Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bo Johnson)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sat Feb 16 19:10:02 2002
Apparently a lot of people haven't read the description of Invisibility or
Indirect Illusions very well. I've seen a lot of theories about what
Invisibility does, and how it works, that don't match (or even come close
to) what SR3 explicitly states. Here are a few sections of the rules, all
from SR3, p. 195.

ILLUSION SPELLS
... Mana-based illusion spells affect the mind and are ineffective against
technological viewing systems like cameras. Physical illusion spells
create actual sensory input and are effective against such systems. ...

INDIRECT ILLUSION SPELLS
Indirect illusion spells manipulate energy to create an illusionary image
or sound or other sense-based effect, fooling the senses. They must be
cast "around" a person, or over an area (Magic rating in meters) that is
within the caster's line of sight. ...

Invisibility (the spell)
This spell makes the subject invisible to normal vision. The subject is
completely tangible and detectable by the other senses. ... Invisibility
affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility affects technological
sensors as well.


What does all of this say? Assume you cast Invisibility on
yourself. Invisibility works by making people that see you instead think
that they don't. It feeds their mind a picture of what is on the far side
of you. They can't actually see what is on the far side, because you are
in the way. You are visible, so you block line of sight. Spells cast by
another mage at a target completely behind you fizzle because they do not
have line of sight, they only think they do. Spells cast by another mage
at a target partially behind you get (in)visibility modifiers. Spells cast
at a target on the other side of an invisible closed door fizzle, because
the caster does not have line of sight.

Improved Invisibility works differently, but the results are pretty much
the same. It creates a field around you which magically generates the
proper sensory input (light) all around it to fool observers (living or
technological) into thinking that you aren't there. They can't actually
see what is on the far side, because you are in the way. You are visible,
so you block line of sight. The Improved Invisibility does not reroute the
light around you (which would maintain LOS), it explicitly generates a fake
image all around you (magical image generation, which breaks LOS).


That's the only interpretation I can come up with. Comments?

Of course GMs are free to interpret things as they wish, and ignore the rules.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Andrew Murdoch)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sun Feb 17 13:20:01 2002
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Bo Johnson wrote:

> What does all of this say? Assume you cast Invisibility on
> yourself. Invisibility works by making people that see you instead think
> that they don't. It feeds their mind a picture of what is on the far side
> of you. They can't actually see what is on the far side, because you are
> in the way. You are visible, so you block line of sight. Spells cast by
> another mage at a target completely behind you fizzle because they do not
> have line of sight, they only think they do. Spells cast by another mage
> at a target partially behind you get (in)visibility modifiers. Spells cast
> at a target on the other side of an invisible closed door fizzle, because
> the caster does not have line of sight.
>
> Improved Invisibility works differently, but the results are pretty much
> the same. It creates a field around you which magically generates the
> proper sensory input (light) all around it to fool observers (living or
> technological) into thinking that you aren't there. They can't actually
> see what is on the far side, because you are in the way. You are visible,
> so you block line of sight. The Improved Invisibility does not reroute the
> light around you (which would maintain LOS), it explicitly generates a fake
> image all around you (magical image generation, which breaks LOS).
>
> That's the only interpretation I can come up with. Comments?

Haviong a mage in my group with that spell, my interpretation is that
invisibility does indeed work on the mind like a "Someone-Else's
Problem" Field (Thank you, Douglas Adams), whereas Improved Invisibility
warps light around the subject to make it physically invisible (and thus
undetectable by technological sensors.). Someone naturally pointed out
that anyone under the influence of Improved Invisibility would be unable
to see, as no light would reach them, but I countered that the spell in
question WAS created by a magically active person. In order to get around
this (somewhat), all the mage would need to do is perceive astrally.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hail, Centurion! "Love is that condition in which
Andrew C. Murdoch the happiness of another person
toreador@***.bc.ca is essential to your own."
http://www.fandom.ca - Robert Anson Heinlein
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gak The Great)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sun Feb 17 14:05:01 2002
Sometime, somwhere down the timeline, Andrew Murdoch whispered:


<snip>
> > Improved Invisibility works differently, but the results are pretty much
> > the same. It creates a field around you which magically generates the
> > proper sensory input (light) all around it to fool observers (living or
> > technological) into thinking that you aren't there. They can't actually
> > see what is on the far side, because you are in the way. You are
visible,
> > so you block line of sight. The Improved Invisibility does not reroute
the
> > light around you (which would maintain LOS), it explicitly generates a
fake
> > image all around you (magical image generation, which breaks LOS).
> >
> > That's the only interpretation I can come up with. Comments?
>
> Haviong a mage in my group with that spell, my interpretation is that
> invisibility does indeed work on the mind like a "Someone-Else's
> Problem" Field (Thank you, Douglas Adams), whereas Improved Invisibility
> warps light around the subject to make it physically invisible (and thus
> undetectable by technological sensors.). Someone naturally pointed out
> that anyone under the influence of Improved Invisibility would be unable
> to see, as no light would reach them, but I countered that the spell in
> question WAS created by a magically active person. In order to get around
> this (somewhat), all the mage would need to do is perceive astrally.
>
BUT then why do you get a resistance with Imroved Invis? If it warps light
around you, it is a physical fact, so somebody watching the invisible will
not see them, no matter what force the spell and how many successes where
rolled.

I think it's more like fooling the mind AND fooling the camera's (yes, magic
can affect dead things). Now I just gotta find the "mind" of the camera.
Help! :)

-- GAK THE GREAT

"Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden,
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn."
Sauron aus "Herr der Ringe von J.R.R. Tolkien
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Aristotle)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sun Feb 17 15:15:01 2002
[posted by: Andrew C. Murdoch]
>> Having a mage in my group with that spell, my interpretation is that
>> invisibility does indeed work on the mind like a "Someone-Else's
>> Problem" Field (Thank you, Douglas Adams), whereas Improved Invisibility
>> warps light around the subject to make it physically invisible (and thus
>> undetectable by technological sensors.)

[posted by:Gak the Great]
> BUT then why do you get a resistance with Improved Invis? If it warps
light
> around you, it is a physical fact, so somebody watching the invisible will
> not see them, no matter what force the spell and how many successes where
> rolled.

I have to agree here. If the spell is warping the light to make you
invisible then the target would not be given the chance to resist or
"disbelieve" the illusion. The spell would most likely have a set target
number (not based on an opponent's ability scores). Both this and the fact
that it is actually bending light make a strong case that such an
invisibility spell would indeed be a manipulation spell and not an illusion
spell.

$0.02,
-- Aristotle.
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bira)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sun Feb 17 17:55:14 2002
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Andrew Murdoch <toreador@***.bc.ca> wrote:

> Haviong a mage in my group with that spell, my interpretation is that
> invisibility does indeed work on the mind like a "Someone-Else's
> Problem" Field (Thank you, Douglas Adams), whereas Improved Invisibility
> warps light around the subject to make it physically invisible (and thus
> undetectable by technological sensors.).

Actually, both spells can work in exactly the same way. It's
just that one affects only living things and the other also affects
technological sensors. You don't need any explanation other than it's
what they were designed to do.

I run the risk of ressurecting a long dead thread by saying this,
but magic doesn't have to follow any kind of physical laws. Sure, many
"modern" magicians (both mages and shamans) apply the scientific method
in their studies and research, but that doesn't mean they have to use
physical, chemical or mathemathical terms to describe how magic works in
their views.

IMHO, being a accomplished magician in Shadowrun is about more
than being born with the right genetics; the individual must also be
also gifted with creativity, strenght of belief and the ability to
disregard conventional wisdom. How magic works depends largely on the
will and worldview of magicians - if adhering to the laws of physics
will limit the effectiveness of their spells, they can just disregard
them as they design said spells.

Take the Lighting Bolt spell, one of those flashy elemental manipulations.
If it just created a "proper" electrical discharge it would lose most of
its usefulness. It would automatically direct itself to the nearest and
largest conductor available, wheter or not your target was that way, and
might actually go trough _you_ to get there. It would probably only harm
the target it he wasn't wearing rubber soled shoes.

But it creates "magical" lighting, a bolt of energy that flies
straight in the direction indicated by the caster. It also doesn't seem
to be affected by any conducting or isolating clothing the target might
be wearing. It probably starts behaving "properly" once it hits, tough,
because by them the spell has already ended.

IMHO, the only magicians who would bother to use a lighting (or
any other) spell that behaves strictly according to the laws of physics
are either one of those "psionics" from MiTS and Awakenings (it's
electrokinesis!) or a mage with a self created tradition in which he
views himself as a super-scientist using amazing technological devices
of his own creation (behold his Tech Level 11 Electrolaser! :)).

A more "conventional" magician might design and/or learn
something like that for a specific purpose, but if they just want to
toast people they go with the spell that works "magically" :).

--
Bira <ra002585@**.unicamp.br>
http://www.shadowlandbr.hpg.com.br
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Bo Johnson)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sun Feb 17 21:50:01 2002
At 10:25 AM 2/17/02 -0800, Andrew Murdoch wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Bo Johnson wrote:
> > Improved Invisibility works differently, but the results are pretty much
> > the same. It creates a field around you which magically generates the
> > proper sensory input (light) all around it to fool observers (living or
> > technological) into thinking that you aren't there. They can't actually
> > see what is on the far side, because you are in the way. You are visible,
> > so you block line of sight. The Improved Invisibility does not reroute
> the
> > light around you (which would maintain LOS), it explicitly generates a
> fake
> > image all around you (magical image generation, which breaks LOS).
> >
> > That's the only interpretation I can come up with. Comments?
>
>Haviong a mage in my group with that spell, my interpretation is that
>invisibility does indeed work on the mind like a "Someone-Else's
>Problem" Field (Thank you, Douglas Adams), whereas Improved Invisibility
>warps light around the subject to make it physically invisible (and thus
>undetectable by technological sensors.). Someone naturally pointed out
>that anyone under the influence of Improved Invisibility would be unable
>to see, as no light would reach them, but I countered that the spell in
>question WAS created by a magically active person. In order to get around
>this (somewhat), all the mage would need to do is perceive astrally.

There are a few issues with your interpretation of Improved Invisibility...

1) Your version does not match the description of Indirect Illusions.

2) You may not be able to see anything using normal or low-light vision if
you are the target of the spell. This makes it a very powerful offensive
spell, since the target cannot resist the spell being cast, and it is hard
to resist the effects given the low target number.

3) Your version would grant some protection if not immunity to lasers and
flash attacks.

4) Warping light violates one of the Limits of Sorcery (MITS, p. 47):
"Sorcery cannot alter the fabric of the space/time continuum."

Items 2 and 3 above were probably not intended by the authors, otherwise
they should have been mentioned in BIG PRINT somewhere.

Do you believe that your interpretation is what the authors of SR3
intended, or is it just the way you plan to run Improved Invisibility in
your game?
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Damian Sharp)
Subject: Invisibility by the book
Date: Sun Feb 17 23:55:02 2002
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Bo Johnson wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 2/17/02 -0800, Andrew Murdoch wrote:
> >Haviong a mage in my group with that spell, my interpretation is that
> >invisibility does indeed work on the mind like a "Someone-Else's
> >Problem" Field (Thank you, Douglas Adams), whereas Improved Invisibility
> >warps light around the subject to make it physically invisible (and thus
> >undetectable by technological sensors.). Someone naturally pointed out
> >that anyone under the influence of Improved Invisibility would be unable
> >to see, as no light would reach them, but I countered that the spell in
> >question WAS created by a magically active person. In order to get around
> >this (somewhat), all the mage would need to do is perceive astrally.
>
> There are a few issues with your interpretation of Improved Invisibility...
>
> 1) Your version does not match the description of Indirect Illusions.
>
> 2) You may not be able to see anything using normal or low-light vision if
> you are the target of the spell. This makes it a very powerful offensive
> spell, since the target cannot resist the spell being cast, and it is hard
> to resist the effects given the low target number.
>
> 3) Your version would grant some protection if not immunity to lasers and
> flash attacks.
>
> 4) Warping light violates one of the Limits of Sorcery (MITS, p. 47):
> "Sorcery cannot alter the fabric of the space/time continuum."

As a suggestion for a slight modification to the 'bending light' method,
it could create an illusion that light is bending. Since light still
strikes the subject in reality, they would be able to see, it would
provide no protection to light-based, the fabric of time/space would be
maintained, and it would provide something to disbelieve.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Damian Sharp of Real Life, College Graduate |
| Zauviir Seldszar of Wildlands, Scribe of House Maritym |
| Xavier Kindric of Shandlin's Ferry, member of Valindar |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An explosion doesn't usually display the best parenting skills"

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility by the book, 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!