Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: westiex@********.net (Aramis)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:58:54 +1000
The Third edition core rule book states

"'This spell makes the subject invisible to normal vision. The subject
is completely tangible and detectable by the other senses. Their aura is
still visible to astra preception"

Skip the next paragraph about attacks vs invisible targets

"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility
affects technological sensors as well."

In the intro for Dreamchipper (Adventure, 1st), the mage casts
invisibility on herself. However a dwarf (with thermal vision) still
spots her.

My questions are:

A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
natural thermal vision in 3rd?
B) What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?

Aramis.
Message no. 2
From: l-hansen@*****.tele.dk (Lars Wagner Hansen)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:47:26 +0200
From: "Aramis" <westiex@********.net>


<Snip>
> A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
> natural thermal vision in 3rd?

If the thermal vision comes from natural sources or from cyberware (which
you have paid essence for and is part of your body), then it will be fooled
by Invisibility and Improved Invisibility.

Invisibility will not fool thermal vision from googles.

> B) What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?

Can remember but I think it's Intelligence vs. Force, and you need more
successes than the mage had casting the spell.

Lars
Message no. 3
From: honken101@********.net (Fredrik Holmqvist)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:59:49 +0200
At 14:58 2004-07-28, you wrote:
>A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
>natural thermal vision in 3rd?

I would say no, since thermal sight is still a sight. There is also some
changes in how invisibility works from the other editions.


>B) What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?

Um, not from what i understand. But you can still hear and smell the
invisible character, and se him/her in Astral space.

>Aramis.
Message no. 4
From: failhelm@*****.com (failhelm@*****.com)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:17:37 -0700
>>From: "Aramis" <westiex@********.net>
>>At 14:58 2004-07-28, you wrote:

>>"'This spell makes the subject invisible to normal vision. The subject is
completely tangible and detectable by the other senses. Their aura is still
visible to astra preception"

My group interprets this as meaning that senses like, touch, smell, hearing
and (yuk) taste would still detect the would be detectable, for both
versions of the spell.

>>"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility affects
technological sensors as well."
>>
>>In the intro for Dreamchipper (Adventure, 1st), the mage casts
invisibility on herself. However a dwarf (with thermal vision) still spots
her.

It has been argued in many an RPG that heat signature is argued as being
"tangible and detectable by other senses", since when you are invisible your
body still gives off heat. However, since the spell defeats the mind of the
user then there is an argument for the dwarf not seeing them.

However, I have the 1st edition basic book and the Invisibility spell
denotes that the Dwarf should be able to see his target in Dreamchipper
(cool mod btw), per the argument that the body of the Invisible persons
gives off body heat. 3rd edition must have modified the write up of the
spell. The spell write up seems to treat Thermo with exception even allowing
cybereyes to see the target IF and they have Thermo.

>>My questions are:
>>
>>A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
natural thermal vision in 3rd?
>>B) What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?
>>
>>Aramis.

My group has used the traditional rules for defeating spells per Lars
previous post. The 1st edition version of the spell suggests that the
observer must achieve x2 the number of success the casting mage achieved.

Failhelm
Message no. 5
From: grapz@******.com (Anders_Østhus)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:19:01 +0200
Lars Wagner Hansen wrote:

> From: "Aramis" <westiex@********.net>
> <Snip>
>
>>A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
>>natural thermal vision in 3rd?
>
>
> If the thermal vision comes from natural sources or from cyberware (which
> you have paid essence for and is part of your body), then it will be fooled
> by Invisibility and Improved Invisibility.
>
> Invisibility will not fool thermal vision from googles.

Why not ? Goggles with thermal vision is as much a technological sensor
as cybereyes with thermal vision ? Or am I mistaken ?

> Aramis wrote:
>
> What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?

According to BBB, Page 195 Indirect Illusion (Imp. Invisibility) is
resisted by Intelligence vs Force of the spell, and you need more
successes that the mage had when he cast the spell.

--
Regards
Anders Østhus
grapz@******.com
http://grapz.com
Message no. 6
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Why not ? Goggles with thermal vision is as much a technological
> sensor as cybereyes with thermal vision ? Or am I mistaken ?

Once you pay essence for the cybereyes, they become an intrinsic part
of you. They send a signal directly to you brain, and your brain
tells them directly what to focus on. Not so with goggles. The
goggles focus on things that are there, and pass the info on. Now, I
would rule that a Mana Invis spell still fools the goggle wearer,
because it targets the brain. A Physical Invis spell would fail,
because the goggles can't be fooled any more than vehicle sensores
can.

======Korishinzo
--welcome to the tangled world of metaphysics



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 7
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:57:29 +0000
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 08:42:50AM -0700, Ice Heart wrote:
> > Why not ? Goggles with thermal vision is as much a technological
> > sensor as cybereyes with thermal vision ? Or am I mistaken ?
>
> Once you pay essence for the cybereyes, they become an intrinsic part
> of you. They send a signal directly to you brain, and your brain
> tells them directly what to focus on. Not so with goggles. The
> goggles focus on things that are there, and pass the info on. Now, I
> would rule that a Mana Invis spell still fools the goggle wearer,
> because it targets the brain. A Physical Invis spell would fail,
> because the goggles can't be fooled any more than vehicle sensores
> can.
>

Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the physical version of the
spell that it can fool technological sensors as well?

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 8
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:03:27 -0400
At 11:57 AM 7/28/2004, David Kettler wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 08:42:50AM -0700, Ice Heart wrote:
> > > Why not ? Goggles with thermal vision is as much a technological
> > > sensor as cybereyes with thermal vision ? Or am I mistaken ?
> >
> > Once you pay essence for the cybereyes, they become an intrinsic part
> > of you. They send a signal directly to you brain, and your brain
> > tells them directly what to focus on. Not so with goggles. The
> > goggles focus on things that are there, and pass the info on. Now, I
> > would rule that a Mana Invis spell still fools the goggle wearer,
> > because it targets the brain. A Physical Invis spell would fail,
> > because the goggles can't be fooled any more than vehicle sensores
> > can.
> >
>
>Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the
>physical version of the spell that it can fool technological sensors as well?

It fools cameras, which rely on visible light. Theromographic goggles,
thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar aren't stopped.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 9
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:32:42 -0700
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:03:27 -0400
"Timothy J. Lanza" <tjlanza@************.com> wrote:

[snip]

> It fools cameras, which rely on visible light. Theromographic goggles,
> thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar aren't stopped.

Since thermo relies on the same electromagnetic transmission (waves,
particles, whatever) as visible light, only at a different frequency, it
should be spoofed just as light is, unless there's a specific canon rule that
counterdicts this.
--Anders
Message no. 10
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the
> >physical version of the spell that it can fool technological
> sensors as well?

> It fools cameras, which rely on visible light. Theromographic
> goggles, thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar
> aren't stopped.

Exactly. The mana version of the spell gets in their head and says
"these are no the droids you are looking for". The physical version
short circuits the input itself, stopping the device from perceiving
the reflected light. So the phys version stops the visible light
from reaching the camera/goggles/sensors, but does nothing about the
actual heat, the non-visible radiant energy. You could always create
a new, more difficult spell that stopped non-visible wavelengths of
light as well.

Actually, now that I think about it, I would allow mana-based invis
to fool someone wearing goggles. It targets the brain, telling it to
ignore imput from the optic nerve regarding the subject of the spell.
Thus, you could even be invisible to rigger using vehicle sensors,
if they were jacked into the sensors directly. That would input
directly to the optic nerve. Cameras, and sensor output displayed
somewhere before the rigger saw it (capt. chair) would not be fooled
by the spell.

Improved invis (Physical spell) would conversely, fool cameras and
others sensors of strictly visible light, but fail against things
that sensed outside the visible spectrum.

All forms of invisibility would fail against senses that did not rely
on visible light or optic nerve input.

You would need other spells to target other senses... or one very
difficult spell.

One of my player's has a mage PC who invented a mana spell she calls
Ghost. It targets the visual, audio, and olfactory cortexes...
convincing them to ignore her. As long as she does not touch them,
she can walk right by. Drain is something like +3S or D as I recall.

======Korishinzo
--metaphysics... the art of making stuff up and then reverse
engineering a rational explanation :p



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
Message no. 11
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:43:02 +0000
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0400, Timothy J. Lanza wrote:
> >Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the
> >physical version of the spell that it can fool technological sensors as
> >well?
>
> It fools cameras, which rely on visible light. Theromographic goggles,
> thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar aren't stopped.
>

See, I don't know about that. Certainly it won't fool ultrasound, radar, and other
nonvisual sensors. But if you're going to consider thermographics to be a visual sense in
the mana case then it should apply to the physical case as well. Yes, a mana invisibility
spell works by affecting the mind of the target, but it is still limited to only visual
senses. In theory you could try to come up with a spell that affected the mind of the
target to the point where the target wouldn't notice any signs that the intruder was
there, but that would not be an invisibility spell and is not what we're talking about.

Either thermographics are a visual sense, in which case technological thermographics would
be stopped by a physical invisibility spell, or they aren't, in which case no invisibility
spell would be able to fool any kind of thermographics. You certainly won't have a case
where a technological thermographic sense like thermographic goggles were stopped by a
mana spell but not a physical spell, which is what the post I was responding to was
claiming.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 12
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:52:17 -0700
> David Kettler wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0400, Timothy J. Lanza wrote:
> > >Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the
> > >physical version of the spell that it can fool
> technological sensors
> > >as well?
> >
> > It fools cameras, which rely on visible light.
> Theromographic goggles,
> > thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar
> aren't stopped.
> >
>
> See, I don't know about that. Certainly it won't fool
> ultrasound, radar, and other nonvisual sensors. But if
> you're going to consider thermographics to be a visual sense
> in the mana case then it should apply to the physical case as
> well. Yes, a mana invisibility spell works by affecting the
> mind of the target, but it is still limited to only visual
> senses. In theory you could try to come up with a spell that
> affected the mind of the target to the point where the target
> wouldn't notice any signs that the intruder was there, but
> that would not be an invisibility spell and is not what we're
> talking about.
>
> Either thermographics are a visual sense, in which case
> technological thermographics would be stopped by a physical
> invisibility spell, or they aren't, in which case no
> invisibility spell would be able to fool any kind of
> thermographics. You certainly won't have a case where a
> technological thermographic sense like thermographic goggles
> were stopped by a mana spell but not a physical spell, which
> is what the post I was responding to was claiming.
>

Having just had the argument with a player about Invisibility vs Ultrasound,
Ultrasound is affected just like any other "sight" based sensor. I point you
to M&M pg 18:

"Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based indirect illusions
spells (in addition to physical spells), because it has been purchased with
Essence."

Seems to me to be pretty clear. If you paid Essence for a "vision"
modification, Invisibility works against it. Improved Invisibility works
against it AND those other modifications you didn't pay essence for. Cut and
dried, as far as I'm concerned. (Although my player was rather upset about
it, having purchased it and thinking it works slightly different than it
does. For example, he thinks it can be used as a heartbeat sensor ala the
Rainbow Six games so he can see anything within his line of sight, even on
the other side of a wall.)

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 13
From: cougar@***.rr.com (Robert Blackberg)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:08:25 -0400
David Kettler wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0400, Timothy J. Lanza wrote:
>
>>>Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the
>>>physical version of the spell that it can fool technological sensors as
>>>well?
>>
>>It fools cameras, which rely on visible light. Theromographic goggles,
>>thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar aren't stopped.
>>
>
>
> See, I don't know about that. Certainly it won't fool ultrasound, radar, and other
nonvisual sensors. But if you're going to consider thermographics to be a visual sense in
the mana case then it should apply to the physical case as well. Yes, a mana invisibility
spell works by affecting the mind of the target, but it is still limited to only visual
senses. In theory you could try to come up with a spell that affected the mind of the
target to the point where the target wouldn't notice any signs that the intruder was
there, but that would not be an invisibility spell and is not what we're talking about.
>
> Either thermographics are a visual sense, in which case technological thermographics
would be stopped by a physical invisibility spell, or they aren't, in which case no
invisibility spell would be able to fool any kind of thermographics. You certainly won't
have a case where a technological thermographic sense like thermographic goggles were
stopped by a mana spell but not a physical spell, which is what the post I was responding
to was claiming.
>
If I may point everyone to the FAQ found here:

http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/resources/faq.shtml

Does the Invisibility spell work against thermographic vision?
Yes.

Thank you, that is all. Everyone please move along. Nothing to see here.
Even those of you with thermographic vision, natural or technological.

:)

Robert
Message no. 14
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:18:02 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: korishinzo@*****.com [mailto:korishinzo@*****.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:43 AM
>

SNIP

> I would rule that a Mana Invis spell still fools the goggle wearer,
> because it targets the brain. A Physical Invis spell would fail,
> because the goggles can't be fooled any more than vehicle sensores
> can.

Actually, that's exactly backwards. The physical invisibility spell
*can* fool technological devices, including goggles and vehicle sensors. Of
course, a good vehicle will have other sensors (radar, etc) that will still
detect the "invisible" character, but that's beside the point. Since the
goggle-wearing character is getting his or her information from the goggles
rather than directly from the invisible character (as someone with cybereyes
is since they've paid Essence), the mana spell does not affect them. A
tenuous explanation? Yes. But then again, Magic is weird.
No matter how you do it, you're going to run into inconsistencies.
For instance, refer back to the raging debate in the mid-1990's that
contended that Physical Invisibility should be a Manipulation spell rather
than an Illusion (as it is effecting a physical change in the environment in
order to mask the visual presence of an object or person). Your best bet is
to just pick a scheme that is as consistent as possible and work from there.
For instance, I have a tough time buying the "these aren't the
droids you're looking for" explanation of mana-based Invisibility, simply
because if it affects that level of brain function, it should work on more
than just sight. And it should be a mind-affecting Manipulation. No matter
what scheme you decide on, you'll need to shift some spells around to other
categories or change their effects.

Marc
Message no. 15
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:24:00 -0500
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:52:17 -0700, zebulingod <zebulingod@*******.net>
wrote:

> "Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based indirect illusions
> spells (in addition to physical spells), because it has been purchased
> with
> Essence."

I'd still rule that it's not affected by invis./imp. invis. because they
work on photons in my games. Stealth (or mute or silence or w/e that
mana-based indirect illiusion that affects sound is) would affect
ultra-sound but not neccessarily in a good way.

If you stretch invis all the way to ultrasound, then it would probably
also affect radar, lidar, and a host of other very non-visual detection
processes. Then, you get the odd case of some foxy, raven haired prima
donna anchoring a imp. invis. spell to her plane and lone star not
noticing as she jets around Seattle.

--
Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984; YM: DaTwinkDaddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Message no. 16
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:25:35 -0500
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:43:02 +0000, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:03:27PM -0400, Timothy J. Lanza wrote:
>> >Eh?! Isn't the whole point of dealing with the extra drain of the
>> >physical version of the spell that it can fool technological sensors as
>> >well?
>>
>> It fools cameras, which rely on visible light. Theromographic goggles,
>> thermographic in vehicle sensors, ultrasound, and radar aren't stopped.
>
> Either thermographics are a visual sense, in which case technological
> thermographics would be stopped by a physical invisibility spell, or
> they aren't, in which case no invisibility spell would be able to fool
> any kind of thermographics. You certainly won't have a case where a
> technological thermographic sense like thermographic goggles were
> stopped by a mana spell but not a physical spell, which is what the post
> I was responding to was claiming.

That's certainly how I run it. Thermo isn't the same as "normal vision"
so it's not affected by either version. Even if I went the other way and
said that thermo was "normal vision" (still is detection of photons) then
the rules would still be symetric for mana (only "people eyes": natural,
cyber, googles [the image would show on the googles, but the person
wearing them would ignore it]) and physical versions (all "eyes").

Now, my question (and this is were people start saying: don't discuss the
physics of a spell, it's magic) is: Will laser "trip wires" like you see
in movies (I've never seen one in real life, but I suppose they might be
useful) detect an invisible runner stepping through it?

--
Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984; YM: DaTwinkDaddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Message no. 17
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:33:32 +0100
At 01:58 PM 7/28/2004, Aramis wrote:
><Snip>
>My questions are:
>
>A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
>natural thermal vision in 3rd?

Yes.

>B) What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?

IIRC it is resisted in the same way as any other illusion spell, the
subject must achieve more successes against the force of the spell than the
mage managed in the casting.
Kori mentioned thermographic goggles penetrating invisibility, I would say
that they might penetrate the mana version but not the physical... just
because it's cheesy that anyone who shells out a few nuyen on a pair of
NVGs can screw over every mage around.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 18
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:36:12 -0600
on Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:25:35 -0500, Da Twink Daddy
<datwinkdaddy@*******.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:43:02 +0000, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org>
> wrote:

[snip: Re Improved Invisibility]

> Now, my question (and this is were people start saying: don't discuss the
> physics of a spell, it's magic) is: Will laser "trip wires" like you see
> in movies (I've never seen one in real life, but I suppose they might be
> useful) detect an invisible runner stepping through it?

I would give it a chance, since the spell does affect light, and the
laser "trip wire" are very low power (I have one in my garage that
checks to see if anything is in the way of the garage door before the
garage door will close).

However, laser trip wires aren't used for security much anymore, being
replaced by heat and motion sensors (which won't be fooled by Improved
Invisibility).

--
-Graht
Message no. 19
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:40:22 -0700
Da Twink Daddy wrote:
> <zebulingod@*******.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based indirect
> > illusions spells (in addition to physical spells), because
> it has been
> > purchased with Essence."
>
> I'd still rule that it's not affected by invis./imp. invis.
> because they work on photons in my games. Stealth (or mute
> or silence or w/e that mana-based indirect illiusion that
> affects sound is) would affect ultra-sound but not
> neccessarily in a good way.
>
> If you stretch invis all the way to ultrasound, then it would
> probably also affect radar, lidar, and a host of other very
> non-visual detection processes. Then, you get the odd case
> of some foxy, raven haired prima donna anchoring a imp.
> invis. spell to her plane and lone star not noticing as she
> jets around Seattle.
>

If any of those things were purchased with Essence, then yes. If we're
talking about Improved Invisibility, then even if they weren't purchased
with Essence, the answer would be yes.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 20
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:09:34 +0200
According to Aramis, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 14:58 the word on the street
was...

> A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
> natural thermal vision in 3rd?

As I recall, in SR3 thermographic vision does not "see through"
invisibility. If you've cast normal Invisibility on yourself, then someone
with thermographic vision (natural or cyber) cannot see you; likewise,
with Imp. Invis. someone using a thermographic camera also can't see you.

In earlier editions, the spell description specifically stated that anyone
using thermo was not affected by the spell, but this was dropped in SR3.

> B) What test(s) are needed to be able to defeat such a spell?

The normal Intelligence Test needed to see through an illusion (or to
recognize it as such). This is described in SR3.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 21
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
> I'd still rule that it's not affected by invis./imp. invis. because
> they work on photons in my games. Stealth (or mute or silence or
> w/e that mana-based indirect illiusion that affects sound is) would
> affect ultra-sound but not neccessarily in a good way.

Thermal signature is not photons. Not much of it anyway. With both
thermographic and ultrasound "sight" you have a situation where input
outside the visual capabilities of the human body are being captured
by a device and translated by a dedicated microprocessor into
something the eye/visual cortex can interpret. You start running
into some complicated definitions when you take visual sensory input
from wider arcs of the electromagnetic spectrum. That is why, at its
core, invisibility should only effect visible wavelengths.

This is problematic, because it makes invis almost useless. Even the
lowest level security guard can afford the imaging cyberware that
allows thermal imput to be tranlated into visual input. So what does
"thermographic" vision see? All thermal output, or only infrared
emissions? And how technically picky do you want to get about
something that is supposed to be a fairly abstract game mechanic?

I am with Zebulin on this one, I think. If a given sensory input
gets tranlated into visual imput by any means
(magic/cyber/metagenes), it is effected by the magic of Invisibility.
If a device stands between the observer and the spell's subject
(that has not been incorporated into the observer via essence loss),
a physical version of the spell [Improved Invisibility] is required.
If the sensory input gets translated for another sense, such as light
to sound, Invisibility will not work. Yes, I realize that this means
the spell takes effect "within" the "device" doing the tranlation.
All I can say is, "Hey, it's magic and we do have this game balance
thing to maintain."

======Korishinzo
--the ultimate death of munchkin fun, that game balance drek ;>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 22
From: bmonroe@******.fsu.edu (Blair Monroe)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:44:40 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


Graht wrote:

>>Now, my question (and this is were people start saying: don't discuss the
>>physics of a spell, it's magic) is: Will laser "trip wires" like you
see
>>in movies (I've never seen one in real life, but I suppose they might be
>>useful) detect an invisible runner stepping through it?
>>
>>
>
>I would give it a chance, since the spell does affect light, and the
>laser "trip wire" are very low power (I have one in my garage that
>checks to see if anything is in the way of the garage door before the
>garage door will close).
>
>However, laser trip wires aren't used for security much anymore, being
>replaced by heat and motion sensors (which won't be fooled by Improved
>Invisibility).
>
>
Is thermographic vision (as normally used in the game) sufficient to
pick up the heat of someone's breath or the residual heat they leave on
surfaces touched or walked on? If it is, would the Invisibility spell
hide these traces as well or would you end up with a series of tell-tale
heat signatures that lead to...'nothing'?

-- Blair


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/04a37c6e/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
Message no. 23
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:38:14 +0000
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:21:23AM -0700, Ice Heart wrote:
> Thermal signature is not photons. Not much of it anyway. With both

Um...what else is it, then? There is no way to 'see' heat directly. Maybe you could come
up with some other explanation for magical thermographic version, but at least the
technological stuff absolutely has to work by detecting infrared light. There is no other
plausible explanation for how it works.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 24
From: paul@*********.demon.co.uk (Paul Squires)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:38:24 +0100
Zebulingod wrote:

>If any of those things were purchased with Essence, then yes. If we're
>talking about Improved Invisibility, then even if they weren't purchased
>with Essence, the answer would be yes.

I think the distinction has to be whether the vision is optical or digital -
if you're using cybereyes (with any vision mods except US, traditional
binoculars, fibre optic cable then you're seeing using your own vision -
this is the criteria for LOS when casting spells. However if it's a digital
image then then only physical invis will work against it - this includes
vehicle sensors, digital optics (especially magnification), through a
vid/trid camera. The Digital Optic "sees" something, translates it, sends it
and you view a recompiled image whereas the first case that translation does
not occur - the photons directly travel to your optic nerve.

However - does this mean that anyone with electronic vision mag CAN see
through invisibility..?

Cheers,
Paul
Message no. 25
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:11:32 -0700
Paul Squires wrote:
>
> Zebulingod wrote:
>
> >If any of those things were purchased with Essence, then
> yes. If we're
> >talking about Improved Invisibility, then even if they weren't
> >purchased with Essence, the answer would be yes.
>
> I think the distinction has to be whether the vision is
> optical or digital - if you're using cybereyes (with any
> vision mods except US, traditional binoculars, fibre optic
> cable then you're seeing using your own vision - this is the
> criteria for LOS when casting spells. However if it's a
> digital image then then only physical invis will work against
> it - this includes vehicle sensors, digital optics
> (especially magnification), through a vid/trid camera. The
> Digital Optic "sees" something, translates it, sends it and
> you view a recompiled image whereas the first case that
> translation does not occur - the photons directly travel to
> your optic nerve.
>
> However - does this mean that anyone with electronic vision
> mag CAN see through invisibility..?
>

I point you to M&M pg 18 (there is more to this description there, of
course, but this is what counts):

"Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based indirect illusions
spells (in addition to physical spells), because it has been purchased with
Essence."

Invisibility is an indirect illusion spell.

>From SR3 pg 195:

"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved Invisibility affects
technological sensors *as well*." (emphasis mine)

Seems to me to be pretty clear. If you paid Essence for a "vision"
modification (regardless of optical vs electronic), Invisibility works
against it. Improved Invisibility works against it AND those other
modifications you didn't pay essence for (like goggles, binoculars, sights,
etc). Cut and dried, as far as I'm concerned.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 26
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:25:07 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zebulingod@*******.net [mailto:zebulingod@*******.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:12 PM
>
> Seems to me to be pretty clear. If you paid Essence for a "vision"
> modification (regardless of optical vs electronic), Invisibility works
> against it. Improved Invisibility works against it AND those other
> modifications you didn't pay essence for (like goggles,
> binoculars, sights,
> etc). Cut and dried, as far as I'm concerned.

I have a problem with this, because it also affects imaging radars,
etc. Let us consider the simple case of ultrasound sights. Invisible
characters can still be heard, as the spell does nothing to dampen any sound
generated by the character. Are you implying that if I have a technological
system that translates sound into a 3D picture of where that sound came from
that Physical Invisibility would fool that sensor into not recognizing a
person no matter ho much noise they were making?
And how do you handle "astral sight," which I assert is not actual
vision at all, but rather rendered in terms of vision because that's our
closest analogous sense?
So no, it's neither cut nor dried, but rather mangled and somewhat
mushy.

Marc
Message no. 27
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
--- "Renouf, Marc A" <marc.renouf@******.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: zebulingod@*******.net [mailto:zebulingod@*******.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:12 PM
> >
> > Seems to me to be pretty clear. If you paid Essence for a "vision"
> > modification (regardless of optical vs electronic), Invisibility
> works
> > against it. Improved Invisibility works against it AND those other
> > modifications you didn't pay essence for (like goggles,
> > binoculars, sights,
> > etc). Cut and dried, as far as I'm concerned.
> And how do you handle "astral sight," which I assert is not actual
> vision at all, but rather rendered in terms of vision because that's
> our
> closest analogous sense?

I take the case presented in the rulebook and rationalize from there,
so I end up with the same result as zebulingod. Our campaign's
approach was that it worked against astral sight, so you saw an
invisibility spell walking around. If you mask the spell, then the
mage has to fail to detect invisibility as well as the masking.

It's easier (ignoring realism) to count ultrasound as another form of
vision, otherwise everyone will install ultrasound everywhere and the
spell won't be very useful. If you're particularly bothered by it,
make a version of the spell that doesn't work against ultrasound, and
reduce the drain on it.

> So no, it's neither cut nor dried, but rather mangled and
> somewhat mushy.

That's for sure.

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 28
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:35:08 -0700
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:38:14 +0000
David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:21:23AM -0700, Ice Heart wrote:
> > Thermal signature is not photons. Not much of it anyway. With both
>
> Um...what else is it, then?

It's photons with some skin sensitivity to ambient heat. I can't see
expanding improved inviz to include non photon sensing. So Ultrasound and
motion detection are still outside the spell, but IR and UV sensing are
covered. Now, how about a spell that just jams certain sorts of tech?
--Anders
Message no. 29
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:40:49 +0000
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:35:08PM -0700, Anders Swenson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:38:14 +0000
> David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:21:23AM -0700, Ice Heart wrote:
> > > Thermal signature is not photons. Not much of it anyway. With both
> >
> > Um...what else is it, then?
>
> It's photons with some skin sensitivity to ambient heat. I can't see

Are we talking about the same thing here? The topic was thermographic *vision*. Yes, you
can tell something is hot by touching it, but how is that relevant here? Certainly you're
not suggesting that thermographic vision uses the entire body as a big metaphorical
eyeball, are you? That's a rather silly idea, seeing how the skin doesn't have anything
even slightly close to the sensitivity to do that, not to mention issues with focussing
and processing that information. And how would that explain thermographic goggles,
exactly? But the silliest thing of all is that even if that were the case, the
information that what you're looking at is hot or not *still* has to get to you somehow,
and that means photons.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 30
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:55:19 -0700
Renouf, Marc A wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: zebulingod@*******.net [mailto:zebulingod@*******.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:12 PM
> >
> > Seems to me to be pretty clear. If you paid Essence for a "vision"
> > modification (regardless of optical vs electronic),
> Invisibility works
> > against it. Improved Invisibility works against it AND those other
> > modifications you didn't pay essence for (like goggles, binoculars,
> > sights, etc). Cut and dried, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I have a problem with this, because it also affects
> imaging radars, etc. Let us consider the simple case of
> ultrasound sights. Invisible characters can still be heard,
> as the spell does nothing to dampen any sound generated by
> the character. Are you implying that if I have a
> technological system that translates sound into a 3D picture
> of where that sound came from that Physical Invisibility
> would fool that sensor into not recognizing a person no
> matter ho much noise they were making?
> And how do you handle "astral sight," which I assert is
> not actual vision at all, but rather rendered in terms of
> vision because that's our closest analogous sense?
> So no, it's neither cut nor dried, but rather mangled
> and somewhat mushy.
>
> Marc

Sure, they can be heard. That's not what I'm getting at here. The fact is
that, while they can be heard, the spell is fooling the person into not
SEEing them. The physical version would then be fooling the sensors into not
seeing them either. The sound they are making could still be heard, unless
they were silenced with the Silence spell. Astral Sight is a little
different because you're looking astrally at something that is using a
spell. Truth be told, I would rule that, unless the person made their
resistance check against the invisibility, they'd be affected just the same.
Or they might see the spell but not what it's hiding.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 31
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:57:52 -0700
Anders Swenson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:38:14 +0000
> David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 11:21:23AM -0700, Ice Heart wrote:
> > > Thermal signature is not photons. Not much of it anyway.
> With both
> >
> > Um...what else is it, then?
>
> It's photons with some skin sensitivity to ambient heat. I
> can't see expanding improved inviz to include non photon
> sensing. So Ultrasound and motion detection are still outside
> the spell, but IR and UV sensing are covered. Now, how about
> a spell that just jams certain sorts of tech?
> --Anders

You guys are all looking at it too technically. And why bring physics into
the equation when we're talking about Magic? The fact is that the spell
affects the mind, or the physical spell affects the tech. We don't have to
worry about photons or any of that.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 32
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:14:55 -0500
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:57:52 -0700, zebulingod <zebulingod@*******.net>
wrote:

> Anders Swenson wrote:
>
> And why bring physics into
> the equation when we're talking about Magic?

The problem with that point of view is that then nobody has any ground to
stand on*. We could each say "It's magic; that's how it works." The only
merits we can bring to bear on a particular opinion are game balance, but
that depends so much on who your players are and how you run your game
that it can barely be discussed in a forum with this many different people.

Bringing some physics into the picture allows us to decide how consistent
a particular opinion is with reality (albeit, slightly modified). I mean,
it's clear to everyone that if the spell is a gernral photon blocker, then
it works on visual and thermo but not ultrasound and it's easy to
determine (when your players ask: "Will it hide me XXX?") what else it
does and does not affect. We can also disucss other ways the spell might
work, and what things it would affect then. It doesn't neccessarily have
to be physics, as long as it's some real enough to be reasoned around.

At some point we can say "It's magic; that's how it works" and have ground
to stand on--when the rules say that's how magic works. [For example, we
know magic is based on LOS, etc., etc. because it's sepll out clearly in
the rule books.]

[If course if the list ever gets feisty sometimes to rules slowly go out
the window, too.]

--
Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984; YM: DaTwinkDaddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com

* I apolgize for anyone that has any experience with real magic[k], but
that path is lined with flames and not appropriate for this mailing list.
Message no. 33
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:48:36 +0200
According to Blair Monroe, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 20:44 the word on the
street was...

> Is thermographic vision (as normally used in the game) sufficient to
> pick up the heat of someone's breath or the residual heat they leave on
> surfaces touched or walked on? If it is, would the Invisibility spell
> hide these traces as well or would you end up with a series of tell-tale
> heat signatures that lead to...'nothing'?

IMHO, the number one thing to do with magic questions in SR, is to _not_
try and cover all the details. As I've said before: go with your initial
impression, and you'll do OK. In this case, that will probably go
something like this: "Invisibility means you can't see the subject." Don't
try and figure out if not seeing the subject is the same as not seeing his
or her breath, footsteps, clothes, or whatever -- your initial thoughts
will most likely be that you can't see _the_subject_, so that's what
happens.

Actually, now I think about it, clothes are, I think, an excellent example
of how magic works in SR: the spell doesn't just make the subject's body
invisible, but also all the clothes they're wearing and any equipment
they're carrying. If you start argueing about what an Invisibility spell
does and does not do, that would definitely be something to think about...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 34
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:38:17 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zebulingod@*******.net [mailto:zebulingod@*******.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:55 AM
>
SNIP
>
> > So no, it's neither cut nor dried, but rather mangled
> > and somewhat mushy.
>
> Sure, they can be heard. That's not what I'm getting at here.
> The fact is
> that, while they can be heard, the spell is fooling the
> person into not
> SEEing them. The physical version would then be fooling the
> sensors into not
> seeing them either. The sound they are making could still be
> heard, unless
> they were silenced with the Silence spell.

Right, but in the case of a passive acoustic sensor, how do you
determine whether the machine "hears" or "sees" a person? What if
it's a
device that makes an image and displays it to a user? What if it's a device
that sounds an audible tone to direct the user's attention? What if it's a
drone or robot that doesn't need to "see" at all, and is merely *sensing*
the invisible character?

> Astral Sight is a little different because you're looking
> astrally at something that is using a spell.

I posit to you that you're not actually "looking" at all. Blind
mages are still capable of astral perception/projection, so the sense is in
no way tied to the eyes, the optic nerves, or the optic sensory portions of
the brain (as the "Blindness" flaw from the Shadowrun Companion explicitly
states that the blindness so incurred is irreparable by cyberware, yet in no
way interferes with astral perception/projection). And when you are
projecting, your actual eyes (and optic nerve and brain) are far removed
from your body, so the sense can not by definition be tied to them.
Your interpretation lays the foundation for a condition that is
(IMHO) far too broad a definition of "invisibility." By your definition,
you might as well call the spell "Undetectability," because that's the way
you've set it up. That's fine, but for all that capability, I'd expect a
hell of a lot more than F/2+1 M.

Marc
Message no. 35
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:49:47 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gurth@******.nl [mailto:gurth@******.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 4:49 AM
>
> Actually, now I think about it, clothes are, I think, an
> excellent example
> of how magic works in SR: the spell doesn't just make the
> subject's body
> invisible, but also all the clothes they're wearing and any equipment
> they're carrying. If you start argueing about what an
> Invisibility spell
> does and does not do, that would definitely be something to
> think about...

Right, but what happens if a character puts a previously carried
(and thus invisible) object down and walks away from it. Is it still
invisible? If not, you've laid the groundwork for leaving telltales. If
you can see footprints in snow for instance (which I think virtually any GM
would allow), why can't you see footprints of heat? See the difficulty?
And what if a character picks up a previously visible object? Does
it suddenly become invisible? If so, you lay the groundwork for a spell
that doesn't need a success test to affect an object (as an invisible person
can simply pick that object up and make it invisible, regardless of its
technological complexity or resistance to magic). Or do you require a new
test? But if you require a new test, did you roll separately to see whether
or not you affected a person's (simple) clothing or (complex) gear, guns,
and electronics when you first cast the spell?
A lot of this can be gotten around by doing some handwaving an
saying, "it's within the invisible person's aura, and is thus invisible,"
but that might be overly simplistic. Don't get me wrong, simple is good.
But there is such a thing as *too* simple.

Marc
Message no. 36
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:59:05 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zebulingod@*******.net [mailto:zebulingod@*******.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:58 AM
> To: shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com
> Subject: RE: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
>
> You guys are all looking at it too technically. And why bring
> physics into the equation when we're talking about Magic?

Because any shred of verisimilitude needs to address these basic
questions of physics. Yes, magic can work outside of the known physical
laws. It can create or destroy energy, add negative entropy to a system, or
behave in ways which science is ill adapted to explain.
But it needs to be systematically consistent, and in both the form
as written canon and your (IMHO overly broad) definition, it's not. I don't
care what method the spell uses to create its effect, so long as that method
is consistent with how the spell functions and how other spells function.

> The fact is that the spell affects the mind...

Then why isn't it a mind-altering Manipulation spell (with a much
higher drain category)?

> ...or the physical spell affects the tech.

Then why isn't it a Physical Manipulation spell (with a much higher
drain category)?

> We don't have to worry about photons or any of that.

But we do, because we need to at least have some idea of *how* the
spell accomplishes its effect, if for no other reason than to be able to
apply it to the new circumstances and clever uses that our players *will*
come up with.

Marc
Message no. 37
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT)
> > We don't have to worry about photons or any of that.

> But we do, because we need to at least have some idea of *how* the
> spell accomplishes its effect, if for no other reason than to be
> able to apply it to the new circumstances and clever uses that our
> players *will* come up with.

I am reminded of a rather painful thread a while back, about casting
invisibility on a door so that you could see what was on the other
side of it. *shudder*

I dug out an old physics book last night, and did some reading on
electromagnetic radiation. Silly me for being a computer geek
instead of a science nerd... I was wrong about something. It is
~all~ photons. So invisibility, in the interest of sanity and game
balance, CANNOT effect all photons. It would make your radio stop
working. :)

Ultrasound, OTOH, works by detecting sonic vibration, a purely
mechanical property that has nothing to do with photons. I think we
can safely say that Invisibility should not effect ultrasound sights
or imaging.

Back in SR1 and 2, Invis did not work against thermal sight,
indicating that it was intended to only work in the visible spectrum.
In SR3, they seem to have expanded the definition to include
wavelengths outside the visible spectrum (infrared, specifically).

Invisibility works by "warping" the path of photons, but only with
regards to those fooled by the spell. So the illusion is sort of a
very specific mind affecting manipulation. A mirage effect that the
brain is influenced to ignore. This makes the idea of Invis
affecting technology a bit shaky. We can say it is magic at work,
propagating the "mirage" effect over enough area that the sensors
ignore it.

This is still all illusion, though. Light gets back to the invisible
person (so vamps can't use invis to walk around in the sun, protected
from UV rays by the spell ;> ). And because it is a localized
mirage, it would not effect things left behind by the mage (objects,
footprints, etc.). It would effect things they picked up, I would
say, but not instantaneously. I would rule that objects picked up
become invisible at the end of the Turn (about 1-3 seconds after
picked up). Only objects with at least 2/3 of their volume inside
the mage's aura are effected (meaning that, in my games, military
armor would be visible when worn by an invisible mage).

As Marc says, it is far from cut and dried. It can be made to work,
but some limits have to be imposed by the GM. For me, I think that
Invisibility will cover the portion of the elctromagnetic spectrum
that is visible to metahuman senses (including Thermographic),
because no idiot mage would invent a spell that was useless against
Dwarves and Trolls. ;)

======Korishinzo
--currently invisible... to other yahoo users :p



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 38
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:49:13 -0700
Renouf, Marc A wrote:
>
> Right, but in the case of a passive acoustic sensor,
> how do you determine whether the machine "hears" or "sees" a
> person? What if it's a device that makes an image and
> displays it to a user? What if it's a device that sounds an
> audible tone to direct the user's attention? What if it's a
> drone or robot that doesn't need to "see" at all, and is
> merely *sensing* the invisible character?
>

Acoustic sensor-
Not affected by Invisibility unless it is paid for with essence and
translates into a "picture" in the users mind.

Drone/Vehicle sensors-
Not affected by Invisibility at all (as they aren't paid for with Essence
and the drone isn't alive), affected, possibly, by Improved Invisibility.


> > Astral Sight is a little different because you're looking
> astrally at
> > something that is using a spell.
>
> I posit to you that you're not actually "looking" at
> all. Blind mages are still capable of astral
> perception/projection, so the sense is in no way tied to the
> eyes, the optic nerves, or the optic sensory portions of the
> brain (as the "Blindness" flaw from the Shadowrun Companion
> explicitly states that the blindness so incurred is
> irreparable by cyberware, yet in no way interferes with
> astral perception/projection). And when you are projecting,
> your actual eyes (and optic nerve and brain) are far removed
> from your body, so the sense can not by definition be tied to them.
>

Okay, I can agree to that definition. As you say, it fits with other things.

> Your interpretation lays the foundation for a
> condition that is
> (IMHO) far too broad a definition of "invisibility." By your
> definition, you might as well call the spell
> "Undetectability," because that's the way you've set it up.
> That's fine, but for all that capability, I'd expect a hell
> of a lot more than F/2+1 M.
>

Ah, but see, the problem with the people who use Invisibility is that they
generally don't cast it at a very high force, and so it's relatively easy to
see through. (Up until this current campaign, none of my players ever got
the spell higher than Force 1, simply because there wasn't a reason to.
Everyone was under the impression that Magic-SightT Ultrasound could see
anything (even through walls?) so they didn't bother with Invisibility
because they figured it wouldn't work.

And while I may agree that Invisibility costs more to cast as far as drain
goes, I would also argue that Ultrasound then needs to be made more
expensive. That's assuming, of course, that you would allow Ultrasound to
see through Invisibility, which I wouldn't.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 39
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:49:19 -0700
Ice Heart wrote:
>
> Ultrasound, OTOH, works by detecting sonic vibration, a
> purely mechanical property that has nothing to do with
> photons. I think we can safely say that Invisibility should
> not effect ultrasound sights or imaging.
>

But it does. And those rules are in M&M pg 18. I've had this argument with a
player who bought Ultrasound "vision". I ended the argument by saying that,
according to the rules, Invisibility works on it since it was paid for with
essence. I then expanded that ruling by saying that Invisibility would
conceal anything that is regarded as a "vision" enhancement AND paid for
with Essence.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 40
From: shane@**************.freeserve.co.uk (Shane Mclean)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:05:45 +0100
The way I run it is that anything that "looks" (detecting using light, heat,
etc) is fooled by the Improved Inivisbility spell, but anything that detects
a physical presence (like radar, ultrasound and the like) is not affected.
So it really is Invisibility. The M version just affects living creatures.

I have a manipulation spell that makes you undetectable to radar and
ultrasound, but the drain is nasty (can't find my scribbled notes - I'll
look them out).

Shane
Message no. 41
From: bmonroe@******.fsu.edu (Blair Monroe)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:14:15 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


Gurth wrote:

>According to Blair Monroe, on Wednesday 28 July 2004 20:44 the word on the
>street was...
>
>
>
>>Is thermographic vision (as normally used in the game) sufficient to
>>pick up the heat of someone's breath or the residual heat they leave on
>>surfaces touched or walked on? If it is, would the Invisibility spell
>>hide these traces as well or would you end up with a series of tell-tale
>>heat signatures that lead to...'nothing'?
>>
>>
>
>IMHO, the number one thing to do with magic questions in SR, is to _not_
>try and cover all the details. As I've said before: go with your initial
>impression, and you'll do OK. In this case, that will probably go
>something like this: "Invisibility means you can't see the subject." Don't
>try and figure out if not seeing the subject is the same as not seeing his
>or her breath, footsteps, clothes, or whatever -- your initial thoughts
>will most likely be that you can't see _the_subject_, so that's what
>happens.
>
>Actually, now I think about it, clothes are, I think, an excellent example
>of how magic works in SR: the spell doesn't just make the subject's body
>invisible, but also all the clothes they're wearing and any equipment
>they're carrying. If you start argueing about what an Invisibility spell
>does and does not do, that would definitely be something to think about...
>
>
>
As far as not sweating the details goes, I generaly agree. This
particular one I was curious about since it is one the spells that my
players seem to put a lot of 'creative' effort into either enhancing the
options it provides or defeating it.

Good thoughts all, thanks!

-- Blair



---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://warthog.dumpshock.com/pipermail/shadowrn/attachments/467d309f/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
Message no. 42
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:16:55 -0500
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:49:19 -0700, zebulingod <zebulingod@*******.net>
wrote:

> Ice Heart wrote:
>>
>> Ultrasound, OTOH, works by detecting sonic vibration, a
>> purely mechanical property that has nothing to do with
>> photons. I think we can safely say that Invisibility should
>> not effect ultrasound sights or imaging.
>
> But it does. And those rules are in M&M pg 18.

Okay, that quote does NOT say that invisibility works on ultrasound. It
says that ultrasound mods are affected by indirect illusion spells. Which
spells however is still an open question, IMO, invisibility shouldn't be
one of them.

Eyes are affected by indirect illusion spells, but you can still see
someone who is Silenced.
Ears are affected by indirect illusion spells, but you can still hear
someone who is invisible.

Ultrasound is ear-data translated to eyes-presentation. You are free to
say that the spell works on the presentation; I prefer to say it works on
the data.

--
Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984; YM: DaTwinkDaddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Message no. 43
From: datwinkdaddy@*******.com (Da Twink Daddy)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:28:14 -0500
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:58:54 +1000, Aramis <westiex@********.net> wrote:

> A) Does Invisibility/improved invisibility work against people with
> natural thermal vision in 3rd?

In my games, no. But, that's because thermo works on emisions (photons
produced by the target) and invis works on reflections (photons absorbed
then released by the target).

I'm pretty sure cannon says it does work on anything "visual". So, it
works against thermo and normal vision, but not against ultrasound.

--
Da Twink Daddy
ICQ: 514984; YM: DaTwinkDaddy
datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Message no. 44
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:49:39 -0700
Da Twink Daddy wrote:
>
> In my games, no. But, that's because thermo works on
> emisions (photons produced by the target) and invis works on
> reflections (photons absorbed then released by the target).
>
> I'm pretty sure cannon says it does work on anything
> "visual". So, it works against thermo and normal vision, but
> not against ultrasound.
>


Actually, canon does say that Indirect Illusions (of which Invisibility is
one) do work against Ultrasound. It's on page 18 of M&M.


Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 45
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Actually, canon does say that Indirect Illusions (of which
> Invisibility is one) do work against Ultrasound. It's on page 18 >
of M&M.

Errr... that is a very one-dimensional interpretation of the rules,
my friend.

That is like saying, "This shirt's tag says it is color-safe with
detergents, and this jug of clorox says 'detergent' on it, so this
shirt's colors won't run."

Saying that Ultrasound is effected by Indirect Illusions is not carte
blanche proof that ~all~ Indirect Illusions affect it. All it really
means is that ultrasound is as vulnerable to an illusion targeted at
it as any other sense is to an illusion that could cloud it. An
illusion crafted to fool sight should NEVER effect sound... not even
visual representation of sounds. Else, why make an illusion called
Stealth or Silence? Invisibility would be the ultimate stealthy
spell...

Imagine a microprocessor built into an olfactory booster that checked
odors against its firmware database and created an image extrapolated
from the available data. This image is then piped to a set of
cybereyes, showing you a large dog. Moments before, you were blind
to its presence. The odor's intensity and composition is interpreted
to show you an approximate visual representation of the animal and
its location. Would Invisibility fool this contraption?

By your ruling, yes.

By mine, NO.

Once and for all (and, incidently, my last stab at this topic),
Invisibility is an illusion targeted at visual data. It therefore
only affects optical phenomena, not sonic phenomena translated into
visual input by any means. Bats can "see" Invisible mages...
ultrasound can also. Only the visual [and near-visual] spectrum of
light are affected by (Improved)Invisibility.

At least, that is how it will work in my games now and henceforth.

======Korishinzo
--Player: "So, I cast Invisibility on the door and then believe my
own illusion... what is on the other side?"
GM: "...ummmm.... *fume* ... your character explodes into a cloud
of neutrons, electrons, and photons... ... ...which no one sees."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Message no. 46
From: zebulingod@*******.net (zebulingod)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:36:36 -0700
Ice Heart wrote:
>
> Errr... that is a very one-dimensional interpretation of the
> rules, my friend.
>
> That is like saying, "This shirt's tag says it is color-safe
> with detergents, and this jug of clorox says 'detergent' on
> it, so this
> shirt's colors won't run."
>
> Saying that Ultrasound is effected by Indirect Illusions is
> not carte blanche proof that ~all~ Indirect Illusions affect
> it. All it really means is that ultrasound is as vulnerable
> to an illusion targeted at it as any other sense is to an
> illusion that could cloud it. An illusion crafted to fool
> sight should NEVER effect sound... not even visual
> representation of sounds. Else, why make an illusion called
> Stealth or Silence? Invisibility would be the ultimate
> stealthy spell...
>
<<<SNIP>>>
>
> Once and for all (and, incidently, my last stab at this
> topic), Invisibility is an illusion targeted at visual data.
> It therefore only affects optical phenomena, not sonic
> phenomena translated into visual input by any means. Bats
> can "see" Invisible mages...
> ultrasound can also. Only the visual [and near-visual]
> spectrum of light are affected by (Improved)Invisibility.
>
> At least, that is how it will work in my games now and henceforth.
>

I, too, grow tired of this argument. Regardless of the how or why or physics
anyone has put forth, the fact of the matter is that M&M on page 18 says the
following:

"Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based indirect illusion
spells (in addition to physical spells), because it has been purchased with
Essence."

I think we shall have to agree to disagree here. Your games, your rules. My
game? I'm using that rule, exactly as written.

Zebulin

"Per Ardua ad Astra"
Message no. 47
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:39:48 +0200
According to Renouf, Marc A, on Thursday 29 July 2004 14:49 the word on the
street was...

> Right, but what happens if a character puts a previously carried
> (and thus invisible) object down and walks away from it. Is it still
> invisible? If not, you've laid the groundwork for leaving telltales.
> If you can see footprints in snow for instance (which I think virtually
> any GM would allow), why can't you see footprints of heat? See the
> difficulty?

I know about all that stuff, but I still maintain that it's easiest with
magic to go with your initial impression, and not start finding small
details that may or may not contradict rules in the book...

> And what if a character picks up a previously visible
> object? Does it suddenly become invisible?

Like I said, go with your initial impression. If that is that the spell
only makes the character invisible, then the picked-up object would remain
visible. OTOH, if your first thought is that it would become invisible
too, then it does.

> Don't get me wrong,
> simple is good. But there is such a thing as *too* simple.

I'm not saying things should be over-simplified, I'm saying that magic's
effects should not be analyzed too far because you're inevitably going to
come up with these kinds of situations. Remember the endless debate about
sustained damaging manipulation spells? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
... in real life, which was styled after the film.
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 48
From: marc.renouf@******.com (Renouf, Marc A)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:38:00 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zebulingod@*******.net [mailto:zebulingod@*******.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:50 AM
>
> Actually, canon does say that Indirect Illusions (of which
> Invisibility is
> one) do work against Ultrasound. It's on page 18 of M&M.

Right, but it goes on to say specifically that Invisibility does
*not* defeat ultrasound imagine devices, and that to defeat such systems a
Silence spell (also a direct illusion) *does* affect ultrasound systems in
the same way that Invisibility affects visual systems.
Message no. 49
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:25:40 -0400
My take on this is that Invis./Imp. Invis. are Illusion spells. They project
the appearance of empty space (call it a magical hologram). Invisibility
projects this image in a manner than can only be perceived by living
creatures. I have ruled in the past that you can't cast spells through it,
you can't have mana-based illusion spells affect you via it either. (So just
about any goggles will prevent mana-based illusion spells from affecting the
wearer.) Physical illusions can affect tech sensors, and therefore are not
defeated by goggles. Both types of spells prevent light (and thermal)
sources being carried by the target from emitting (no invisible flashlights,
basically.) The target's breath is covered by the spell (at least the
immediate plume) because of the mystical connections between breath and life
(ok, it's hand-waving, but somewhat consistent hand-waving), but if their
footprints are visible on thermographic (this depends on conditions), the
footprints are visible after they leave them, just as any other evidence of
them being there that they leave would be. The energy being emitted is
simply being disappeared by the spell.

It works out well enough for me, anyway.
Message no. 50
From: snicker@*********.net (Snicker)
Subject: Invisibility/Improved Invisibility
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:58:11 -0500
At 02:11 PM 7/28/2004, you wrote:


>I point you to M&M pg 18 (there is more to this description there, of
>course, but this is what counts):
>
>"Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based indirect illusions
>spells (in addition to physical spells), because it has been purchased with
>Essence."
>
>Invisibility is an indirect illusion spell.
>
> >From SR3 pg 195:
>
>"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved Invisibility affects
>technological sensors *as well*." (emphasis mine)
>
>Seems to me to be pretty clear. If you paid Essence for a "vision"
>modification (regardless of optical vs electronic), Invisibility works
>against it. Improved Invisibility works against it AND those other
>modifications you didn't pay essence for (like goggles, binoculars, sights,
>etc). Cut and dried, as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry to continue flogging this dead horse, however, according to SR3,
Invisibility "affects normal vision" - I would not be inclined to include
thermo, except that the FAQ covers that. HOWEVER, the page 18 of Man and
Machine that you keep quoting actually contradicts your arguments.

"...Because this system builds images from sound and transforms them into
visual input, indirect illusions that affect sight do not affect this
system. (*snip example*) Indirect illusion spells that affect sound will
affect ultrasound vision, however. The silence spell affects ultrasound
sight in the same way that invisibility spell affects normal vision. (*snip
more example*) Cybernetic ultrasound sight is affected by mana-based
indirect illusion spells (in addition to physical spells) because it has
been purchased with essence."

It seems like you got hung on the last line there, without seeing the first
part. Ultrasound (and any other non-visual system) is not affected by
invisibility.

Also, it seems like a manipulation-type invisibility would not just make
you invisible but intangible, inaudible, unsmellable, etc. (without
allowing you to "ghost" through walls, of course - reality is still solid
to you). That would justify the ungodly drain, I would think.

Snicker

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility/Improved Invisibility, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!