Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Overbyte on <08-12-15/1804:21>
-
Not sure if this has been discussed before so..
From my reading:
Improved Invisibility is a spell that is resisted with Int + Log. If resisted the target gains no benefit. It works against all forms of vision (low-light, thermo, etc).
Physical Camouflage is not resisted and adds -1 to perception rolls, but only against normal vision.
Is this correct?
-
Just remember for the Improved Invisibility that you use the hits scored as the threshold for anyone that resists at a later point.
So it's Int + Logic (Hits on original spellcasting test), meaning a really good roll on the original casting can still stump even a fairly bright viewer.
Even if the viewer makes the roll, the subject they are looking at might remain undetected if she’s good enough with her Sneaking Test.
So yeah if they are walking down the hall they are probably busted, but if they were already moving stealthily while being invisible they might still slip past someone.
Though they of course would not know if this was due to their sneaking or invisibility, so they could had a barely passable casting and still slip past one guard because were being sneaky and decide the spell was probably good enough and walk blatantly down another hall and get caught.
-
As a Physical, Single Sense, Realistic spell, Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility. The benefits are also a -1 to opposed Perception rolls based on the spellcasting's net hits, so the penalty can vary greatly from NPC to NPC.
-
Physical illusions like Improved Invisibility and Physical Camouflage are opposed by Intuition + Logic (for living beings) or Object Resistance (for cameras, drones, etc.). See SR5 p.290.
With Improved Invisibility (SR5 p.291), the effect is all-or-nothing. If the observer's Intuition + Logic Test doesn't generate more hits than the magician's Spellcasting + Magic Test, then the subject of the spell remains invisible. Whether the spell succeeds or fails, the subject can still make a separate Sneaking + Agility vs. Perception + Intuition Opposed Test for the same result. Invisibility gives them two bites at the apple, as it were.
With Physical Camouflage (SG p.111), the net hits from the opposed Spellcasting Test (if any) provide a bonus to the subject's Sneaking + Agility Test. The Sneaking Test is the one that really counts, but the spell can make you better at it.
-
So here's my problem.
If they both allow resistance rolls, and Imp Invis makes you completely unseen to multiple types of vision, whereas Phys Camo adds net hits to your sneaking.. and Imp Invis is F-1 drain while Phys Camo is F drain... isn't Imp Invis better in every single way?
-
Yes.
But comes at the cost of a higher drain, and an "all or nothing" effect. Also note that invisibility only works on visual detection. Sonic or vibration detection still sees you just fine. (AKA ultrasound vision and sensors)
Camo spell doesn't imply the same restrictions.... but comes with its own, you must be sneaking...
-
Yes.
But comes at the cost of a higher drain, and an "all or nothing" effect. Also note that invisibility only works on visual detection. Sonic or vibration detection still sees you just fine. (AKA ultrasound vision and sensors)
No. That's my point. Improved Invisibility is LOWER drain.
And "all or nothing" is probably better since if you are sneaking you are still going to get that roll. So you get two rolls (as the previous poster said) which is likely a better deal than a single roll with a small bonus (due to resist).
Camo spell doesn't imply the same restrictions.... but comes with its own, you must be sneaking...
Physical Camouflage ONLY changes your color:
This set of spells colors the subject in a camouflage pattern that matches her surroundings
so by definition it does not affect any of the extended visual senses, so it's more restricted and HIGHER drain.
-
Improved Invisibility provides an alternative to your Sneaking Test. Physical Camouflage makes your Sneaking Test better.
-
Improved Invisibility provides an alternative to your Sneaking Test. Physical Camouflage makes your Sneaking Test better.
Understood. But if both are resisted. Then imagine all things are equal and you get one net hit on both.
Improved Invisibility will make you completely and totally invisible to the target against all vision types. And has F-1 drain.
Physical Camouflage gives you a +1 to your sneaking against normal vision. And has F drain.
Does this make sense / seem balanced properly?
-
I see your point. The Camouflage spells probably ought to have a lower drain to balance out.
-
Wow
I've been reading that as F+1 this whole time....
Too many editions rolling around my head..
-
Physical illusions like Improved Invisibility and Physical Camouflage are opposed by Intuition + Logic (for living beings) or Object Resistance (for cameras, drones, etc.). See SR5 p.290.
With Improved Invisibility (SR5 p.291), the effect is all-or-nothing. If the observer's Intuition + Logic Test doesn't generate more hits than the magician's Spellcasting + Magic Test, then the subject of the spell remains invisible. Whether the spell succeeds or fails, the subject can still make a separate Sneaking + Agility vs. Perception + Intuition Opposed Test for the same result. Invisibility gives them two bites at the apple, as it were.
With Physical Camouflage (SG p.111), the net hits from the opposed Spellcasting Test (if any) provide a bonus to the subject's Sneaking + Agility Test. The Sneaking Test is the one that really counts, but the spell can make you better at it.
Related Question:
If a Security Guard is viewing through a camera and an invisible person walks past it, does the security guard get the Logic + Intuition [IMP Invisibility Hits] test to see him? is there any modifiers?
-
Related Question:
If a Security Guard is viewing through a camera and an invisible person walks past it, does the security guard get the Logic + Intuition [IMP Invisibility Hits] test to see him? is there any modifiers?
No. The camera gets Object Resistance. If the camera succeeds, the camera shows the person so the guard sees him.
-
Actually, if someone with invisibility walks past a camera, the camera AUTOMATICALLY sees him as invisibility is a mental spell that doesn't work on tech.
However, if he used Improved Invisibility, then the camera rolls to see if it can spot the mage....
-
Sorry, but I need to res this.
Camouflage really reads like it just takes effect without any resistance whatsoever.
As a Physical, Single Sense, Realistic spell, Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility. The benefits are also a -1 to opposed Perception rolls based on the spellcasting's net hits, so the penalty can vary greatly from NPC to NPC.
No, it's 1 die per hit, not net hit.
Between the drain code, the description / effect, and the fact that it uses hits rather than net hits, everything about it suggests that the spell just happens, without any chance for a resist. And in fact, that reading is the only way the spell(s) makes sense, given the comparison to Invisibility(s).
In fact, it reads very much like the Armor spell, and no one would suggest that can be resisted, even if cast on a suicidal subject.
Maybe it's just a case of terrible cgl writing / editing, but, unlike most (all?) other spells that can be resisted, Camouflage avoids any mention of "failing to resist," object resistance or net hits. Every other spell surrounding it makes a point of including such verbiage, but Camouflage alone only says "1 die per hit" instead.
-
Technically the spell never says that it isn't resisted, so based on that, we would go back to the rules for resisting Illusions, which says: "If the spell is not completely resisted, the target is fully affected by the illusion." So that means spells are all or nothing.
The text of the Camouflage spells(s) is that the bonus given by the spell is +1 per hit rolled on the Spellcasting Test. So if a target fails to resist the spell, then the full +1 per hit applies. This would be the strictest reading of the spell and how Illusions work.
Example: Spellcasting 5 hits. People attempting to view target of spell make resistance tests, if they succeed to get at least 5 hits or more to resist, the spell has no effect. Otherwise, the target gets to roll +5 dice to avoid being seen.
Based on the wording of the spell, it appears that the intent was for it to be a sort of "Aid Sneaking" spell, you cast it, and hits on the Spellcasting give the target a bonus dice on their sneaking tests. It is possible that the author of the spell didn't know or didn't remember the all-or-nothing nature of Illusion spells in Shadowrun.
Personally, I agree that the spell is poorly created. As is, even if the spell is 100% effective, the target can still be spotted if the viewer makes a good Perception test (since all it does is give bonus dice). I would save myself the extra dice rolls and let the spell just not bother with resistance rolls.
Extra Info: There is one other illusion spell that I know of that utilizes hits and not net hits from the Spellcasting Test: Hush/Silence. Now, the trick there is that it uses the hits on the spellcasting test for only part of the spell's effect. The spell itself is still all-or-nothing for whether or not you can hear while within the area of effect, but it also imposes a penalty to sonic attacks (or powers) that go in or out of the area.
-
Maybe it would've been more appropriate in the manipulation category, as there's more precedent for those happening without resistance.
Regardless, the fact that they took pains to mention "this spell can be resisted" in every other spell makes such verbiage very conspicuous in its absence here.
Either way, cgl should have made their intentions explicit.
I wonder, if it had been brought up back when they were working on SG errata, would they have chosen to actually add a line making it explicit, or left the description as is, but reduced it to ~ F-5 / F-3 or something? (Assuming they'd have even deigned to address it at all)
-
"Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility"
therefore if no net hits, then no modifier to sneaking
-
"Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility"
therefore if no net hits, then no modifier to sneaking
By the rules correct. In home games I would not be surprised if people’s house ruled it as it’s silly. It looks like a system where two people wrote the section one writing up spells another writing the base rules on how magic worked and they didn’t talk to each other much.
-
It looks like a system where two people wrote the section one writing up spells another writing the base rules on how magic worked and they didn’t talk to each other much.
can confirm that's exactly how shadowrun rules authoring works
-
"Physical Camouflage is also resisted the same way as Improved Invisibility"
therefore if no net hits, then no modifier to sneaking
The issue is that Physical Camouflage never says that it is resisted, which is the reason why people have room to make the argument. We run into the same sort of argument as casting Armor on an involuntary subject. In the case of a spell not directly affecting the subjects that would potentially resist it, should they roll to resist it? It never gives a penalty to anyone, and in fact the only effect is a bonus to the target of the spell. So there is room to argue that no resistance roll is necessary.
It is also the only illusion spell that I know of that does something like this, so yeah...
-
The Physical Camouflage spell is pretty much a spell version of the Concealment critter power. It has the same questions, like "can it be resisted."
Also: If there's nothing to hide in/among, does the Concealment/Camouflage even give any benefit at all? E.G. if I don't need a Perception test to see something "in plain sight", then suffering a dice pool penalty to that test I'm not taking is of no mechanical benefit to you.
-
Also: If there's nothing to hide in/among, does the Concealment/Camouflage even give any benefit at all? E.G. if I don't need a Perception test to see something "in plain sight", then suffering a dice pool penalty to that test I'm not taking is of no mechanical benefit to you.
Blending in and blocking LOS both work about equally well in practice.
Besides, just because something is "in plain sight" doesn't necessarily mean you notice it (at least, irl). I'm sure you've had times where you were looking for something for like a minute, even though it was right in front of you.
– Ever hear the phrase "If it was a snake, it would've bitten you." ? Or is that strictly a Southern-ism?
-
– Ever hear the phrase "If it was a snake, it would've bitten you." ? Or is that strictly a Southern-ism?
Nope! Yankees use it as well! ;D
-
...
Besides, just because something is "in plain sight" doesn't necessarily mean you notice it (at least, irl). I'm sure you've had times where you were looking for something for like a minute, even though it was right in front of you.
– Ever hear the phrase "If it was a snake, it would've bitten you." ? Or is that strictly a Southern-ism?
Perhaps, but it's inherently a GM call as to what counts as requiring a Perception test. Do you need a perception test to notice a table in a room? What if it's camouflaged?
There's also the issue of what senses invisibility and camouflage are effective against. Well, not with invisibility actually. If the sentry closes his eyes, suddenly your invisibility spell is worthless as it's doing nothing about his ability to HEAR you moving around. Yeah that's silly, but what's NOT silly is the sentry behind a closed door. Absolutely he might hear you sneaking down the hallway just outside his little watch station, but the fact that you're invisible is literally pointless. It's all about whether he hears you or not. So, arguably, critter or spell Camouflage isn't reducing his Perception pool, either.
-
*raises hand*
Sorry if this too off topic, but am I to understand that I'm 5e, if someone detects an invisible target, the effect of the spell is 100% negated? And only for that one person (or camera)?
-
In SR5 and SR4 (don't know about earlier editions), if you roll at least as many hits as the caster did, you know the Illusion isn't real. They even use the exact same line: "The spellcaster must generate more hits than the observer for the illusion to be considered real. If the spell is not completely resisted, the character is fully affected by the illusion."
-
Detecting them is different from being able to see them, however. So, if they detect a target is there, seeing a predator-style outline for example, that is different than breaching the illusion fully and being able to see face, clothes, etc. We always played it that while you might be detected, there was still some benefit from a physical invis spell. Never knew any player to take the mana version though.