Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (GreyWolf)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 02:40:04 2002
The section in Mits for indirect illusions states that they can either be
cast on a living target or on an area.

I think this supposes that if it is cast on an area then everything would be
affected. Invisibility cast thus would make the walls, floors. clothes,
guns, bullets, cars, dogs, food, etc all invisible.. or would it?

Another problem I have is that one mage in my current game decided to turn
the door into another room invisible so he could cast a mana combat spell at
a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve done this BTB? I
disallowed it.. and here is why. I think this is game unbalancing, not to
mention that as astrally the door would still be opaque I think the spell
wouldnt be able to lock onto the target as the aura cannot be 'seen' .. and
furthermore invisibility cant target non-living beings..

Does anyone have a theory or book reference that could help me here? Its a
bit of a thory issue (the mage being a rules-lawyer and general pain in the
behind when he thinks the rules say he should get his own way) and id like
to get a better grip on it before next gaming session. So if you've run into
this kind of thing yourselves.. drop a line into the thread!

GreyWolf
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 06:00:57 2002
<snipt!(TM)>
> Another problem I have is that one mage in my
current game decided to turn the door into another
room invisible so he could cast a mana combat spell at
a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve
done this BTB? I disallowed it.. and here is why. I
think this is game unbalancing, not to mention that as
astrally the door would still be opaque I think the
spell wouldnt be able to lock onto the target as the
aura cannot be 'seen' .. and furthermore invisibility
cant target non-living beings..
>
> Does anyone have a theory or book reference that
could help me here? Its a bit of a thory issue (the
mage being a rules-lawyer and general pain in the
behind when he thinks the rules say he should get his
own way) and id like to get a better grip on it before
next gaming session. So if you've run into this kind
of thing yourselves.. drop a line into the thread!
> GreyWolf

I'd like to hear this myself, considering this
particular ruling nearly ended up in my character
biting the big one. ;) (I can thank the
afore-mentioned pain in the butt mage for saving my
cybered ass with 5 or 6 8s rolled on a 12 dice healing
spell. :) )

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (GreyWolf)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 06:30:01 2002
> I'd like to hear this myself, considering this
> particular ruling nearly ended up in my character
> biting the big one. ;) (I can thank the
> afore-mentioned pain in the butt mage for saving my
> cybered ass with 5 or 6 8s rolled on a 12 dice healing
> spell. :) )

Doc,
Actually your sorry butt was saved entirely by the rules.. withn that pain
in the arse mage having a force 6 treat spell under his belt.
8-)


Additionally:

An addendum to myquandry:
I have a problem with a force 1 improved invisibility spell being
automatically successful in making a person invisible to a security camera..
I think it should have a resistance roll.. either it, the knowbot running
the sensor system or the person waching the camera's screen on the other
end.. and with the rules so darn obtuse on the matter, I was hoping someone
had some ideas here too.

GreyWolf
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Wildside)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 09:00:01 2002
--- GreyWolf <nightgyr@*********.com.au> wrote:

> Another problem I have is that one mage in my current game decided to
> turn
> the door into another room invisible so he could cast a mana combat
> spell at
> a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve done this BTB?

I think that casting the spell through the invisible door would be
possible but I would impose a penalty similar to casting the Manabolt
through a magical barrier. The magical presence of the Invisibility spell
would obscure the aura of the target. Perhaps a penalty to the TN of the
Manabolt equal to the force of the invisibility spell would be
appropriate.

Wildside

______________________________________________________________________
Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Max Noel)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 09:45:16 2002
At 09:02 12/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>--- GreyWolf <nightgyr@*********.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Another problem I have is that one mage in my current game decided to
> > turn
> > the door into another room invisible so he could cast a mana combat
> > spell at
> > a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve done this BTB?
>
>I think that casting the spell through the invisible door would be
>possible but I would impose a penalty similar to casting the Manabolt
>through a magical barrier. The magical presence of the Invisibility spell
>would obscure the aura of the target. Perhaps a penalty to the TN of the
>Manabolt equal to the force of the invisibility spell would be
>appropriate.

Problem is, this method makes it more efficient to render the door
invisible by using a low-power spell.
I would have the mage cast the invisibility spell, then roll
perception as if normally resisting the (his own) invis spell (with
negative TN modifiers since being the caster of the spell, he /knows/ the
door is here).
If he successfully resists the spell (i.e. he achieves enough
successes on his perception roll), he completely disbelieves the illusion,
the door doesn't appear to him as invisible (so it appears to him ;p ) and
thus he has no LoS to cast his spell.
If he fails to completely resist the invisibility spell, he can
cast his spell BUT receives a TN modifier to his Sorcery test equal to the
number of successes achieved.

Note that this is a complete house rule I invented about 5 minutes ago, and
that it obviously hasn't been playtested yet. None of my players so far
have been twisted enough to pull that on me (heh. They're new to SR. Gotta
love n00bs).


-- Wild_Cat


maxnoel_fr@*****.fr
ICQ # 85274019
PGP Key ID : 0x5F30C161

"You wanna be making moves on the street, have no attachments, allow nothing
to be in your life that you cannot walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you
spot the heat around the corner."
- Neil McCauley, "Heat"

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


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 10:25:07 2002
> I would have the mage cast the invisibility spell, then roll
> perception as if normally resisting the (his own) invis spell (with
> negative TN modifiers since being the caster of the spell, he /knows/ the
> door is here).
> If he successfully resists the spell (i.e. he achieves enough
> successes on his perception roll), he completely disbelieves the illusion,
> the door doesn't appear to him as invisible (so it appears to him ;p ) and
> thus he has no LoS to cast his spell.
> If he fails to completely resist the invisibility spell, he can
> cast his spell BUT receives a TN modifier to his Sorcery test equal to the
> number of successes achieved.


I understand the point of this way, but isn't that totally
cancelling out the invisibility spell? You never have to make a percp test
to "see" your spell. I like what this house rule does, but not the
basis...ya know?

Am I being picky here?

Meph
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Max Noel)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 11:35:07 2002
At 07:28 12/02/2002 -0800, Meph wrote:
> I understand the point of this way, but isn't that totally
>cancelling out the invisibility spell? You never have to make a percp test
>to "see" your spell. I like what this house rule does, but not the
>basis...ya know?

Really? I always thought magicians were also affected by their own
illusion spells, but got modifiers to their perception tests to see through
them because they know there's an illusion... I'll have to check what the
book says...


-- Wild_Cat


maxnoel_fr@*****.fr
ICQ # 85274019
PGP Key ID : 0x5F30C161

"You wanna be making moves on the street, have no attachments, allow nothing
to be in your life that you cannot walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you
spot the heat around the corner."
- Neil McCauley, "Heat"

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


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 12:25:02 2002
>I have a problem with a force 1 improved invisibility spell being
>automatically successful in making a person invisible to a security camera..
>I think it should have a resistance roll.. either it, the knowbot running
>the sensor system or the person waching the camera's screen on the other
>end.. and with the rules so darn obtuse on the matter, I was hoping someone
>had some ideas here too.
>
>GreyWolf
>
>

Read the sensor rules. The camera means you should make a passive sensors test (perception
roll) to get past the illusion. On another note, you could just add different sensors that
are not affected by invisibility (eg. thermo, ultrasound, motion, pressure, noise, etc.).
And please don't turn this into an invisibility can mask therm or motion sensors debate
because that depends on whether you consider invisibilty to cover the visible spectrum or
more and whether you consider motion sensors to be based on pressure or light.

-George Waksman
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jane VR)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 19:40:01 2002
>From: "GreyWolf" <nightgyr@*********.com.au>


>Another problem I have is that one mage in my current game decided to turn
>the door into another room invisible so he could cast a mana combat spell
>at
>a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve done this BTB?
>

The spells in the rulebook say in their description what they affect. The
spells that affect an area, say 'area'. For Invisibility it says 'subject',
so I would say it can only affect a person. (The description of Indirect
Illusions says they affect a person or an area) You could easily design an
Invisibility spell that affects an area, though. But it would also make the
victim invisible, if he was in the area of effect.

But I probably would have let the mage do it, because it is a clever idea.
The repercussions are scary though. Especially for vehicles. If you point
that out to the players, they may not want to do it any more.

Jane


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 20:30:01 2002
> Doc,
> Actually your sorry butt was saved entirely by the
rules.. withn that pain in the arse mage having a
force 6 treat spell under his belt. 8-)
> GreyWolf

I know that, man. I wasn't thanking him for BEING a
rules lawyer and a pain in the butt. I was thanking
him for managing to roll 5 or 6 sixes, then another 5
or 6 twos or higher. ;)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 20:45:01 2002
> > Another problem I have is that one mage in my
current game decided to turn the door into another
room invisible so he could cast a mana combat spell at
a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve
done this BTB?
>
> I think that casting the spell through the invisible
door would be possible but I would impose a penalty
similar to casting the Manabolt through a magical
barrier. The magical presence of the Invisibility
spell would obscure the aura of the target. Perhaps a
penalty to the TN of the Manabolt equal to the force
of the invisibility spell would be appropriate.
> Wildside

Oh, yeah, he'd REALLY be worried by that. :)

This mage was given the nickname of "Force One", from
the amount of, you guessed it, Force 1 spells he has.
Whenever GreyWolf asks him what Force he's casting his
spells at, we all sing out, "Force 1!" :)

Improved Invisibility is a major offender in this
regard. :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Meph)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 21:45:06 2002
> Really? I always thought magicians were also affected by their
own
> illusion spells, but got modifiers to their perception tests to see
through
> them because they know there's an illusion... I'll have to check what the
> book says...


Ya got me! I'm not really that familiar with the magic rules....If
you find anything let me know!

Meph
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bo Johnson)
Subject: Invisibility and spellcasting...
Date: Tue Feb 12 21:45:19 2002
At 06:44 PM 2/12/02 +1100, GreyWolf wrote:
>The section in Mits for indirect illusions states that they can either be
>cast on a living target or on an area.

Depending on how the spell is made. In MITS, p. 53, the Invisibility
spell is broken down as an example of drain calculations. It does not
have Area Effect, so the normal Invisibility spell can not be cast in
an area.

>I think this supposes that if it is cast on an area then everything would be
>affected. Invisibility cast thus would make the walls, floors. clothes,
>guns, bullets, cars, dogs, food, etc all invisible.. or would it?

With an Area Effect Invisibility (+1 drain level), I think it would.

>Another problem I have is that one mage in my current game decided to turn
>the door into another room invisible so he could cast a mana combat spell at
>a target he knew was on the other side. Could he ahve done this BTB? I
>disallowed it.. and here is why. I think this is game unbalancing, not to
>mention that as astrally the door would still be opaque I think the spell
>wouldnt be able to lock onto the target as the aura cannot be 'seen' .. and
>furthermore invisibility cant target non-living beings..
>
>Does anyone have a theory or book reference that could help me here? Its a
>bit of a thory issue (the mage being a rules-lawyer and general pain in the
>behind when he thinks the rules say he should get his own way) and id like
>to get a better grip on it before next gaming session. So if you've run into
>this kind of thing yourselves.. drop a line into the thread!

Unfortunately, I have to side with the rules lawyer in this case. The
MITS drain calculations on Invisibility make no mention of Restrictive
Target, so it should be possible to cast the spell on objects. Some
people believe that you can't target a part of a building, but I believe
a door is a reasonable target. As long as he gets one success, the door
is invisible. He can state that he does not wish to resist the spell,
so it is invisible to him. It is still visible to people who resist
the spell.

And once the door is invisible to him, he can freely cast Mana spells
through it. He could do the same if there was a little peep hole.
Yes it is unbalancing, but so is lots of magic. The door would be
invisible astrally as well, though anyone Assensing it would see the
Invisibility spell (see SR3 p. 182 on Astral Spellcasting). But that
doesn't matter, because astral LOS has nothing to do with targeting
spells. You can use mirrors and high tech fiber optics if you want
(see SR3, p. 182, Spell Targeting).

************************************************************************

NOTE the interesting things you can do with one success on a force 1
Invisibility spell. You can make something invisible that is likely
ONLY invisible to you! Talk about unbalancing! Make the door above
Invisible with a Force 1 spell, and only people who know about it
(and choose not to resist it) can see through it! Granted there is
a small chance that someone really stupid will see through it too.
Can you say "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility and spellcasting..., 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!