Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Wagemage wagemage@**.rr.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:23:13 -0400
I have a question about invisibility, I know it's been done to death in
the past, and if this is an old discussion please point me to the log and I
will read it there.

I have a mage in a group who was captured along with his pals. The NPCs
being magic conscious, put a bag on his head, nothing special, just a nylon
camping bag.
He wanted to know if he could cast invisibility on the bag or perhaps
himself and thus be able to see through it.
Here's what I came up with, no. He has improved invis, which I ruled
warps light around the aura of the caster (or target). Thus he could be
invisible, but still could not see through the bag. Standard mental
invisibility wouldn't work since he would just see what he thought was on
the outside of the bag (since it only affects the viewer's perceptions not
the world).
However, I wasn't exactly sure how to answer his question of casting
invisibilty ON the bag. Would this work? I ruled no (would have wrecked my
plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't. Any
ideas?
Message no. 2
From: Sinabian@***.com Sinabian@***.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 23:28:22 EDT
In a message dated 10/1/00 9:24:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
wagemage@**.rr.com writes:


> I ruled no (would have wrecked my
> plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't.

::rolls around laughing:: Well if worse comes to worse you could always try
"because I said so!" I guess! LoL!

"I object!"
"On what grounds?"
"It is DEVASTATING to my case!"
Message no. 3
From: Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:25:03 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wagemage" <wagemage@**.rr.com>

> However, I wasn't exactly sure how to answer his question of casting
> invisibilty ON the bag. Would this work? I ruled no (would have wrecked my
> plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't. Any
> ideas?

I have no idea, personally, but I think saying "No" was a good spot...
though if he knew a Manipulation version of Invisibility, I would let him.
Message no. 4
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 07:40:42 -0600
Wagemage wrote:
> I have a question about invisibility, I know it's been done to death in
>the past, and if this is an old discussion please point me to the log and I
>will read it there.

Oddly enough, I think this is the first time I've seen this one :)

> I have a mage in a group who was captured along with his pals. The NPCs
>being magic conscious, put a bag on his head, nothing special, just a nylon
>camping bag.
> He wanted to know if he could cast invisibility on the bag or perhaps
>himself and thus be able to see through it.

I would rule that he couldn't cast any spell on the bag because he couldn't
see it (it's awfully dark in there). If the bag did let some light in I
would allow him to target it, but with a severe penalty because he wouldn't
be able to focus on the bag (to close to his eyes).

On the off chance he managed to cast invisibility on the bag (the bag let
some light in and he succeeded despite negative modifiers) I would allow
him to see through the bag. My view of invisibility is that the spell
creates an illusion for the perceiver. In the mage's case the spell would
create an illusion of the environment outside the bag. Having said that, I
would not allow the mage to target anybody/thing outside the bag, because
he isn't really seeing them with his own eyes, but seeing them through the
eyes of the invisibility/illusion spell.

Yes, in my game a mage could cast invisibility on that mirrored
windshield. The mage wouldn't then be able to target the occupants, but
his street sam buddy could have a field day.


To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."
Message no. 5
From: credstic credstic@******.net
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:21:01 -0600
> However, I wasn't exactly sure how to answer his question of casting
>invisibilty ON the bag. Would this work? I ruled no (would have wrecked my
>plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't. Any
>ideas?

Invisibility is an LOS spell, hence I would have opted to make it a LOS
ruling, bag on head, your blind and hence can't see the mask to turn it
invisible.
Message no. 6
From: Wagemage wagemage@**.rr.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:25 -0400
>> I have a mage in a group who was captured along with his pals. The
NPCs
>>being magic conscious, put a bag on his head, nothing special, just a
nylon
>>camping bag.
>> He wanted to know if he could cast invisibility on the bag or perhaps
>>himself and thus be able to see through it.
>
>I would rule that he couldn't cast any spell on the bag because he couldn't
>see it (it's awfully dark in there). If the bag did let some light in I
>would allow him to target it, but with a severe penalty because he wouldn't
>be able to focus on the bag (to close to his eyes).

I tend to disagree (to my own detriment in this case), all he COULD see
was the bag. And it wasn't really tight or anything (since they didn't want
him to suffocate).

>On the off chance he managed to cast invisibility on the bag (the bag let
>some light in and he succeeded despite negative modifiers) I would allow
>him to see through the bag. My view of invisibility is that the spell
>creates an illusion for the perceiver. In the mage's case the spell would
>create an illusion of the environment outside the bag. Having said that, I
>would not allow the mage to target anybody/thing outside the bag, because
>he isn't really seeing them with his own eyes, but seeing them through the
>eyes of the invisibility/illusion spell.

This was a thought we considered too. If he cast the regular invis spell
he would have seen what he ~expected~ to see outside the bag, based on his
own expectations. This brought up a whole discussion of magical,
self-controlled virtual reality, since you are making the world appear as
you "expect" it to. Very odd.

However, in this case all he had was *Improved* invisibility, which is a
physical effect so the whole magical VR thing was moot in this case
(although still an interesting thought problem).

Basically I told him no because it threw off my plans and would set a
dangerous precedent. But I have no real reason why, not that I need one, I'm
the GM.
Message no. 7
From: vocenoctum@****.com vocenoctum@****.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:05:45 -0400
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:22:25 -0400 "Wagemage" <wagemage@**.rr.com> writes:
> >I would rule that he couldn't cast any spell on the bag because he
> couldn't
> >see it (it's awfully dark in there). If the bag did let some light
> in I
> >would allow him to target it, but with a severe penalty because he
> wouldn't
> >be able to focus on the bag (to close to his eyes).
>
> I tend to disagree (to my own detriment in this case), all he
> COULD see
> was the bag. And it wasn't really tight or anything (since they
> didn't want
> him to suffocate).
>

assuming the bag wasn't transparent, he couldn't see anything because of
the darkness. If he saw it, he'd be able to cast spells on it.


> This was a thought we considered too. If he cast the regular
> invis spell
> he would have seen what he ~expected~ to see outside the bag, based
> on his
> own expectations. This brought up a whole discussion of magical,
> self-controlled virtual reality, since you are making the world
> appear as
> you "expect" it to. Very odd.
>

Nyah, magic is smart, it can figure it out. After all, you can sustain
invisibility after the target leaves LOS.

It's not like the time I windered about making the illusion of a mirror
:-)

> However, in this case all he had was *Improved* invisibility,
> which is a
> physical effect so the whole magical VR thing was moot in this case
> (although still an interesting thought problem).
>

The problem being, that it is still an illusion, it's just a physical
illusion. It's not bending light, it's creating the illusion of the
object not being there. Or, as the discussion came on AOL, it's creating
the illusion that the object is clear/transparent.

> Basically I told him no because it threw off my plans and would
> set a
> dangerous precedent. But I have no real reason why, not that I need
> one, I'm
> the GM.

hmm, while I don't mind GM calls, I don't like "I'm the GM" as an answer.
It's fine to keep a game moving, but...
(and,yes, I am a GM and player)
Oh well, that's another thread entirely :-)


Vocenoctum
<http://members.xoom.com/vocenoctum>;

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Message no. 8
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:52:47 -0500
From: "credstic" <credstic@******.net>
Subject: Re: Invisibility question...


> > However, I wasn't exactly sure how to answer his question of casting
> >invisibilty ON the bag. Would this work? I ruled no (would have wrecked
my
> >plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't. Any
> >ideas?
>
> Invisibility is an LOS spell, hence I would have opted to make it a LOS
> ruling, bag on head, your blind and hence can't see the mask to turn it
> invisible.

For whatever reason, whenever the question of "invisibility" comes up, I
always skim the replies and comments and just see if anyone can get the joke
to this.

"LOS" means uninterrupted LOS by any object with perceptual ability with
"Line Of Sight". It is a physical spell (Improved Version is anyway) and
thus can "make invisible" from any individuals visual perceptions. This
includes cameras, drones, etc.... It does not stop the sensors on a drone
from picking up the sound of footsteps (remember, we're dealing with
integrated sensor systems, not sensory types). It also means that although
another character may put a bag over his/her head in order to "stop their
LOS between them and the caster", it does not mean that the individual is
not effected. All related visual perception ranges are influenced by the
spell. If it isn't visually related, then it isn't effected.

Hence, the magician *can* make a bag invisible using either variation on
this spell, and the bag will become invisible to anyone who then may have a
*chance* to perceive it (penetrate the illusion).

It does *not* mean that the caster is trying to cast the spell upon all
individuals that are in his/her Line of Sight (images of games with mages
trying to turn whole neighborhoods invisible come to mind) in order to make
them *not perceive* something. In this case, this is more akin to the
Disregard spell than the invisibility spell(s).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Some)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)
Message no. 9
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:46:39 +0200
According to vocenoctum@****.com, at 22:05 on 2 Oct 00, the word on the
street was...

> assuming the bag wasn't transparent, he couldn't see anything because of
> the darkness. If he saw it, he'd be able to cast spells on it.

It was a nylon bag. Thin nylon, like most other thin fabrics, is
transparent enough to let light in so that you can see at least the fabric
itself when you hold it close to your face.

Unless this was a bag which the bad guys selected specifically because it
was light-proof, or there was little or no light on the other side of the
bag to come into it, I'd say the magician should be able to cast spells on
the bag easily enough.

The best way, IMO, to find a solution to this sort of problem is to try it
out yourself. Browse around your house a bit until you find something
resembiling the item causing trouble, and set up the situation as in the
game. IOW, find a nylon bag and put it over the player's head (being
careful not to suffocate said player, of course :) or hold it against your
eye, if it's too small. If you can see the bag, so could the character --
and thus cast spells on it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It was a warning shot that missed.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X+ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: Matt bs0u0103@*********.ac.uk
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:26:09 +0100
At 11:23 PM 10/1/00 -0400, some dumb bastard (no offence) wrote:
> I have a question about invisibility, I know it's been done to death in
>the past, and if this is an old discussion please point me to the log and I
>will read it there.
>
> I have a mage in a group who was captured along with his pals. The NPCs
>being magic conscious, put a bag on his head, nothing special, just a nylon
>camping bag.
> He wanted to know if he could cast invisibility on the bag or perhaps
>himself and thus be able to see through it.
> Here's what I came up with, no. He has improved invis, which I ruled
>warps light around the aura of the caster (or target). Thus he could be
>invisible, but still could not see through the bag. Standard mental
>invisibility wouldn't work since he would just see what he thought was on
>the outside of the bag (since it only affects the viewer's perceptions not
>the world).
> However, I wasn't exactly sure how to answer his question of casting
>invisibilty ON the bag. Would this work? I ruled no (would have wrecked my
>plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't. Any
>ideas?

If you look logically, he can cast the spell on the bag, since he can see
it (well if it's dark he can feel it so would still work I think!) He
casts the spell, but he has to cast it so it affects him, and if he's a
good mage it'll be dificult.
Message no. 11
From: dbuehrer@******.carl.org dbuehrer@******.carl.org
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:06:38 -0600
Here's a question: Do invisible objects block LOS?

In the case of basic invisibility I would rule yes. This, IMO, creates an
illusion in the caster's mind. So if a caster is trying to target
something on the other side of an invisible wall, he isn't really seeing
his target, but an illusion of the target.

In the case of improved invisibility I would also rule yes. Improved
invisibility creates physical illusions IMO. In the above example the
spell would be replacing the wall with a physical illusion of whatever is
behind it. The caster still isn't targeting the actual target, but a
physical illusion of the target.

To Life,
-Graht
http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
--
"Warm nights, good food, kindred spirits....great life!"
Message no. 12
From: kawaii trunks@********.org
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:27:03 -0400
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 10:06 AM


>
>
> Here's a question: Do invisible objects block LOS?
>
> In the case of basic invisibility I would rule yes. This, IMO, creates an
> illusion in the caster's mind. So if a caster is trying to target
> something on the other side of an invisible wall, he isn't really seeing
> his target, but an illusion of the target.
>

It depends on how "smart" the spell is. With the example of an invisible
wall, how is the person *actually* seeing past the wall? Does he just see a
"empty" space, and doesn't notice movement behind the wall? Since, he isn't
actually seeing past the wall, he wouldn't see things behind it, even though
the spell is making him think that he sees past the wall? You see the
problem with invisible objects? ;)

If that is true, then I would agree with you.

> In the case of improved invisibility I would also rule yes. Improved
> invisibility creates physical illusions IMO. In the above example the
> spell would be replacing the wall with a physical illusion of whatever is
> behind it. The caster still isn't targeting the actual target, but a
> physical illusion of the target.
>

IIRC, improved invisibility physically bends the light, however, they have
always said that magical sight, which I would imagine this qualifies as, can
not be used to qualify for LOS. IE: no clairvoyance. :) So I agree with you,
but for different reasons. :)

> To Life,
> -Graht

Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 13
From: Andrew Murdoch toreador@***.bc.ca
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
- dbuehrer@******.carl.org <08:06/3-Oct-2000>

> Here's a question: Do invisible objects block LOS?
>
> In the case of basic invisibility I would rule yes. This, IMO, creates an
> illusion in the caster's mind. So if a caster is trying to target
> something on the other side of an invisible wall, he isn't really seeing
> his target, but an illusion of the target.
>
> In the case of improved invisibility I would also rule yes. Improved
> invisibility creates physical illusions IMO. In the above example the
> spell would be replacing the wall with a physical illusion of whatever is
> behind it. The caster still isn't targeting the actual target, but a
> physical illusion of the target.

The basic Invisibility I'd agree with... Not so the improved. How would
you create a physical Illusion? I rule that the way Improved Invisibility
works is that it phsyically warps light around the subject, so the viewer
is in fact seeing what is beyond the invisible object, which is why the
spell works on technological sensors. (Of course, you also get Invisible
Man syndrome, which means if the invisible thing is a person, they're
in total darkness, but then, the spell was created with mages in mind, who
can compensate somewhat with Astral perception).

My .02 nuyen.

--
Hail, Centurion!
Andrew C. Murdoch
toreador@***.bc.ca
http://members.xoom.com/corvisraven
Message no. 14
From: Phil Smith phil_urbanhell@*******.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 17:16:31 GMT
>From: "Wagemage" <wagemage@**.rr.com>
> > My view of invisibility is that the spell
> >creates an illusion for the perceiver. In the mage's case the spell
>would
> >create an illusion of the environment outside the bag. Having said that,
>I
> >would not allow the mage to target anybody/thing outside the bag, because
> >he isn't really seeing them with his own eyes, but seeing them through
>the
> >eyes of the invisibility/illusion spell.
>
> This was a thought we considered too. If he cast the regular invis
>spell
>he would have seen what he ~expected~ to see outside the bag, based on his
>own expectations. This brought up a whole discussion of magical,
>self-controlled virtual reality, since you are making the world appear as
>you "expect" it to. Very odd.

I always think of Invisibility as bending light so that people see around
what the caster wants. Therefore in the bag the mage simply bends the light
from outside the bag to his eyes. Would you refuse a mage the right to cast
a spell on somone on the grounds that an invisible guy is standing between
them?

Phil

Let us assume we have a can opener.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Message no. 15
From: NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:26:39 -0500
From: <dbuehrer@******.carl.org>
Subject: Re: Invisibility question...


> Here's a question: Do invisible objects block LOS?
>
> In the case of basic invisibility I would rule yes. This, IMO, creates an
> illusion in the caster's mind. So if a caster is trying to target
> something on the other side of an invisible wall, he isn't really seeing
> his target, but an illusion of the target.

I could *almost* buy this as an excuse.

> In the case of improved invisibility I would also rule yes. Improved
> invisibility creates physical illusions IMO. In the above example the
> spell would be replacing the wall with a physical illusion of whatever is
> behind it. The caster still isn't targeting the actual target, but a
> physical illusion of the target.

But not this one. Perhaps if the collective group would simply change the
name around and into "transparency" and then remember that in SR3 the
"aura"
argument has apparently been tossed out the proverbial door. And no, the
spell is *not* replacing the wall (using the above example) with an illusion
of whatever is behind it. It is rendering said wall "transparent" or
"invisible". Its not the same thing as the "illusion of a mirror so I can
see around the corner" discussion.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry (Webmaster)
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)
Message no. 16
From: Bira ra002585@**.unicamp.br
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 21:42:30 GMT
> I have a mage in a group who was captured along with his pals. The NPCs
> being magic conscious, put a bag on his head, nothing special, just a nylon
> camping bag.
> He wanted to know if he could cast invisibility on the bag or perhaps
> himself and thus be able to see through it.
> Here's what I came up with, no. He has improved invis, which I ruled
> warps light around the aura of the caster (or target). Thus he could be
> invisible, but still could not see through the bag. Standard mental
> invisibility wouldn't work since he would just see what he thought was on
> the outside of the bag (since it only affects the viewer's perceptions not
> the world).
> However, I wasn't exactly sure how to answer his question of casting
> invisibilty ON the bag. Would this work? I ruled no (would have wrecked my
> plans), but couldn't come up with any real reason why it wouldn't. Any
> ideas?
>
You needn't get that academic. I'd say he can't cast the spell
on the bag because it's too dark in there for he to see it! :). However,
if enough light filters through the nylon that he can see the bag around
his head, he could cast the spell _on the bag_, and make it invisible.
Of course, then everyone else would know he did this, and could proceed
to beat the mage to a pulp.


Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.cjb.net
ICQ#4055455
Message no. 17
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
<snipt!(TM)>
> I tend to disagree (to my own detriment in this
case), all he COULD see was the bag. And it wasn't
really tight or anything (since they didn't want him
to suffocate).

Fair GMing.

<snipt!(TM)>
> However, in this case all he had was *Improved*
invisibility, which is a physical effect so the whole
magical VR thing was moot in this case (although still
an interesting thought problem).
>
> Basically I told him no because it threw off my
plans and would set a dangerous precedent. But I have
no real reason why, not that I need one, I'm the GM.

On the off chance you want my input, WM, here's what I
would have done. Firstly, I would have allowed him to
cast the spell. Personally, I think that being in
contact with something is just as good as seeing it -
you don't have to have your eyes open (or have enough
light in this case) to cast a spell on something
you're touching. But that's another can of worms
altogether.

Secondly, I would have said that the basic
invisibility spell wouldn't have worked as he wanted,
simply because the bag is ALL the mage could "see", so
if he removed it from his mental picture of the area,
all he would have see would be a lot of black.

Thirdly, I would have said, "Improved Invisibility?
Sure, that works. Suddenly the bag's invisible.
Suddenly everything goes black. What happened? Oh,
your closest captor saw the bag go invisible and
thumped you across the back of the head. You're going
to have a MASSIVE headache when - and if - you wake
up." <egmg>

There are always - okay, usually - ways around
situations that are disruptive to a plot without
having to simply outlaw the action. And in this case,
it even makes sense. :)

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

.sig Sauer

Can you SMELL what THE DOC' is COOKIN'!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Message no. 18
From: Bira ra002585@**.unicamp.br
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 22:42:24 GMT
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:06:38 -0600
dbuehrer@******.carl.org wrote:

>
>
> Here's a question: Do invisible objects block LOS?
>
> In the case of basic invisibility I would rule yes. This, IMO, creates an
> illusion in the caster's mind. So if a caster is trying to target
> something on the other side of an invisible wall, he isn't really seeing
> his target, but an illusion of the target.
>
> In the case of improved invisibility I would also rule yes. Improved
> invisibility creates physical illusions IMO. In the above example the
> spell would be replacing the wall with a physical illusion of whatever is
> behind it. The caster still isn't targeting the actual target, but a
> physical illusion of the target.

Hmm... Again I say that's complicating things a bit. An
Invisibility spell (either one) does just that - makes the target
invisible.

It doesn't cover it with images of what's on the other side.
That's Camouflage, or ruthenium. If you want an explanation with
somewhat more "academic" terms, Invisibility "erases" the target from
the light spectrum. To your eyes (and your camera's lenses too, in the
physical version), the target is no longer there.

Of course to all the other "non-sight" senses, it is still
there, and if you shoot the target through an invisible concrete wall,
you better use a big gun.


> To Life,
> -Graht
> http://www.users.uswest.net/~abaker3
>

Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.cjb.net
ICQ#4055455
Message no. 19
From: Keith Duthie psycho@*********.co.nz
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:01:17 +1300 (NZDT)
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Bira wrote:

> You needn't get that academic. I'd say he can't cast the spell
> on the bag because it's too dark in there for he to see it! :). However,
> if enough light filters through the nylon that he can see the bag around
> his head, he could cast the spell _on the bag_, and make it invisible.
> Of course, then everyone else would know he did this, and could proceed
> to beat the mage to a pulp.
I'd say that he could cast invisibility on the bag if he could see it, and
make it invisible, but that he couldn't cast any mana based spells because
he doesn't have LOS on the astral. I'd be a bit iffy on physical spells,
too.

--
Understanding is a three edged sword. Do you *want* to get the point?
http://www.albatross.co.nz/~psycho/ O- -><-
Standard disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this message are unlikely to
be mine, let alone anybody elses...
Message no. 20
From: Bira ra002585@**.unicamp.br
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:57:25 GMT
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:01:17 +1300 (NZDT)
Keith Duthie <psycho@*********.co.nz> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Bira wrote:
>
> > You needn't get that academic. I'd say he can't cast the spell
> > on the bag because it's too dark in there for he to see it! :). However,
> > if enough light filters through the nylon that he can see the bag around
> > his head, he could cast the spell _on the bag_, and make it invisible.
> > Of course, then everyone else would know he did this, and could proceed
> > to beat the mage to a pulp.
> I'd say that he could cast invisibility on the bag if he could see it, and
> make it invisible, but that he couldn't cast any mana based spells because
> he doesn't have LOS on the astral. I'd be a bit iffy on physical spells,
> too.

The astral connection bit got lost in time after SR 3rd Edition
was released... Now you just need to see the target in the physical
plane (and touch will do, too).



Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.cjb.net
ICQ#4055455
Message no. 21
From: Cole, Wade A. wcole@********.com
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:09:48 -0500
[/quote]
The astral connection bit got lost in time after SR 3rd Edition
was released... Now you just need to see the target in the physical
plane (and touch will do, too).
[/end quote]

I think it should just be said that the caster must be directly
aware (not through spells or devices with the notable exception of ritual
sorcery and optical imagery) of the exact location of the target in relation
to himself.
------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is from the law firm
of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC and may be privileged, confidential, and protected
from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any further
disclosure or use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think that
you have received this e-mail message in error, please delete the e-mail,
and either e-mail the sender at the above address or notify us at our
telephone number 312-372-1121 (Chicago) or 202-466-6300 (Washington, D.C.).
Message no. 22
From: Bira ra002585@**.unicamp.br
Subject: Invisibility question...
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:16:48 GMT
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:09:48 -0500
"Cole, Wade A." <wcole@********.com> wrote:

> [/quote]
> The astral connection bit got lost in time after SR 3rd Edition
> was released... Now you just need to see the target in the physical
> plane (and touch will do, too).
> [/end quote]
>
> I think it should just be said that the caster must be directly
> aware (not through spells or devices with the notable exception of ritual
> sorcery and optical imagery) of the exact location of the target in relation
> to himself.

That's an overgeneralization (is there such a word ? :) ). It's
a bit better this way: touch range spells require you to "lay on hands"
on the target, to really touch him/her/it with any part of your body (he
he he :) ).
LOS spells require you to be seeing your target with your eyes
-- other spells and cameras won't work, but optical binoculars and
cybereyes will. You can also cast them by touching the target, but you
don't need to do it (and considering the nature of most LOS spells, it's
safer to cast them from a distance).

Ritual sorcery can ignore all this, as long as you have
something that belonged to the target.


Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://members.xoom.com/slbr
http://www.terravista.pt/Nazare/2729
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.cjb.net
ICQ#4055455

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility question..., 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!