Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Chris <chris_hayes@*******.COM>
Subject: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:50:27 -0700
How does the Invis or Improv. Invis spell work in SR3? Before, and I'm
not sure if this is a house rule or not, we always said that the number of
successes that you got on the spell would increase the target number of the
person trying to perceive you. SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one is a little
vague. Can anyone give me a definition?


Christopher Hayes
"Who put their hoo-hoo dilly in your cha-cha?" - Cartman
Message no. 2
From: 00DNA <mcmanus@******.ALBANY.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 14:22:46 -0400
> How does the Invis or Improv. Invis spell work in SR3? Before, and I'm
>not sure if this is a house rule or not, we always said that the number of
>successes that you got on the spell would increase the target number of the
>person trying to perceive you. SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
>things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one is a little
>vague. Can anyone give me a definition?

I don't have the book in front of me but...from what I remember reading, it
sounded more to me that...if you cast the spell...you're invisible...so
things like the blind attack (+8) are automatic. But it didn't do a good
job of saying anythign about it.


--00DNA
<<Replication Terminated>>
Message no. 3
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 00:48:53 EDT
In a message dated 9/8/98 12:53:36 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
chris_hayes@*******.COM writes:

> How does the Invis or Improv. Invis spell work in SR3? Before, and I'm
> not sure if this is a house rule or not, we always said that the number of
> successes that you got on the spell would increase the target number of the
> person trying to perceive you. SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
> things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one is a little
> vague. Can anyone give me a definition?

According to the BABY, Invisibility renders someone invisible to the person's
mind. The character would have a chance of knowing something or someone was
in the area if the invisible person knocked into something. Also, the normal
Invisibility spell does not work on technological devices, for that to happen
you need to have casted Improved Invisibility.

However, let's say the same observing character has a eye camera and a
BattleTac-like device, and is recording what they see of a place. And an
intruder is going around under an Invisibility spell. Every 30 seconds or so,
the BTAC downloads the recordings from the eye camera and processes the
information. The BTAC will automatically detect the intruder.

There is also another way to engage a target with a normal Invisibility spell
going. The person with the gun commands the smartlink to fire when it sees
something it can shoot at that is a person. The gm the resolves the gun being
fired as if the gun were being fired wildly instead of accurately with the
person's skill behind the shot.

And there are many other ways of defeating the normal Invisibility spell, but
there is no real reason to go into the full details of it though.

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 4
From: Razor Girl <sprawlg@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 23:23:29 PDT
>However, let's say the same observing character has a eye camera and >a
BattleTac-like device, and is recording what they see of a place. >And
an intruder is going around under an Invisibility spell. Every >30
seconds or so, the BTAC downloads the recordings from the eye >camera
and processes the information. The BTAC will automatically >detect the
intruder.

If you rule that this would work there is one flaw with this idea. 30
seconds is ten combat rounds. The Battle Tac system will more likly
report the signal loss from it's cyber eye equped user before it gets a
chance to process the invisible target. This would only help if you had
someone hiding in plain sight for a stetch of time. Anyone doing that
without improved invisibility is just plain stupid. Too many drones,
security cameras and other such things to trust to a simple mana spell.
The drain difference is negligible anyways: Invisibility Drain= M
Improved Invisibility Drain =+1M. For invisibility to devices, +1 drain
power is a bargin.

About invisibilty spells, do they prevent people with thermographic
vision from seeing them?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 5
From: Danyel N Woods <9604801@********.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 18:40:22 +1200
Quoth Razor Girl (1823 9-09-98 NZT):

<<SLICE BattleTac vs Invisibility>>
>If you rule that this would work there is one flaw with this idea. 30
>seconds is ten combat rounds. The Battle Tac system will more likly
>report the signal loss from it's cyber eye equped user before it gets a
>chance to process the invisible target. This would only help if you had
>someone hiding in plain sight for a stetch of time. Anyone doing that
>without improved invisibility is just plain stupid. Too many drones,
>security cameras and other such things to trust to a simple mana spell.
>The drain difference is negligible anyways: Invisibility Drain= M
>Improved Invisibility Drain =+1M. For invisibility to devices, +1 drain
>power is a bargin.
>
>About invisibilty spells, do they prevent people with thermographic
>vision from seeing them?

Given the description in SR3, I'd have to say yes. Invisibility affects the
viewer's mind; I take that to mean that the spell tricks the viewer's mind
into ignoring what they see - 'ignore this visual stimulus' - and thus
metahuman thermo is useless. Successful resistance means that the viewer's
mind ignores the spell's 'visual editing' and sees the world (and the person
under the spell) as they are, not how the magic says they are.

Improved Invisibility I treat more as a Predator-type 'personal cloaking
field'; there's something there, a mild distortion, which anyone looking can
pick out, but if you're not paying real attention (fail the
resistance/perception test), it's nothing, just your mind (or the video
display) playing tricks on you.

Danyel Woods - <mailto:9604801@********.ac.nz>
9604801@********.ac.nz
'You're not making sense.'
'I imagine I'm not, but that's the kind of day I'm having.'
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:40:39 +0200
According to Chris, at 10:50 on 8 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> How does the Invis or Improv. Invis spell work in SR3? Before, and I'm
> not sure if this is a house rule or not, we always said that the number of
> successes that you got on the spell would increase the target number of the
> person trying to perceive you.

BTB, in SRII the TN to spot someone under an invisibility is double the
number of successes rolled.

> SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
> things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one is a little
> vague. Can anyone give me a definition?

Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply the modifier
for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It may look to the untrained eye I'm sitting on my arse all day.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 7
From: Wilbur The new adept <mad_bomb@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 04:36:36 PDT
>There is also another way to engage a target with a normal Invisibility
spell
>going. The person with the gun commands the smartlink to fire when it
sees
>something it can shoot at that is a person. The gm the resolves the
gun being
>fired as if the gun were being fired wildly instead of accurately with
the
>person's skill behind the shot.
i think she wanted to know about improved invisibility? that
would just plain screw you...all the wares in the world couldnt help
you with that one, but your right about the normal invisibility there
are a couple ways round that one.
Since when could a smartlink do a preprogrammed shot? IMO never,
thats the domain of the Tactical computer, smartlink help you find
vitals on a target you can SEE. Not take potshots at an inivisble
opponent.
MRHAppYTHESmilEYMAn

*Just because i'm insane doesnt mean i'm insane* -wilbur


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 8
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:07:40 EDT
In a message dated 9/9/98 1:25:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sprawlg@*******.COM writes:

> If you rule that this would work there is one flaw with this idea. 30
> seconds is ten combat rounds. The Battle Tac system will more likly
> report the signal loss from it's cyber eye equped user before it gets a
> chance to process the invisible target. This would only help if you had
> someone hiding in plain sight for a stetch of time. Anyone doing that
> without improved invisibility is just plain stupid. Too many drones,
> security cameras and other such things to trust to a simple mana spell.
> The drain difference is negligible anyways: Invisibility Drain= M
> Improved Invisibility Drain =+1M. For invisibility to devices, +1 drain
> power is a bargin.

Okay, I watched a tech news program last night which described a way in which
snipers are being detected nowadays. A computer has multiple cameras pointed
in a certain direction and takes and analyzes hundreds of images every minute.
If a bullet is fired into the area of the cameras, the computer is able to
deduce the location of the sniper.

So, using this in SR terms, and making the BTAC more usable with this option,
roll the rating of the BTAC (whatever in the frag it may be seeing as only the
encryption rating is mentioned) against a target number equal to 4 (6 ?!?).
Getting a single success means the BTAC either detects the incoming bullet and
where it was fired from, but at the same time, it would also detect a person
under the normal Invisibility spell. The person may not be able to see the
invisible target, but they at least know one is there now.

> About invisibilty spells, do they prevent people with thermographic
> vision from seeing them?

The Invisibility spell deceives the mind, but not the senses, even though the
eye would see the person anyway, the person's brain fails to recognize the
person as being there.

-Or-

Perhaps the Invisibility spell is just an illusion that the person truly does
belong where they are supposed to be here anyway. Anyone remember the guy
from X-Files (series) who was able to walk into the FBI building with a piece
of paper with the word "PASS" written on it?

Hey, could this second option I gave be a version where the opposition still
sees the person, but just believes that the person belongs there? I could see
it as perhaps being a drain level lower, if not that, then perhaps an
additional -1 to the Drain power area then.

-Herc
------- The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 9
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:16:07 EDT
In a message dated 9/9/98 3:40:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> > SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
> > things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one is a little
> > vague. Can anyone give me a definition?
>
> Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply the modifier
> for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
> is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
> any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.

The one thing that still is going to remain is that the person is still
invisible, but the person is going to know that someone is invisible over
yonder and is probably an intruder or part of the opposition.

-Herc
------ The Best Mechanic you can ever have.
Message no. 10
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 07:48:59 -0600
Gurth wrote:
/
/ According to Chris, at 10:50 on 8 Sep 98, the word on the street was...
/
/ > SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
/ > things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one is a little
/ > vague. Can anyone give me a definition?
/
/ Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply the modifier
/ for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
/ is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
/ any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.

And I would assume that an invisible person trying to sneak around
would add +8 to their open-ended Stealth roll.

-David
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 11
From: David Foster <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:23:01 -0400
On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Mike Bobroff wrote:

->In a message dated 9/9/98 1:25:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
->sprawlg@*******.COM writes:
->
->Okay, I watched a tech news program last night which described a way in which
->snipers are being detected nowadays. A computer has multiple cameras pointed
->in a certain direction and takes and analyzes hundreds of images every minute.
->If a bullet is fired into the area of the cameras, the computer is able to
->deduce the location of the sniper.
->
->So, using this in SR terms, and making the BTAC more usable with this option,
->roll the rating of the BTAC (whatever in the frag it may be seeing as only the
->encryption rating is mentioned) against a target number equal to 4 (6 ?!?).
->Getting a single success means the BTAC either detects the incoming bullet and
->where it was fired from, but at the same time, it would also detect a person
->under the normal Invisibility spell. The person may not be able to see the
->invisible target, but they at least know one is there now.

I would think if you see someone get shot, and you don't see the
shooter, you'd deduce their either invisible or really well hidden. ]:-)

->Hey, could this second option I gave be a version where the opposition still
->sees the person, but just believes that the person belongs there? I could see
->it as perhaps being a drain level lower, if not that, then perhaps an
->additional -1 to the Drain power area then.

I've always believed you could use Stealth in this situation.
You're there, but you're so inobtrusive, no one notices you. Kind of like
muggings. They're going on all the time, sometimes right in the middle of
the street, but no one saw nothin'. Using that person's mind against them
to be stealthy.

Fixer --------------} The easy I do before breakfast,
the difficult I do all day long,
the impossible only during the week,
and miracles performed on an as-needed basis....

Now tell me, what was your problem?
Message no. 12
From: Chris <chris_hayes@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 08:49:05 -0700
> According to Chris, at 10:50 on 8 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

[Snip original question]

>
> > SR3 has done an excellent job of explaining
> > things on other subjects, and with other spells, but this one
> is a little
> > vague. Can anyone give me a definition?
>
> Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply the modifier
> for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
> is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
> any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.

Since Invis. affects other people's minds, is the target number their
Willpower or Intelligence? Don't have my book with me at the moment...

Christopher Hayes
"Who put their hoo-hoo dilly in your cha-cha?" - Cartman
Message no. 13
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:03:41 -0600
Chris wrote:
/
/ Since Invis. affects other people's minds, is the target number their
/ Willpower or Intelligence? Don't have my book with me at the moment...

The target number to cast the spell is a 4.

-David
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 14
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:21:42 -0400
Gurth wrote:
> > How does the Invis or Improv. Invis spell work in SR3? Before, and
> I'm
> > not sure if this is a house rule or not, we always said that the number
> of
> > successes that you got on the spell would increase the target number of
> the
> > person trying to perceive you.
[anip]
> > vague. Can anyone give me a definition?
>
> Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply the modifier
> for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
> is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
> any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.
>
Well, provided that they fail to resist the spell - as on page 195, all
indirect illusions are resisted by intelligence. If the spell isn't
resisted and the character can't detect the invisible person in any
other way, then apply the Blind Fire modifier.

James Ojaste
Message no. 15
From: Chris <chris_hayes@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:30:11 -0700
[Snip Invis question]

> >
> > Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply
> the modifier
> > for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
> > is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
> > any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.
> >
> Well, provided that they fail to resist the spell - as on page 195, all
> indirect illusions are resisted by intelligence. If the spell isn't
> resisted and the character can't detect the invisible person in any
> other way, then apply the Blind Fire modifier.
>
> James Ojaste
>

Actually I would agree with you James. I would say that whoever is trying
to see the player would have to roll a resistance test vs. the force of the
spell. If he has more successes that the player had when casting the spell,
then he sees it. The other way, all you would need is a force 1 spell, and
the +8 modifier automatically applies. That seems a little ridiculous.

Christopher Hayes
"Who put their hoo-hoo dilly in your cha-cha?" - Cartman
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:40:28 +0200
According to David Buehrer, at 7:48 on 9 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> / Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply the modifier
> / for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
> / is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
> / any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.
>
> And I would assume that an invisible person trying to sneak around
> would add +8 to their open-ended Stealth roll.

Hmm... I'd say no, they don't. Anyone trying to _spot_ that person would
add +8 to the TN, but the sneaking character would roll normally and not
add the +8 to the result. My reasoning is that if the magician drops the
Invisibility spell the person is still sneaking just as well as before,
but is a bit easier to notice.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It may look to the untrained eye I'm sitting on my arse all day.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 17
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 19:40:27 +0200
According to Mike Bobroff, at 9:16 on 9 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> The one thing that still is going to remain is that the person is still
> invisible, but the person is going to know that someone is invisible over
> yonder and is probably an intruder or part of the opposition.

Yes, but that problem exists with any kind of invisibility spell that can
be seen through. And I certainly like SR's way of doing this better than
the **&* one where you can be perfectly invisible, but not if you want to
attack someone :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It may look to the untrained eye I'm sitting on my arse all day.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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. 18
From: Tarek Okail <Tarek_Okail@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 22:12:56 -0400
Herc--

>Perhaps the Invisibility spell is just an illusion that the
>person truly does belong ... here anyway. Anyone remember
>the guy from X-Files (series) who was able to walk into the
>FBI building with a piece of paper with the word "PASS"
>written on it?

In the first story in the first Shadowrun novel, that
old anthology with the green cover, Sally Tsung uses a spell
like that, although I think it's called "Mask"... <g> A nice
explanation of how magic works on intent and bearing.

Shadowmage
Message no. 19
From: Brian Moore <mooreb@****.FAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:57:51 -0400
Chris <chris_hayes@*******.COM> said:
> [Snip Invis question]
> > > Simple: to spot anyone under an Invisibility spell, you apply
> > the modifier
> > > for Blind Fire from the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table on page 112. That
> > > is, a +8. The number of successes rolled doesn't come into the equation
> > > any longer in SR3 for determining the TN modifier.
> > >
> > Well, provided that they fail to resist the spell - as on page 195, all
> > indirect illusions are resisted by intelligence. If the spell isn't
> > resisted and the character can't detect the invisible person in any
> > other way, then apply the Blind Fire modifier.
>
> Actually I would agree with you James. I would say that whoever is trying
> to see the player would have to roll a resistance test vs. the force of the
> spell. If he has more successes that the player had when casting the spell,
> then he sees it. The other way, all you would need is a force 1 spell, and
> the +8 modifier automatically applies. That seems a little ridiculous.

As James said, people can resist the Invisibility spell as it is an indirect
illusion. They roll their INT against a TN of the force of the spell, and
they need to get more successes than the caster. Unfortunately, the caster
is likely rolling a lot more dice against a TN of 4. That means that even a
simple Force 1 Invisibility spell is likely to get 6 successes (if cast by
someone with a 6 sorcery and 6 Magic Pool), so only VERY smart people can
spot them (people who can get 6 successes against a TN of 1). And a Force
6 Invisibility spell grants virtually PERFECT invisibility (still average of
6 successes for the caster, so targets roll their INT with a TN of 6,
needing 6 successes).

I don't recall whether or not the Force of the Invisibility spell limits the
number of successes the caster can get, but I don't think so.

As to vision types, the Invisibility spell description states that it makes
people invisible to "normal vision". However it also states that the normal
spell affects the mind of targets, while the Improved Invisibility affects
technological sensing devices as well. It seems kind of stupid for a mind-
affecting illusion spell to work against normal vision but not racial thermo
vision, or even low-light from a security helmet. IMHO it should affect ALL
visual senses. And the Improved Invisibility should work against all visual
senses as well just to keep it equivalent. That's probably the way my group
will be playing it, just like we did in SRII.

Since the spell is resisted, Mages should be able to allocate spell defense
to "see through" it. Unfortunately that's kind of hard for a GM to manage
without letting the players know that something is going on. But it means
that mages can have a good chance of seeing through low force Invisibility
spells. Nothing will let you see through high force spells.

And finally how do you get around this? Someone wandering around invisible
is probably very visible from astral space. Just have watchers, spirits,
or elementals on hand to help "point out" invisible people. Astral
Perception may work as well, depending on what senses are considered "normal
vision".

Invisible people have problems staying invisible after walking through
wards or other astral barriers, and wards are REAL easy to set up in SR3.
I can see megacorps or other high security places warding almost ALL of
their standard access points, and having special "magical security
checkpoints" for allowing appropriate people in through special unwarded
entrances.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-
Message no. 20
From: Thomas Charron <thomascharron@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:33:07 PDT
>From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
>Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
person's
>mind. The character would have a chance of knowing something or
someone was
>in the area if the invisible person knocked into something. Also, the
normal
>Invisibility spell does not work on technological devices, for that to
happen
>you need to have casted Improved Invisibility.

(Ponderings..) Ok, we had this discussion in our last game a bit..
Now, Invisibility whipes all trace from the minds of those in target
area.. Here's a few questions I'd be interested in hearing the replies
to:

A) Does improved invisibility remove all trace of the person to ALL
sensors and devices? Let's say Thermal sensors and the such?

B) If a person has cybereyes, does regular old invisibility work? It
seems it would, but figured I'd get a general reaction..

C) Does the person need to make a check against themselves? If it's
considered an area affect type of thing, then they may not be able to
see themselves, which may make them a tad clutzy, bumping into things
and the such..


---
Thomas Charron
thomascharron@*******.com - Address for ShadowRN mail..
tcharron@*******.ups.com - Other stuff..

"Lemme get this strait, your married with
2 kids, and you take time every onceand a while
to sit around with a bunch of other guys and make
believe??"

- Buddy at work..


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 21
From: Lars Ericson <lericson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:19:17 -0500
Thomas Charron wrote:
> A) Does improved invisibility remove all trace of the person to ALL
> sensors and devices? Let's say Thermal sensors and the such?

Tt doesn't remove, it makes a sensor (including biological) more
difficult to notice.

> B) If a person has cybereyes, does regular old invisibility work? It
> seems it would, but figured I'd get a general reaction..

A big giant, YES. Cybereyes and other cyberware is considered part of
that person as soon as they pay the essence. No Ram spell cast at a
cyberlimb, or Control Machine (if it existed) spell on cyberears.

> C) Does the person need to make a check against themselves? If it's
> considered an area affect type of thing, then they may not be able to
> see themselves, which may make them a tad clutzy, bumping into things
> and the such..

I would go with no. In general, I play that if a person absolutely knows
where the target is then they don't have to roll. By absolutely, I mean
successfully makes a perception test and has not looked away or the
caster has the spell on himself.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lars Ericson: Professional Vagabond
Smalley Research Group, Rice University
E-Mail: lericson@****.edu
WWW: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lericson/

"Raisin Hell -- a million raisins in every can."
-- Sifl & Olly Show
Message no. 22
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 21:26:59 -0400
>
>And finally how do you get around this? Someone wandering around invisible
>is probably very visible from astral space. Just have watchers, spirits,
>or elementals on hand to help "point out" invisible people. Astral
>Perception may work as well, depending on what senses are considered "normal
>vision".
>

Or just pick up a bunch of dice and keep rolling them until you get that
statistical fluke that allows the Sec Guard to see the character. Then
since you are the GM you determine exactily how inconvienent a time it is
for the PC. The more he is abusing the spell the more inconvienent it is.
I used to have a player who ran a Spider Shaman with a Spell locked
Disregard with 11 successes, base TN's to see him were 22's. This worked
wonders he only abused it once.
Message no. 23
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibilty spell:
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:38:09 +0200
According to Thomas Charron, at 13:33 on 10 Sep 98, the word on the street was...

> A) Does improved invisibility remove all trace of the person to ALL
> sensors and devices? Let's say Thermal sensors and the such?

Yes. At least, in so far that SR3 says "to normal vision" without
mentioning thermographic as being anything else than "normal vision" *SR1
and SRII said that thermpgraphic could spot people under an Invisibility
spell, but that's not explicitly said in SR3 so I'll assume this minor bug
has been worked out now).

> B) If a person has cybereyes, does regular old invisibility work? It
> seems it would, but figured I'd get a general reaction..

It does, because the cybereyes are part of you. OTOH if you were looking
through a video camera, you'd see a character hiding under a normal
Invisibility spell, but not if they had Improved Invisibility.

> C) Does the person need to make a check against themselves? If it's
> considered an area affect type of thing, then they may not be able to
> see themselves, which may make them a tad clutzy, bumping into things
> and the such..

I'd say that the person under the spell doesn't need to roll a check to
see if they can see themselves. This mainly to avoid all kinds of
unnecessary stumbling around, and to keep the spell interesting enough to
players (I have at least one who wouldn't _think_ of taking a spell with
this kind of drawback).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It may look to the untrained eye I'm sitting on my arse all day.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibilty spell:, 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!