Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:37:02 -0500
Bull[SMTP:chaos@*****.COM] wrote:
>(Someone else wrote:)
>>One other related thought, is an invisible person still invisible
>>when he is standing in falling snow? :-)
>>
>Well, that depends on your definition of Invisible...
>
>Yes, he's invisible... But someone might notice a patch of air where the
>snow isn't going through, and where the snow is landing and melting...
>
>Plus, standing in snow tends to leave tracks...:):):)

I'd have to say (given my take on Invisibility) that the answer depends on
how the invisibility is accomplished.

Invisibility(The mana one): You are not going to be perceived by any of the
guards who come along. You will be invisible. Your tracks won't be. This
may not matter if it is still snowing. Furthermore, the guards will have a
strong disinclination to notice the tracks until you have left the area.

Improved Invisibility(The Physical one): Much the same, except the guards
would not have the disinclination to notice the tracks.

The Bandersnatch's light-warping power and similar spells(Manipulation
spells, mainly): These effects would be treated as Imp. Invis.

Other kinds of adaptive coloration, including Ruthenium: The snow will show
on the "invisible" person, and cannot be hidden, as the coloration change
is beneath the snow.

Spirit Concealability: Not only won't you show up, but your tracks won't
appear either.

This has to do with the way I have these work.
Mana-based invis. causes any observer to ignore you as though you are part
of the environment. They see what they would expect to see there. (If they
don't expect to see anything there, they would ignore you, and not see
anything.)

Physical invisibility is a magical holo-camoflage. The background is
projected at an outside observer.

Light-warping bends the photons around the subject, rendering much the same
effect.

Skin-based adaptive coloration is ineffective, because the snow would
accumulate over top of the adaptive coloration, rendering it useless.

Spirit Concealment causes the subject to appear as part of the natural
terrain. I think that the spirit can "clean up" anomalies such as
foot-prints.



From a Gateway 2000 manual:
Sucking all the chips off your system board with an industrial strength
wet/dry vac is not covered by your warranty
mailto:jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu
Message no. 2
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:13:00 MST
>Invisibility(The mana one): You are not going to be perceived by any of the
>guards who come along. You will be invisible. Your tracks won't be. This
>may not matter if it is still snowing. Furthermore, the guards will have a
>strong disinclination to notice the tracks until you have left the area.

>Mana-based invis. causes any observer to ignore you as though you are part
>of the environment. They see what they would expect to see there. (If they
>don't expect to see anything there, they would ignore you, and not see
>anything.)

That makes sense, and the spell description says they subject becomes
invisible. But how do the perception modifiers work? What does the guard
notice that gives away the invisibility? What does he see if he sees you?
How does a spell with one success compare to 6 successes?

You make it sound like all or nothing, you are there or are completely
invisible. The spell says you are invisible, but if the guard notices the
invisible person, he can still attack, with his target #'s modified by the
same perception modifier. He isn't penalized with a blind (+8 I think)
modifier.

A weak invisiblity spell (1 or 2 successes) has a +2 or +4 perception
modifier. Compared to the other perception mods, this isn't very big. For
example, if you are doing something obvious (-4 to perception) with an
invisiblity spell up (+4 to perception) you break even! What does this
mean?

In the module Ivy&Chrome, there is a part where something invisible attacks
you, and in an illustration in the module, it shows that something sort of
half faded out, like a ghost. This is how I always thought it worked. I
don't think it would cover up tracks you leave behind or items you dropped
once you pass a few feet away.

But I am coming back to the game after a few years, and my magical theory
skill is a little rusty.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
Probably to a shark, about the funniest thing there is is a wounded seal,
trying to swim to shore, because WHERE DOES HE THINK HE'S GOING?!
-- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
Message no. 3
From: "Falin \"Dark-Claw\"" <jhyatt@****.WINCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:39:17 -0500
> From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
> Subject: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
> Date: January 7, 1997 2:13 PM
>
> A weak invisiblity spell (1 or 2 successes) has a +2 or +4 perception
> modifier. Compared to the other perception mods, this isn't very big.
For
> example, if you are doing something obvious (-4 to perception) with an
> invisiblity spell up (+4 to perception) you break even! What does this
> mean?
>
> In the module Ivy&Chrome, there is a part where something invisible
attacks
> you, and in an illustration in the module, it shows that something sort
of
> half faded out, like a ghost. This is how I always thought it worked.
I
> don't think it would cover up tracks you leave behind or items you
dropped
> once you pass a few feet away.

The invisibility spell by stating that it is a mana based spell in turn
tells us that it effects the person trying to percieve the invisible
person. The spell effects the persons mind and causes him to disbilieve
his own senses, that is why the other person will not notice tracks but
because the spell only effects visible light the adjustments also take
into account that the perciever is also listening and could hear the
character, that is why invisiblity is not total.
The Improved Invisibility spell be description causes the light aroud the
person to bend making them invisible by physical means the only problem
with this is that the caster will leave noticable tracks and clues because
the perciever does not have the distrust of his senses, Therefore the
spell is only minorly improved.


>>>>>[ For all that is Good there is Evil,
For all that is Normal there is Abnormal,
For all that you Beleive is False,
For all that you Know are Lies,
For this you will DIE ]<<<<<
-Falin "Dark-Claw" <00:00:00/01-21-57>

jhyatt@********.com
jhyatt@******.net
Message no. 4
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:02:00 MST
> The invisibility spell by stating that it is a mana based spell in
>turn
>tells us that it effects the person trying to percieve the invisible
>person. The spell effects the persons mind and causes him to disbilieve
>his own senses, that is why the other person will not notice tracks but
>because the spell only effects visible light the adjustments also take
>into account that the perciever is also listening and could hear the
>character, that is why invisiblity is not total.

That sounds like good logic. What I was thinking was that the mind is
tricked, but not completely. How completely depends on how many successes
the spell caster has acheived. The more successes, the more the image fades
from the mind of the perciever.

Maybe I'm missing something, but these two facts of the spell seem to
contradict each other: total visual invisibility and a modifier to you
visual perception. If the invisiblity is total, you would need only one
success and there wouldn't be a visual perception test possible.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com
If you ever go temporarily insane, don't shoot somebody, like a lot of
people
do. Instead, try to get some weeding done, because you'd really be
surprised.
-- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
Message no. 5
From: "Falin \"Dark-Claw\"" <jhyatt@****.WINCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:35:04 -0500
> From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but these two facts of the spell seem to
> contradict each other: total visual invisibility and a modifier to you
> visual perception. If the invisiblity is total, you would need only one
> success and there wouldn't be a visual perception test possible.

The spell does mention Total Visual Invisibility and in the rules for
perception tests it doesn't state that the role is based entirely of
vision actually it gives adjustments for all the different senses, so the
character could be totally visually invisibile but because of the
characters action they can still be percieve by the percievers other
senses. You can tell where someone is in the dark by the sounds of them
walking the rustling of their clothes, etc. Just think of this as if the
perciever were suddenly blind they can still use thier other senses and
sometimes they can use them at better then normal levels.

>>>>>[ The only thing that all fear is Knowledge ]<<<<<
-Falin "Dark-Claw" <00:00:00/01-21-57>

jhyatt@********.com
jhyatt@******.net
Message no. 6
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:28:15 -0500
Falin "Dark-Claw"[SMTP:jhyatt@****.WINCOM.NET] wrote:
> The Improved Invisibility spell be description causes the light
aroud the
>person to bend making them invisible by physical means the only problem
>with this is that the caster will leave noticable tracks and clues because
>the perciever does not have the distrust of his senses, Therefore the
>spell is only minorly improved.

Actually, the Imp Invis spell does not bend light around you, it projects
light "through" you. A minor, but important difference. IMHO of course.
But bending the light around you is an actual environmental change. You
could also justify damage reduction from laser attacks if you were running
this spell and someone honked off at you with a laser. Some other minor
things are made easier to explain if the spell projects an illusion rather
that bending light. For example, why does it only work on visible light. If
it bent the light beams, why not bend thermo? If the spell is a
"projection" it cannot "erase" the body's own thermo signature. It
also
explains why a low-success-value spell is easier to spot: the spell didn't
cover up a shadow properly, etc.

I came up with a manipulation-based invisibility spell using the following
design sequence:

Manipulation Spell
Minor Physical Changes
M
Physical Spell
+1
Sustained Spell
+1
Touch Required
-1 S
Bonus Game Effect(General Target Modifier, +1 per 2 successes)
D

For a grand total of (F/2)+1 D (Or (F/2)+2S for the non-touch one.)
(For those of you who think the spell is too powerful, the original spell
design used Minor Environmental changes (Base drain S) and a
involved/Complex Discretionary effect, for a final code of +5D. Yikes! Mix
and match to taste.)
Description:
This spell is similar in effect to the Bandersnatch's adaptive coloration
power. It warps light energy (from the microwave to the high UV) around the
subject, rendering him nearly invisible to anything using light-based
sensing techniques. This spell has two advantages, and one disadvantage,
vis a vis the classic "Improved Invisibility" spell. First, it covers a
wider area of the spectrum, making the subject less visible to microwave
and non-visible light lasers. Secondly, it diffuses the subject's own
thermal signature into the general environment in such a way as to mask the
significant part of it. It's disadvantage, of course, is that the spell
produces its own distinct signature, as the warping of the light rays
produces a noticeable "shimmer" or diffraction pattern, in the air about
the subject, and in the throw of any light beams directed at the subject,
due to minute imprecisions in the redirection of the light rays. As the
amount of power used by the caster goes up, the redirections become more
precise, leading to better concealment.

(Side effects: The spell reduces the power of any laser attacks directed at
the subject by 1/2 the successes on the spell (i.e. the target modifier)
and the general modifier granted by the spell may not increase beyond +8.
If the perceiver has any aural improvements, this modifier may not
completely apply. Furthermore, if the perceiver is not a primarily
sight-using critter, the invisibility may not apply at all. (NB, the second
sentence should apply to ALL physical illusions with no aural component.))


From a Gateway 2000 manual:
Sucking all the chips off your system board with an industrial strength
wet/dry vac is not covered by your warranty
mailto:jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu
Message no. 7
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:41:58 +1100
Greetings,

Has anyone out there seen the manga production "Ghost in the Shell"? In
it, they use suits which are similar to ruthelium polymer suits.

I thought it was interesting to see just for that. It did bring up a
point though - how much damage can a ruthe. suit take before it starts to
malfunction. I don't have ShadowTech with me at the moment, so can anyone
clarify this point?

If there are no rules, I'm thinking of using a combination of damage
coding (similar to blowing windows out of cars) and also the damaging
armour rules, though neither seem to fit well.

Shaman
Message no. 8
From: Tim Cooper <tpcooper@***.CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:24:12 -0800
On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Calvin Hsieh wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Has anyone out there seen the manga production "Ghost in the Shell"? In
> it, they use suits which are similar to ruthelium polymer suits.

Sorry, no..

>
> I thought it was interesting to see just for that. It did bring up a
> point though - how much damage can a ruthe. suit take before it starts to
> malfunction. I don't have ShadowTech with me at the moment, so can anyone
> clarify this point?
>
> If there are no rules, I'm thinking of using a combination of damage
> coding (similar to blowing windows out of cars) and also the damaging
> armour rules, though neither seem to fit well.
>
> Shaman
>

Well, the only thing that would happen (IMHO, of course) if you shot a
Ruth. suit would be a hole, however it you hit any of the sensors, or
power supply, you'd have a very marked reduction in capability.

Most of my players use ruthenium modified armor, so I'd imagine that I'd
figure system-damage when armor-damage/reduction is sustained. Although
one guy found out the hazards of taking an Acid Bolt (his suit worked
fine, or at least the SENSORS that weren't hit did...the polymer fabirc
was gone..).

I imagine that the stuff is like thick vinyl with connections to the
powerpack and sensors...just treat it as such..

You could also just start reducing it's perception modifier (bonus)
depending on how extensive the damage is (one round, versus a mini-gun
burst, versus that hellblast)

<just a few random thoughts..>

~Tim
Message no. 9
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:38:30 -0500
>> From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but these two facts of the spell seem to
>> contradict each other: total visual invisibility and a modifier to you
>> visual perception. If the invisiblity is total, you would need only one
>> success and there wouldn't be a visual perception test possible.
(I missed the original post)

Nope. What the (physical) invisibility spell does is cover you with an
illusion of what is behind you (magically.) But this illusion might not be
perfect. So you have an outline, or a shadow, of a wavering blur. All of
these effects still grant you partial invisibility, but you can still be
targeted visually.

If you have seen either of the predator movies, think about the
invisibility effect in that. That kind of thing is how you could only have
a +2 or +4 target number penalty.


From a Gateway 2000 manual:
Sucking all the chips off your system board with an industrial strength
wet/dry vac is not covered by your warranty
mailto:jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu
Message no. 10
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:36:22 +1100
On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tim Cooper wrote:

> Well, the only thing that would happen (IMHO, of course) if you shot a
> Ruth. suit would be a hole, however it you hit any of the sensors, or
> power supply, you'd have a very marked reduction in capability.
>
> Most of my players use ruthenium modified armor, so I'd imagine that I'd
> figure system-damage when armor-damage/reduction is sustained. Although
> one guy found out the hazards of taking an Acid Bolt (his suit worked
> fine, or at least the SENSORS that weren't hit did...the polymer fabirc
> was gone..).
>
> I imagine that the stuff is like thick vinyl with connections to the
> powerpack and sensors...just treat it as such..
>

Vinyl - doesn't breathe does it? Doesn't it get hot under there?

Shaman
Message no. 11
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:45:05 +0000
|Vinyl - doesn't breathe does it? Doesn't it get hot under there?

Sometimes it can get a bit sweaty, but it's not normally that bad...

Unless it's hot weather....
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ 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! >*SULK*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Calvin Hsieh <u2172778@*******.ACSU.UNSW.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:50:15 +1100
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Spike wrote:

> |Vinyl - doesn't breathe does it? Doesn't it get hot under there?
>
> Sometimes it can get a bit sweaty, but it's not normally that bad...
>
> Unless it's hot weather....

I was actually thinking about Static man or whatever he was called from
"The Tick". He was the guy who rubbed his feet along the ground and
zapped things. He wore this thick suit which prevented him from moving
other than shuffling, and he constantly fainted due to the heat generated.

Shaman
Message no. 13
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 01:07:11 +0000
|I was actually thinking about Static man or whatever he was called from
|"The Tick". He was the guy who rubbed his feet along the ground and
|zapped things. He wore this thick suit which prevented him from moving
|other than shuffling, and he constantly fainted due to the heat generated.

Well, he was wearing nylon shag-pile carpet! what would you expect...
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ 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! >*SULK*<|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 14
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:40:46 -0500
Calvin Hsieh wrote,
>
>Vinyl - doesn't breathe does it? Doesn't it get hot under there?
>
Yep, yep, it must be time to hit the club again. Oh, wrong vinyl outfit.
B>]#




Ancient cultures believed that names held great power, personal
names more so and they were guarded very closely. To protect themselves,
they answered to another name, because if another discovered their real
name, it could be used against them.
History repeats itself.
Welcome to the Digital Age.
I am MC23
Message no. 15
From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
Subject: Re: Invisibility (was RE: Snow)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:43:00 MST
>> From: Denzil Kruse <dkruse@***.AZ05.BULL.COM>
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but these two facts of the spell seem to
>> contradict each other: total visual invisibility and a modifier to you
>> visual perception. If the invisiblity is total, you would need only one
>> success and there wouldn't be a visual perception test possible.

> The spell does mention Total Visual Invisibility and in the rules
for
>perception tests it doesn't state that the role is based entirely of
>vision actually it gives adjustments for all the different senses, so the
>character could be totally visually invisibile but because of the
>characters action they can still be percieve by the percievers other
>senses. You can tell where someone is in the dark by the sounds of them
>walking the rustling of their clothes, etc. Just think of this as if the
>perciever were suddenly blind they can still use thier other senses and
>sometimes they can use them at better then normal levels.

So what you are saying is the invisibility spell completey hides you from
sight and applies the perception modifiers to the other 4 senses? Sound,
smell, taste, and touch? So if you make enough successes, you could shoot a
gun without a silencer, but the successes from your invisibility spell would
compensate for that? And you could even throw a grenade, but the
invisibility spell would cover the not only the sight of a wall coming down,
but the vibration and sound? You could walk up and give a guard a shit
sandwich, but he doesn't see you do it, and he loves the sandwich?

I guess I can see it working that way, which is more like a spirit's
concealment power: It makes not only you invisible but also covers the
indirect affects of your invisibility. So if you invisibly take a guard's
chair while he stands up for a moment, he will still think it is there and
try to sit down? So would he then fall or unconsciously hold himself in a
sitting position because he believes he is sitting on a chair? Or doesn't
he think, as someone else mentioned, the chair is not there for a good
reason and doesn't think twice about its absence? If you walk in the snow,
the spell covers your tracks?

Obviously, getting shot or thrown 20 feet by a grenade would have a huge
modifier to perception, but consider a force 6 spell with 6 dice from the
pool, and you will typically get 6 successes, which adds up to a +12
perception modifier. With a base of 4, your hapless security guard needs to
roll a 16 to perceive you. That leaves a lot of room for a hell of a party
before he notices anything.

There is one way I could justify the spell covering non-sight perception:
People are very visually oriented. They tend to believe their eyes more
than anything else. So if you hear a sound over in the corner, you dismiss
it because there is nothing there. But I don't think that is what the spell
is doing. I think that would be an modifier outside the influence of the
spell. If a guard has dealt with invisiblity before, he might not ignore a
sound with no apparent source. Another will.

IMO, being invisible from sight is enough for the spell. Masking the
sounds, smells, tastes, and touches you make and forcing people to
creatively explain evidence of your existence are a little much for such a
simple spell (target #4, each success doubles perception mod, low drain).
This sounds more like a control thoughts spell, which I think is much more
difficult to cast (no books with me here at work).

But it has been a while since I really sat down and read through the magic
rules.

Denzil Kruse
d.kruse@****.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Invisibility (was RE: Snow), 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!