Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jon Stoltenberg <rabiddwarf@******.NET>
Subject: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 02:04:24 -0600
When a target is invisible can he/she/it be seen by a dual-natured
critter or astrally percieving mage? If so, then does this not make
Invisibility a nearly useless spell?


--
Rabid Dwarf
aka Jon Stoltenberg
---------------------
rabiddwarf@******.net
jjstoltenber@*******.edu
UIN# 11629606
Message no. 2
From: Carsten Baermann <Carsten.Baermann@****.UNI-GIESSEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:22:02 +0100
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Jon Stoltenberg wrote:

> When a target is invisible can he/she/it be seen by a dual-natured
> critter or astrally percieving mage? If so, then does this not make
> Invisibility a nearly useless spell?

The target of an Invisibility spell can be seen by all entities capable of
seeing the Astral plane, because you can see the Aura of the person AND
the spell surrounding it. You can even tell the type of the spell-in this
case Invisibility.
And no, I do not think that this makes the spell useless. How many people
(or critter) can see into the Astral plane? One percent magicians in
the population plus some dual-natured critter. Let it be five percent.
Thats not very much and most magicians would not have the Astral
Perception power "on" all the time; it distracts from the real world.

Bye,
########### Carsten Baermann - http://www.uni-giessen.de/~gcg4 ##########
# carsten.baermann@****.uni-giessen.de - case@**********.uni-giessen.de #
########## finger gcg4@**.hrz.uni-giessen.de for PGP Public Key #########

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GM d s:- a-- C+(++) UA+ US++ UL+ 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-----
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:00:33 +0100
According to Jon Stoltenberg, at 2:04 on 3 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> When a target is invisible can he/she/it be seen by a dual-natured
> critter or astrally percieving mage?

Yes.

> If so, then does this not make Invisibility a nearly useless spell?

That depends on the situation. If you're trying to sneak into a magical
conference under an Invisibility spell, yes, it's useless. But when there
are no magicians around it's a very powerful spell.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> 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. 4
From: A Halliwell <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:09:23 +0000
And verily, did Jon Stoltenberg hastily scribble thusly...
|
|When a target is invisible can he/she/it be seen by a dual-natured
|critter or astrally percieving mage? If so, then does this not make
|Invisibility a nearly useless spell?

Yes and no. Yes: You are VERY visible on the astral plane. More visible than
normal actually, because you've got an active spell on.

*NOTHING* can hide you on the astral plane. (Initiates can disguise
themselves slightly, but that's about it...)

and NO, it is NOT useless. Big deal, they can see you on the astral, but the
number of mages/dual natured critters versus the number of normal *almost*
negates that disadvantage.

A much *BIGGER* disadvantage (At least with Improved Invisibility), is that
it doesn't mask your thermal signature.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 5
From: Number Ten Ox <number_10_ox@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 07:47:45 -0800
--A Halliwell <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK> wrote:

> A much *BIGGER* disadvantage (At least with Improved Invisibility), is >
that
> it doesn't mask your thermal signature.

<blink> <blink> Well, now I know that I don't know the rules nearly as
well as I thought I did.

It doesn't mask your thermal sig? I know it didn't in 2nd ed., but in
third....

ANyone confirm/deny?



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 6
From: A Halliwell <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 16:16:23 +0000
And verily, did Number Ten Ox hastily scribble thusly...
|<blink> <blink> Well, now I know that I don't know the rules nearly as
|well as I thought I did.
|
|It doesn't mask your thermal sig? I know it didn't in 2nd ed., but in
|third....

Ahhhh, I don't know about 3rd Ed.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:53:10 +0100
According to Number Ten Ox, at 7:47 on 3 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> It doesn't mask your thermal sig? I know it didn't in 2nd ed., but in
> third....

It didn't in 2nd edition (and also not in 1st, BTW), but in 3rd edition
the spell got a major overhaul, and it makes no mention of thermographics
being able to detect the subject -- the conclusion being that they can't
any longer.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> 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. 8
From: Jester <jester@**********.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 20:45:33 +0100
At 14:09, 3 Nov 98, Jester was told by A Halliwell:
> *NOTHING* can hide you on the astral plane. (Initiates can disguise
> themselves slightly, but that's about it...)

I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).


--
I think I'm supposed to do something here, but alas, I forgot...

Jester
<jester@**********.nl>

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GS d s: a22? c- U? 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------
Message no. 9
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:14:24 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Jester wrote:
/
/ At 14:09, 3 Nov 98, Jester was told by A Halliwell:
/ > *NOTHING* can hide you on the astral plane. (Initiates can disguise
/ > themselves slightly, but that's about it...)
/
/ I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
/ hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
/ looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).

Yes and no. They would ignore you, but they would be able to see the
Disregard spell/power. "Hey look, there's something over there telling
me not to look at something."

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 10
From: Shaun Gilroy <shaung@**********.NET>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:16:05 -0500
>For the mere cost of a Thaum, Jester wrote:
>/
>/ At 14:09, 3 Nov 98, Jester was told by A Halliwell:
>/ > *NOTHING* can hide you on the astral plane. (Initiates can disguise
>/ > themselves slightly, but that's about it...)
>/
>/ I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
>/ hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
>/ looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).

You can only affect things on the plane that you cast it on. You could
cast it in astral space to obscure your astral presence, but if you cast it
on the material plane, you will still be visible astrally.

(>)noysh the spoonë bard
-> jack of all trades, master of none. <-
Message no. 11
From: Jester <jester@**********.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 21:29:17 +0100
At 13:14, 3 Nov 98, Jester was told by David Buehrer:

> Yes and no. They would ignore you, but they would be able to see the
> Disregard spell/power. "Hey look, there's something over there telling me
> not to look at something."

But won't the spell be ignored to, as it's within the aura of the
person who's being disregarded?

--
I think I'm supposed to do something here, but alas, I forgot...

Jester
<jester@**********.nl>

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GS d s: a22? c- U? 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------
Message no. 12
From: A Halliwell <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:17:56 +0000
And verily, did Jester hastily scribble thusly...
|
|At 14:09, 3 Nov 98, Jester was told by A Halliwell:
|> *NOTHING* can hide you on the astral plane. (Initiates can disguise
|> themselves slightly, but that's about it...)
|
|I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
|hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
|looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).

That's just a question of semantics.
I imagine there are quite a few astral beings that would be unaffected by
that, and it doesn't stop people from SEEING you, it makes them IGNORE what
they DO see.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 13
From: Fixer <fixer@*******.TLH.FL.US>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:44:23 -0500
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Jon Stoltenberg wrote:

->When a target is invisible can he/she/it be seen by a dual-natured
->critter or astrally percieving mage? If so, then does this not make
->Invisibility a nearly useless spell?

The magic would be visible, definitely, perhaps not the target
itself. And it's great against mundanes which are 99% of humanity (but,
strangely enough, only perhaps 60% of what you encounter in combat....).

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. 14
From: David Cordy <DCordy@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:18:13 -0800
...mundanes which are 99% of humanity (but, strangely enough, only perhaps
60% of what you encounter in combat....).

That is because the average team doesn't get into combat in supermarkets, or
dry cleaners, or video rental stores. Mostly, runs are late at night, when
most of meta-humanity is tucked snug in their beds. And this is when most
of your combat happens. Which also means that the magically active who are
awake are most likely the low man on the old magic totem pole (no pun
intended).

David
Message no. 15
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:39:42 +0100
According to Jester, at 20:45 on 3 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
> hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
> looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).

That's the way our group interprets that spell, yes. There is also the
other interpretation which says that spells on the astral plane are
obvious and that no illusion spell will hide you on the astral plane, so
Disregard would still have no effect. The main reason I don't like that
second explanation is because it means Disregard might not have the same
explanation for how it does what it does as Invisibility, but the net
result is the same for both spells.

However, if Disregard does not get its game mechanics changed in MITS,
then there _is_ a major difference between the way the two spells work,
and I could then see why there would be two spells doing essentially the
same thing but in different ways.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> 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. 16
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:02:06 EST
In a message dated 11/3/98 3:14:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> / I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
> / hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
> / looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).
>
> Yes and no. They would ignore you, but they would be able to see the
> Disregard spell/power. "Hey look, there's something over there telling
> me not to look at something."

The Disregard spell works on the astral plane as well, as it is a mana-based
spell, and is not strictly limited to the physical world (like Improved
Invisibility is). For the assensor to spot the person under the cover of the
Disregard they would have to achieve the same success test necessary as for
being able to spot the person being cloaked by it. And the target number for
that is a base 4, for assensings, modified by the number of successes gained
on the spellcasting test.

-M
Message no. 17
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:09:57 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Mike Bobroff wrote:
/
/ In a message dated 11/3/98 3:14:21 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
/ dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:
/
/ > / I have to disagree with you here... IMHO, disregard should be able to
/ > / hide you on the astral plane, 'cause it causes everyone/thing who
/ > / looks at you, to ignore you (IIRC).
/ >
/ > Yes and no. They would ignore you, but they would be able to see the
/ > Disregard spell/power. "Hey look, there's something over there telling
/ > me not to look at something."
/
/ The Disregard spell works on the astral plane as well, as it is a mana-based
/ spell, and is not strictly limited to the physical world (like Improved
/ Invisibility is).

Under SR3 rules, no. By the BBB3 spells and spell effects act on one
plane or the other, not both. It doesn't matter whether a spell is
physical or mana.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 18
From: Justin Elliott <justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:19:12 +1300
>The Disregard spell works on the astral plane as well, as it is a mana-based
>spell, and is not strictly limited to the physical world (like Improved
>Invisibility is). For the assensor to spot the person under the cover of the
>Disregard they would have to achieve the same success test necessary as for
>being able to spot the person being cloaked by it. And the target number for
>that is a base 4, for assensings, modified by the number of successes gained
>on the spellcasting test.
>


Ok so the assensor *may* not see the person under the "cloak" but surely
they would still be able to, at least, see the spell itself? Otherwise you
are in effect masking the spell and any other spell or astraly active item
that the spell is covering, let alone the targets aura.... I believe that
this is getting too powerfull for the spell as written.

Justin.
Message no. 19
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:11:05 EST
In a message dated 11/4/98 4:09:28 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> / > Yes and no. They would ignore you, but they would be able to see the
> / > Disregard spell/power. "Hey look, there's something over there
telling
> / > me not to look at something."
> /
> / The Disregard spell works on the astral plane as well, as it is a mana-
> based
> / spell, and is not strictly limited to the physical world (like Improved
> / Invisibility is).
>
> Under SR3 rules, no. By the BBB3 spells and spell effects act on one
> plane or the other, not both. It doesn't matter whether a spell is
> physical or mana.

-=-=-=-=-=- On the topic of the Invisibility spell .....

You are right on that point (I reread the Invisibility spell), but there is
something though which still bugs me. The spell affects the mind of the
person that is assensing the person covered by the spell. So does this mean
that the person assensing need to make a test to see the person hiding under
the spell - OR- do the rules of astral perception now make it easily seen
(unless it is being actively hidden or masked) by someone assensing.

=-=-=-=-=-=- On the topic of Disregard ...

I don't consider the spell Disregard to be the same as Invisibility, the spell
does not make you invisible, it just sort of blends you in with the
background, or makes it look like you belong whereever you are supposed not to
be.

Guess this comes down to a matter of interpretation.

-Herc
Message no. 20
From: Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:14:37 EST
In a message dated 11/4/98 4:18:51 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
justin.elliott@********.OTAGO.AC.NZ writes:

> >The Disregard spell works on the astral plane as well, as it is a mana-
based
> >spell, and is not strictly limited to the physical world (like Improved
> >Invisibility is). For the assensor to spot the person under the cover of
> the
> >Disregard they would have to achieve the same success test necessary as
for
> >being able to spot the person being cloaked by it. And the target number
> for
> >that is a base 4, for assensings, modified by the number of successes
> gained
> >on the spellcasting test.
> >
>
>
> Ok so the assensor *may* not see the person under the "cloak" but surely
> they would still be able to, at least, see the spell itself? Otherwise you
> are in effect masking the spell and any other spell or astraly active item
> that the spell is covering, let alone the targets aura.... I believe that
> this is getting too powerfull for the spell as written.

The person assensing, using SR3 rules, would be aware that there is a spell
active on the individual (Disregard). If the assensor wanted better knowledge
about the spell they could perform a more detailed assensing and find out that
the spell is Disregard. Unless the assensor gets into the details they
probably won't know who exactly is underneath the Disregard but they will know
that whomever it is is definitely hiding something.

-Herc
Message no. 21
From: Zixx <t_berghoff@*********.NETSURF.DE>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:18:32 +0100
On 3 Nov 98, at 19:53, Gurth wrote:

> According to Number Ten Ox, at 7:47 on 3 Nov 98, the word on the street was...
>
> > It doesn't mask your thermal sig? I know it didn't in 2nd ed., but in
> > third....
>
> It didn't in 2nd edition (and also not in 1st, BTW), but in 3rd edition
> the spell got a major overhaul, and it makes no mention of thermographics
> being able to detect the subject -- the conclusion being that they can't
> any longer.

Well-l...it says "invisible to normal vision". Presonally, I'd say that IR,
Ultrasound and whatever does not qualify. I mean, if "normal vision",
mean every natuaral vision, astral perception would not reveal the user...


Sorry for the delay...just started to get back on my email. 10k RN-
messages deleted. Ouch...:)

Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx
ICQ: 9293066

A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:-- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+ w---() O-
M-- PS+(+++) PE- Y+>++ t+(++) 5+ X++
R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++ e>+++++(*)
h! r--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 22
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:08:13 +0100
According to Zixx, at 21:18 on 8 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> Well-l...it says "invisible to normal vision". Presonally, I'd say that IR,
> Ultrasound and whatever does not qualify. I mean, if "normal vision",
> mean every natuaral vision, astral perception would not reveal the user...

Astral perception is not vision, so it could still detect things invisible
to "normal vision." Thermographic vision, though, is _vision_ according to
the name, and I don't really see why it should be treated differently than
"normal" vision or low-light -- all three use the eyes to detect things.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Perjury does not include lying if lying is the
only sensible way to get you out of trouble.
-> 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. 23
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:23:23 -0600
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:08:13 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>According to Zixx, at 21:18 on 8 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

>> Well-l...it says "invisible to normal vision". Presonally, I'd say
that IR,
>> Ultrasound and whatever does not qualify. I mean, if "normal vision",
>> mean every natuaral vision, astral perception would not reveal the
user...

>Astral perception is not vision, so it could still detect things
invisible
>to "normal vision." Thermographic vision, though, is _vision_ according
to
>the name, and I don't really see why it should be treated differently
than
>"normal" vision or low-light -- all three use the eyes to detect things.

I'd say that Mana based Invisibility affects all types of "sight"
(including Ultrasound) while the Physical Improved Invisibility affects
only sight based on the visible spectrum (or at GM's descretion, the
entire EM spectrum). Why? mana Invisibility doesn't make you Invisible,
it just "hacks" Everyone's brain and convinces them that you are
invisible. So even if the wiz tech spots you, the anyone spoofed by the
spell won't see you. Improved Invisibility however, actually does make
you invisible and so someone under its effect can till be spottted with,
for example, Ultrasound. That's just IMO.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"Coffee without caffeine is like sex without the spanking." -- Cupid
re-cur-sion (ri-kur'-zhen) noun. 1. See recursion.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 24
From: Bruce <gyro@********.CO.ZA>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:01:57 +0200
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Ghost <dghost@****.COM>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: 09 November 1998 02:32
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision


>On Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:08:13 +0100 Gurth <gurth@******.NL> writes:
>>According to Zixx, at 21:18 on 8 Nov 98, the word on the street
was...
>
>>> Well-l...it says "invisible to normal vision". Presonally, I'd say
>that IR,
>>> Ultrasound and whatever does not qualify. I mean, if "normal
vision",
>>> mean every natuaral vision, astral perception would not reveal the
>user...
>
>>Astral perception is not vision, so it could still detect things
>invisible
>>to "normal vision." Thermographic vision, though, is _vision_
according
>to
>>the name, and I don't really see why it should be treated
differently
>than
>>"normal" vision or low-light -- all three use the eyes to detect
things.
>
>I'd say that Mana based Invisibility affects all types of "sight"
>(including Ultrasound) while the Physical Improved Invisibility
affects
>only sight based on the visible spectrum (or at GM's descretion, the
>entire EM spectrum). Why? mana Invisibility doesn't make you
Invisible,
>it just "hacks" Everyone's brain and convinces them that you are
>invisible. So even if the wiz tech spots you, the anyone spoofed by
the
>spell won't see you. Improved Invisibility however, actually does
make
>you invisible and so someone under its effect can till be spottted
with,
>for example, Ultrasound. That's just IMO.


Quoting SR3 pg 195

"Improved Invisibilty affects technological sensors as well"

Thus I would say that although the standard spell messes with the mind
of the perceiving person "Invisibility affects the minds of viewers"
the spell
cannot fool the sensor. Thus someone using Ultrasound would see the
mage
because the he would be looking at/relying on the readout of the
sensor
and not at the invisible person.

Imp. Invisibilty however, fools the device, feeding it inaccurate
data, or just plain
bending light around the subject of the spell ( type P spell)

¥0.02 from me.
BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>
*Executive Engineer* *FrontLine Games*
Yo soy un disco quebrado
Yo tengo chicle en cerebro
sm:)e
Message no. 25
From: A Halliwell <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 11:02:12 +0000
And verily, did Gurth hastily scribble thusly...
|
|According to Zixx, at 21:18 on 8 Nov 98, the word on the street was...
|
|> Well-l...it says "invisible to normal vision". Presonally, I'd say that
IR,
|> Ultrasound and whatever does not qualify. I mean, if "normal vision",
|> mean every natuaral vision, astral perception would not reveal the user...
|
|Astral perception is not vision, so it could still detect things invisible
|to "normal vision." Thermographic vision, though, is _vision_ according to
|the name, and I don't really see why it should be treated differently than
|"normal" vision or low-light -- all three use the eyes to detect things.

We-e-ell....
Think of it this way. Invisibility works by bending the light around you, so
that you reflect and absorb no light, and therefore, appear invisible (with
a very slight distortion around the place where you're standing)...

But you're not reflecting thermal, you're emitting it, so where does it go?
if it's reflected back into the invisible person... well, does the term
boiled lobster spring to mind?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 26
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:41:26 +0100
According to A Halliwell, at 11:02 on 12 Nov 98, the word on the street was...

> We-e-ell....
> Think of it this way. Invisibility works by bending the light around you

That is not stated in any FASA-published book, AFAIK. It's one of the most
plausible explanations for how Invisibility spells work, if they don't
affect the mind directly, and is not without its own inherent problems
(such as: how do you see if you're invisible?).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
He likes to sleep. Sometimes he has good dreams.
-> 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. 27
From: Glenn Royer <groyer@********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 20:59:51 -0500
Gurth wrote:
>
> According to A Halliwell, at 11:02 on 12 Nov 98, the word on the street was...
>
> > We-e-ell....
> > Think of it this way. Invisibility works by bending the light around you
>
> That is not stated in any FASA-published book, AFAIK. It's one of the most
> plausible explanations for how Invisibility spells work, if they don't
> affect the mind directly, and is not without its own inherent problems
> (such as: how do you see if you're invisible?).
>
I believe it is the Grimmy thingie that says that physical illusion
spells create their effect by bending light and creating other "real"
illusions.

my take on the astral space bit is that spells do not have effect in
astral space, with the only exceptions being spells like 'astral static'
or that cleanup spell that reduces background count or whatever... but i
think that those only work because they deal with formation and removal
of astral bodies... like, yknow how you cast a spell and it makes a
little living thing in astral space.... you can imagine then a spell
that creates a whole bunch of little things floating around that really
have no function except to exist and get in the way in astral space...
that's really what astral static's about...

Speaking of illusion spells, ( i am newish to the list so maybe its been
talked about a few times before) why did the fasa spellmakers not create
more non-sight based illusions? i always wanted to see 'minor sound'
spells to make distractions or 'full sensory overload' spells to
completely enwrap your subject in a world of your creation.

-Glenn
Message no. 28
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Invisibility and Astral Vision
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:37:31 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Gurth wrote:
/
/ According to A Halliwell, at 11:02 on 12 Nov 98, the word on the street was...
/
/ > We-e-ell....
/ > Think of it this way. Invisibility works by bending the light around you
/
/ That is not stated in any FASA-published book, AFAIK. It's one of the most
/ plausible explanations for how Invisibility spells work, if they don't
/ affect the mind directly, and is not without its own inherent problems
/ (such as: how do you see if you're invisible?).

What if invisibility works somewhat like ruthenium polymer?

The spell might determine what the viewer would see if the subject of
the invisibility spell wasn't there and puts that image between the
viewer and the subject. The image wouldn't stop the target from being
able to see what's going on around him, since the image is only
"broadcasting" in one direction (towards potential viewers). Think of
it as if the viewer is on the picture side of a movie screen and
subject is on the other side of the movie screen, exept that there is
no movie screen to block the subject's line of sight.

That how I think physical invisibility works anyway.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility and Astral Vision, 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!