Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:58:13 -0500
Couple of spell questions:

If an indirect illusion such as Improved Invisibility or Trid Phantasm
is being sustained and is then encountered by someone who was not
present at the time of casting do they get a normal resistance test?
i.e. Intelligence v.s. Force of spell, must generate as many or more
successes as the caster.

Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.

Finally, in an unrelated poll for the folks playing magicians. In 3rd
edition what spells do you still feel safe having at Force 1 or 2?

Any input, gripes, and general criticism are welcome.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson

--
Kenneth H. Vinson
Office 608/263-6733 :: kenneth.vinson@****.wisc.edu
Student Worker/Data Archivist :: UW Space Science & Engineering Center

1018 AOSS Bldg, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI, 53706 USA
Message no. 2
From: Kelson kelson13@*******.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:13:35 -0700
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:58:13 Kenneth Vinson wrote:

>If an indirect illusion such as Improved Invisibility or Trid Phantasm
>is being sustained and is then encountered by someone who was not
>present at the time of casting do they get a normal resistance test?
>i.e. Intelligence v.s. Force of spell, must generate as many or more
>successes as the caster.

According to SR2, yes. Not sure about SR3.

>Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
>the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
>sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
>also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
>invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.

Also yes in SR2. I presume this to be the same in SR3.

>Ken Vinson

Justin


--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Message no. 3
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Kenneth Vinson wrote:

> If an indirect illusion such as Improved Invisibility or Trid Phantasm
> is being sustained and is then encountered by someone who was not
> present at the time of casting do they get a normal resistance test?
> i.e. Intelligence v.s. Force of spell, must generate as many or more
> successes as the caster.

Yes, they get a normal resistance test. If I'm walking around
with an Invisibility spell sustained, it would be next to useless if it
only worked on folks who were around when it was cast, neh? :) Note that
in most cases, I only have someone bother to roll a resistance when it
becomes necessary.

> Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
> the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
> sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
> also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
> invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.

Ah, you've hit upon something here. No, they don't affect your
resistance test for the illusion itself (remember that "resistance" tests
are never modified, not even for wounds), but they may affect your target
numbers for other tests that are related to the illusion. The resistance
test just determines whether or not you're affected, not whether or not
you perceive the target (in the case of invisibility or disregard).
The thing to remember is that things like invisibility work
differently in SR3. Read spell descriptions *very* carefully when making
the transition. For instance, Invisibility is a resisted spell, but this
test determines only if the person is subject to the +8 modifier to detect
the invisible person. There isn't a "+2 per success" deal anymore.
Either the target fails the resistance test (and gets the +8 modifier), or
the target beats the magician (and is unaffected by the spell).

For instance, Mongo the Maginificent casts his patented
Invisibility spell. He rolls his Sorcery skill (a 5) plus 3 Spell Pool
dice, resulting in a 1,1,3,4,4,5,7, and 10. Note that at this point
someone with and Intelligence of 4 is screwed (as Mongo already has five
successes, and the target can only generate 4). Alas, Sam the Sentry
(with an Intelligence of 4) is hosed. Even if Mongo's spell was fairly
low force, Sam still couldn't get enough successes to counteract it.
So, Sam has a +8 to his target number modifiers when making
Perception tests to see Mongo. This is where the other plusses come in.
If Mongo is trying to sneak past Sam in broad daylight, then Sam only has
the +8 to his target numbers to see Mongo. If Mongo were sneaking past in
a dense fog, Sam would not only have the +8 associated with Mongo's
invisibility, but also the modifier for the fog tacked on.
At some point, however, common sense should prevail. For
instance, invisibility and total darkness achieve pretty much the same
effect. If I'm in a cave that is totally devoid of any light, it's no
harder to see you whether you're visible or invisible. Only when there's
some light to see by does invisibility gain you anything. As such, when
it comes to invisibility, I tend to take the +8 *in place of* the light
level modifiers.
For things like fog or glare, I add them on top of the light level
modifier. For glare, this reflects contrast (it's easier to see something
that's well lit when staring into a light than something that's dark when
staring into a light), and for fog it represents both the decreased sight
distance and the way fog attenuates sounds, making people harder to
perceive.
Does this make sense? Illusions are very powerful spells, and
when used in the right circumstances can be a serious edge.

> Finally, in an unrelated poll for the folks playing magicians. In 3rd
> edition what spells do you still feel safe having at Force 1 or 2?

Spells that you'll never need in a crisis situation.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.html.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.html.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@****.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@********.att.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 4
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:07:59 -0500
Marc Renouf wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Kenneth Vinson wrote:
>
> > If an indirect illusion such as Improved Invisibility or Trid Phantasm
> > is being sustained and is then encountered by someone who was not
> > present at the time of casting do they get a normal resistance test?
> > i.e. Intelligence v.s. Force of spell, must generate as many or more
> > successes as the caster.
>
> Yes, they get a normal resistance test. If I'm walking around
> with an Invisibility spell sustained, it would be next to useless if it
> only worked on folks who were around when it was cast, neh? :) Note that
> in most cases, I only have someone bother to roll a resistance when it
> becomes necessary.
>

I meant "or are they automatically affected by the spell." Just didn't want to
let you think I was that clueless.:)

> > Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
> > the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
> > sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
> > also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
> > invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.
>
> Ah, you've hit upon something here. No, they don't affect your
> resistance test for the illusion itself (remember that "resistance" tests
> are never modified, not even for wounds), but they may affect your target
> numbers for other tests that are related to the illusion. The resistance
> test just determines whether or not you're affected, not whether or not
> you perceive the target (in the case of invisibility or disregard).
> The thing to remember is that things like invisibility work
> differently in SR3. Read spell descriptions *very* carefully when making
> the transition. For instance, Invisibility is a resisted spell, but this
> test determines only if the person is subject to the +8 modifier to detect
> the invisible person. There isn't a "+2 per success" deal anymore.
> Either the target fails the resistance test (and gets the +8 modifier), or
> the target beats the magician (and is unaffected by the spell).
>
> For instance, Mongo the Maginificent casts his patented
> Invisibility spell. He rolls his Sorcery skill (a 5) plus 3 Spell Pool
> dice, resulting in a 1,1,3,4,4,5,7, and 10. Note that at this point
> someone with and Intelligence of 4 is screwed (as Mongo already has five
> successes, and the target can only generate 4). Alas, Sam the Sentry
> (with an Intelligence of 4) is hosed. Even if Mongo's spell was fairly
> low force, Sam still couldn't get enough successes to counteract it.
> So, Sam has a +8 to his target number modifiers when making
> Perception tests to see Mongo. This is where the other plusses come in.
> If Mongo is trying to sneak past Sam in broad daylight, then Sam only has
> the +8 to his target numbers to see Mongo. If Mongo were sneaking past in
> a dense fog, Sam would not only have the +8 associated with Mongo's
> invisibility, but also the modifier for the fog tacked on.
>

I see and understand. Thanks for the example. What do you think of the
Stealth spell on p. 196 of the BBB? It implies to me that if the spell is
successful the target is silent, period. Would you have people who would
possibly be in earshot of the "Stealthed" person make Resistance Tests? This
would make it all or nothing like Invisibility wherein the observer either
hears every sound the "Stealthed" person makes or he/she hears nothing at all
from said "Stealthed" person. The wording in the various indirect Illusions
is somewhat ambiguous and not very consistent. Some of the spell descriptions
make you think, by their wording, that they are exceptions to normal
Resistance Test rules.

>
> Does this make sense? Illusions are very powerful spells, and
> when used in the right circumstances can be a serious edge.

The only magician in my new group is a Snake shaman. He is the inspiration
for most of these questions being that Illusion is his spell category of
choice. He has already been more effective with Illusion spells than he ever
would have with Combat spells.


Thanks for the input.

Ken


--
Kenneth H. Vinson
Office 608/263-6733 :: kenneth.vinson@****.wisc.edu
Student Worker/Data Archivist :: UW Space Science & Engineering Center
1018 AOSS Bldg, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI, 53706 USA
Message no. 5
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:14:56 EDT
In a message dated 6/22/99 4:01:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kennethv@****.wisc.edu writes:

<< In 3rd
edition what spells do you still feel safe having at Force 1 or 2?

Any input, gripes, and general criticism are welcome.

Cheers,

Ken Vinson >>


Most people I know don't mind having Force 1 or 2 for stuff like Increase
Reaction or Increase Reaction.




Twist
Message no. 6
From: Kenneth Vinson kennethv@****.wisc.edu
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:28:06 -0500
Twist0059@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/99 4:01:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kennethv@****.wisc.edu writes:
>
> << In 3rd
> edition what spells do you still feel safe having at Force 1 or 2?
>
> Any input, gripes, and general criticism are welcome.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken Vinson >>
>
> Most people I know don't mind having Force 1 or 2 for stuff like Increase
> Reaction or Increase Reaction.
>
> Twist

Ahh...and therein lies the problem. In 3rd edition the Increase (Attribute)
and the Increase Reaction spells add to the appropriate attribute one point
for every two successes, *up to a maximum bonus equal to the Force of the
spell.* So, the skinny mage with a Body of 2 wants to be able to take a few
bullets. If he wants a Body of 6 he has to get 8 successes on his
spellcasting test (not too much of a problem) and the Increase Body spell
must be at least Force 4 (more of a problem) My original question stemmed
from the realization that perhaps only unresisted Detection spells are still
safe to take at Force 1 or 2.

More thoughts?

Cheers,

Ken


--
Kenneth H. Vinson
Office 608/263-6733 :: kenneth.vinson@****.wisc.edu
Student Worker/Data Archivist :: UW Space Science & Engineering Center
1018 AOSS Bldg, 1225 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI, 53706 USA
Message no. 7
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:57:18 -0500
:If an indirect illusion such as Improved Invisibility or Trid Phantasm
:is being sustained and is then encountered by someone who was not
:present at the time of casting do they get a normal resistance test?
:i.e. Intelligence v.s. Force of spell, must generate as many or more
:successes as the caster.

Yes- spell defense can even be used. The same goes for detection
spells.

:Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
:the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
:sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
:also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
:invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.

No, those do NOT affect the resistance of the spell (resistance tests
never have modifiers, afaik). However, just resisting the spell does not
mean you see an invisible person; you still must susequently make a normal
perception test to spot them, with normal modifiers. In any case, the efect
is MAGICAL- its not a form of concelament- so it either works or it doesn't.

:Finally, in an unrelated poll for the folks playing magicians. In 3rd
:edition what spells do you still feel safe having at Force 1 or 2?

"Wreck (object)" and "Ram (object)". Inanimate objects don't get
resistance tests. :-P (Note- don't count on this lasting for long- I think
there's an errata or other fix in the works).
Maybe "indirect" illusion spells, as you often can use many dice casting
them (you hope to use them outside combat).
Any spell with a beneficial effect that need not be huge (armor, for
example- sure, force 6 rocks, but force 2 is nice, and sometimes easier to
sustain).

Mongoose
Message no. 8
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:07:42 -0500
:My original question stemmed
:from the realization that perhaps only unresisted Detection spells are
still
:safe to take at Force 1 or 2.
:
:More thoughts?

The detection spells are not so keen at low force, since force creates
the range of the sense. That might be OK for "Mind Probe", or "Analyze
Truth", but other spells need range (or have thier effect limited by force,
as "Analyze Device" and "Combat Sense" do).

Mongoose
Message no. 9
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:22:47 EDT
In a message dated 6/22/99 5:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kennethv@****.wisc.edu writes:

> My original question stemmed
> from the realization that perhaps only unresisted Detection spells are
still
> safe to take at Force 1 or 2.


On that note, most players seem to take very high Detection spells, for
maximum range. Clairvoyance and Detect Enemies are especially good examples
of this.





Twist
Message no. 10
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:11:25 +0200
According to Kenneth Vinson, at 14:58 on 22 Jun 99, the word on
the street was...

> If an indirect illusion such as Improved Invisibility or Trid Phantasm
> is being sustained and is then encountered by someone who was not
> present at the time of casting do they get a normal resistance test?
> i.e. Intelligence v.s. Force of spell, must generate as many or more
> successes as the caster.

Yes. The spell is still there, and someone coming into its area of effect -
- which, with these types of spells, can mean "someone getting the
illusion into his or her line of sight -- is a new target and must
therefore resist the spell (if they want to).

> Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
> the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
> sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
> also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
> invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.

I'd say it depends on the kind of test you're making. If it's a Perception
test to spot something hidden or altered by an illusion, then apply the
modifiers. OTOH a test made to resist the spell uses the base Force as the
TN.

> Finally, in an unrelated poll for the folks playing magicians. In 3rd
> edition what spells do you still feel safe having at Force 1 or 2?

Any where the Force doesn't matter for the spell's effect. The revised
version of Armor (see the errata) comes to mind, as do the Increase
Reflexes spells. Also, as Marc pointed out, spells you don't need in a
crisis could be low Force (it's not very smart to learn Powerball at a
maximum Force of 1 :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Now all of them have gone or changed
-> ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: Mongoose m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject: resisting indirect illusion spells
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:41:14 -0500
> Secondly, do Perception Test modifiers for smoke, darkness, etc. affect
> the resistance test against such an illusion? For example, it makes
> sense to me that a person with an Invisibility spell on them who was
> also sneaking around in a dark area would be harder to detect than an
> invisible person in a brightly lit hallway.

I'd say it depends on the kind of test you're making. If it's a Perception
test to spot something hidden or altered by an illusion, then apply the
modifiers. OTOH a test made to resist the spell uses the base Force as the
TN.

++++++++++++++++

I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but an example may help:
A mage creates a phantasm of a Dragon, casting the illusion in a dark
room.
Some normal human walks in. Do they see the dragon? Well, first se if
they resist the spell, at the normal TN. If they DO, the perceive as normal
(+8). If they don't, they STILL perceive as normal (+8), only if the see
anything, its going to be an illusion. Of course, the mage could create the
illusion of a glowing / illuminated dragon, to make it easier to see... or
can he? Because it doesn't seem you can make an illusion of the room being
darker, at least not using "phantasm"...

Mongoose

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about resisting indirect illusion spells, 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!