepared for that this line of ruling potentially also opens up several other strange situations that you would have to deal with as well...

The supported method of looking behind a wall is the clairvoyance spell.

Thanks Xeon that makes more sense now. Is there a list of Shadowrun terms and what they mean? Like just one or two pages that list subject = this, initiative score = this etc?

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9481
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #8 on: <06-01-20/1032:53> »
If you find one, let the writers know so they can be consistent with each other. :P Seriously though, not really, but maybe I should put one together at some point.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Wu Jen

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • The only true paradises are those that are lost.
« Reply #9 on: <06-01-20/1144:11> »
Seems like every book should have a glossary.
Would make things so much simpler and help avoid mix ups.

Thanks for the help!

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5667
« Reply #10 on: <06-01-20/1708:05> »
In 5th edition it almost seem as if the authors at times went to great length using different words meaning the same thing. Great if you are writing a novel perhaps. Not so great when writing 400+ pages of rules. A bit of consistency would gone a long way in clarifying the rules.

This part actually got a little better in 6th edition, but still far from great (and in that edition they instead removed many [redundant] clarifying rules and clarifying examples, which made the rules even more ambiguous than in 5th edition).

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2467
« Reply #11 on: <06-02-20/1957:22> »
Seems like every book should have a glossary.
Would make things so much simpler and help avoid mix ups.

Thanks for the help!

The closest to that was in 3e maybe 2e where in one of the magic expansions it listed all the spells and how they interacted with things like object resistance. As a example levitate didn't go against OR as it had its own test vs weight not object complexity. It wasn't a glossary but it gave you a better idea of how the fundamentals of spells worked so you could more easily wing a answer consistently.

Every spell in its header should list a bunch more things than they do.  range, drain, physical or mental like they have sure, but subjects, resistance, does it go against OR(like how indirect combat spells ignored it), and if my brain wasn't fried from work I'd probably have a few more things. Shadowrun is way behind the times on this.