Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Odsh on <01-17-21/0754:13>
-
New edition, same old questions.
To see someone affected by an Improved Invisibility spell with X hits:
- People must succeed on an Intuition + Perception (X) test.
- Drones acting on their own must succeed on a Sensor + Clearsight (X) test I assume.
- Against a camera recording on their own, do you have to beat its Object Resistance, likely 9? So X needs to be at least 9 (quite unlikely)?
- How do you handle someone watching a video feed recorded in real time by a drone or camera?
- How do you handle a rigger jumped into a vehicle or drone? I assume it's a standard perception test?
I remember an old discussion or FAQ that stated that it was the (meta)human who made the perception test when he was seeing through technological devices he paid for in Essence (like cybereyes), otherwise it was the technological device itself. I assume this ruling still stands.
-
Living observers resist both Invisibility and Improved Invisibility with Perception + Intuition.
Non-living observers (cameras, drones, sensors etc) resist Improved Invisibility (which is a physical spell) with Object resistance and are immune to regular Invisibility (which is a mana spell).
I remember an old discussion or FAQ that stated that it was the (meta)human who made the perception test when he was seeing through technological devices he paid for in Essence (like cybereyes), otherwise it was the technological device itself. I assume this ruling still stands.
Still the same.
-
1. Yes.
2. Drones roll Object Resistance. 15 dice.
3. Sensors such as cameras usually roll 9 dice. Note that not every die will likely result in a hit. 9 dice will return on average 3 hits, so scoring Improved Invisibility 4 will PROBABLY make you ok. But yes theoretically you need 10 hits to guarantee a CCTV camera can't see you. 16 hits to guarantee a drone can't see you.
4. Object Resistance
5. Object Resistance
Bonus: yes that ruling still stands. You roll your usual dice rather than object resistance when you're seeing thru cybereyes. By the same rationale cybereyes won't make you automatically see thru mana invisibility.
-
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.
-
Seems to be pretty clear that non-living observers resist with their Object Resistance (in both SR5 and SR6).
SR5 p. 290 Illusion Spells - Physical Illusions
They are resisted by Intuition + Logic; non-living devices resist with their Object Resistance.
SR6 p. 129 Magic, Technology and Resistance
The other main effect is that the more technology and artifice there is in an object, the harder it is for it to be affected by magic. This is measured in what’s called Object Resistance, and it often figures in to how well spells cast on items succeed.
SR6 p. 137 Illusion Spells
Illusion spells of the Mana type affect living beings only; Physical Illusion spells affect cameras and other technology as well.
-
Ah I didn't realize Object Resistance was now used as a dice pool in opposed tests rather than a threshold like it was in (some?) previous editions (maybe older ones, or maybe it's just my imagination).
Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.
But what would a simple camera resist such a spell with then? It hasn't any Pilot nor Clearsight rating. I don't even think it's given a Device rating anywhere (except in Banshee's 6we Matrix FAQ).
To me the only somewhat confusing part is that, in 6e, living beings resist with a Perception test, but drones do not.
-
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
Well, per the Object Resistance Table on pg 129, if a drone is rolling Object Resistance then it's rolling 15 dice. The only matter of ambiguity there is whether it's MORE than 15 dice, since drones are listed on the 15+ line.
Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.
Ok, some relevant citations before I go further:
They are cast with an Opposed test,
where Sorcery + Magic is opposed by various combinations
of attributes, listed with each spell.
The other main effect is that the more technology
and artifice there is in an object, the harder it
is for it to be affected by magic. This is measured
in what’s called Object Resistance, and it often figures
in to how well spells cast on items succeed.
The Object Resistance table provides guidelines
for this rating.
Illusion spells are meant to convince people that
the unreal is real, that something not there is there,
or vice versa. They are cast with an Opposed test,
where Sorcery + Magic is opposed by various combinations
of attributes, listed with each spell.
Illusion spells of the Mana type affect living
beings only; Physical Illusion spells affect cameras
and other technology as well.
Illusion spells might be Single Sense (meaning
they affect only one sense) or Multi-Sense (meaning
they affect multiple senses).
Bolded for emphasis.
Short Answer: Yes, physical devices (are supposed to) roll Object Resistance vs Improved Invisibility.
Long Answer: There's no universal resistance called out for Illusion spells, it's left to the spell itself to say. Invis/Imp Invis doesn't say what you roll... instead it just invokes the Invisible/Improved Invisible status (pg. 52 for both). The mechanic given THERE is "Perception test". So, yes, arguably there's the possibility that the intent is that you ignore object resistance since it was never invoked. However I reject that argument, and prefer the reading that Object Resistance applies more often that strictly when "the spell invokes it."
1) The spell in this case doesn't have its own mechanics and instead invokes status rules, which do not in turn qualify as spells and therefore don't trigger the "the spell failed to invoke OR" clause.
2) other critter powers, that could plausibly affect drones, should also invoke OR due to giving resistance pools that drones cannot generate (for example, see Accident pg. 221. Either a drone rolls Reaction+Charisma for a total of 0 dice... surely not the intent... or OR. ) And if OR can exist where it's not explicitly invoked, then it can exist while not being explicitly invoked on the Invisible/Improved Invisible statuses.
My reading is that just because the spell deferred resistance rules to another section of the book, where that section of the book had no reason to account for object resistance, doesn't mean that object resistance should be ignored. Although, yes, granted MC, you do have a point that purely by RAW OR is never invoked AND cameras/drones aren't necessarily left with 0s for dice pools, as they could reasonably find an analogue for a perception test (sensor + clearsight, for example). But surely you recognize that's just as much of a leap as bringing in OR, yes? It's not any MORE correct. If you want to go pure RAW and to hell with any intent, then physical devices must roll Intuition (which they don't have) and Perception skill (which they don't have) which ends up meaning they can never score a single hit. Which, I can GUARANTEE you is not the intent.
-
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.
Same, its seeing with its sensors that would be the resist test.
SR3 magic needs a comeback for OR, they had a chart of spells that used OR. Or more obviously they should have defined spells as their direct or indirect, indirect spells do not use OR, direct spells do. Most physical illusions should fall under indirect. You are not casting a illusion on the drone, its an illusion on you. Where is object resist coming into play setting wise here, the spell never targets them. the magic section is just full of misses, in this case a missed opportunity to clean things up.
-
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
Second, I do note that there's nothing explicitly stating drones and sensors resist Physical Illusions with Object Resistance, which is rather frustrating. It also means that it'd be easier if people quoted rulesections when making their statements on the matter.
Same, its seeing with its sensors that would be the resist test.
I'm not sure if you (and/or MC) are saying that a Drone's OR should only be 9 due to "seeing through sensors". If not, never mind what I'm about to say. But if you are:
SR magic does not recognize parts of the whole. You can't manabolt someone's arm, you can only target their aura. That's how it's been in every edition. So it doesn't matter what PART of the drone is doing the seeing, a drone rolls 15 dice when it rolls OR. In a magical context, the drone's sensors cannot be differentiated from the drone itself.
SR3 magic needs a comeback for OR, they had a chart of spells that used OR. Or more obviously they should have defined spells as their direct or indirect, indirect spells do not use OR, direct spells do. Most physical illusions should fall under indirect. You are not casting a illusion on the drone, its an illusion on you. Where is object resist coming into play setting wise here, the spell never targets them. the magic section is just full of misses, in this case a missed opportunity to clean things up.
Indeed. The concept of spell targeting, in its entirety, is a casualty of the press to cut word count. If you want to get super RAW, this omission means they neglected to ever specify that you cannot target mundane auras with spells while you're projecting and not manifesting. They only said it's prohibited while you're manifesting. I mean.. OBVIOUSLY the intent is you can't, but it never got said. I'm crossing fingers Street Wyrd patches this hole... if done right it should also be able to answer whether sustained spells can "go with" you while you project.
-
I wasn't sure on the numbers, its not the sensors I'd have them resists. I'd just have the drone make a sensors test like a perception test just by the drone. It gets enough hits its sees enough flaws in the illusion to know it for what it is. I don;t think OR comes into play at all for a drone against a physical illusion, except maybe something like vehicle mask when you cast the mask on the drone.
-
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
If you go that way, you could also argue that a cybereye should not work better because it's part of a metahuman.
Setting aside what is - or should have been - RAW, I'm curious, what would you use as dice pool for a camera resisting an Improved Invisibility spell?
-
Cyber-eyes are an exception because they're paid for with essence. They have become part of the human. In fact, they can function WORSE inside the human.
Anyway, I'm going to guess OR being a threshold is from SR3. As far as I recall, it's always been a dicepool in SR4-SR6.
As for what a camera would resist with: I do agree with going with Object Resistance, I simply find it frustrating the rules don't state it as explicitly as they do with Manipulation and Detection spells. As far as I'm concerned: The footage won't show if the camera fails, but will show if the camera succeeds. So no retries later, can't have six people look at the footage to still pierce the invisibility. So a camera rolls 9 dice. But at my table, a drone's camera also rolls 9 dice to pierce the invisibility, not 15. It would roll 15 when resisting a Levitate, though.
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
Yes, SSDR, I eagerly promote that drones should roll Sensor OR against Illusions. I've found records of that opinion of mine going several years back. In my personal opinion, having drones roll their Object Resistance for sensor observation is rubbish, since it makes invisibility spells way too weak. Cheap spy-drones functioning far better than cameras against magic, makes said magic way too useless against security.
I mean, yes, you don't target single drone parts with combat spells, makes sense. But there's no proper explanation on whether a drone's OR applies even when it's sensing. Of course even if the rules did say so, I'd still argue it's rubbish. A drone observes through its sensors. That camera doesn't suddenly become better when it's a part of a drone. If you want to turn a drone into a Vessel, or Fling or Animate it, it makes sense that you face its 15+ OR. But I don't buy that a drone or commlink outbeats a camera when it's just using the onboard camera.
When you are navigating an area with many cameras, that 9 OR is already a big threat even against 5-hit Improved Invisibility. 4 Cameras already bring it to 50-50 odds. When you're facing a spydrone, which can be as cheap as 450 nuyen, an OR of 15 vs Improved Invisibility would already equal six cameras. To me, that is too easy. So I find it imbalancing, and would always go with the sensor OR myself. Otherwise, all it'd take to pierce invisibility is a car looking at it.
-
I see your point. At some point, ease of play and rule concision has also to be taken into account though. If you rule that drones sometimes have an OR of 15, sometimes 9 because you target that part of the drone that is deemed to be technologically less complex (which in itself is also debatable), i.m.h.o. that's just adding another layer of complexity that SR really doesn't need more of.
-
Setting aside what is - or should have been - RAW, I'm curious, what would you use as dice pool for a camera resisting an Improved Invisibility spell?
For the reasons I already went into upthread: I believe the best thing to do is go with Object Resistance. Sensors are called out as being on the 9+ line.
MC is correct that one could also argue a case for Sensor + Clearsight, but it only makes sense in the context of drones and doesn't help in the case of CCTV cameras and such. So again IMO OR makes more sense as the same ruling (if different dice pools) works equally well for both.
Cyber-eyes are an exception because they're paid for with essence. They have become part of the human. In fact, they can function WORSE inside the human.
Anyway, I'm going to guess OR being a threshold is from SR3. As far as I recall, it's always been a dicepool in SR4-SR6.
As for what a camera would resist with: I do agree with going with Object Resistance, I simply find it frustrating the rules don't state it as explicitly as they do with Manipulation and Detection spells. As far as I'm concerned: The footage won't show if the camera fails, but will show if the camera succeeds. So no retries later, can't have six people look at the footage to still pierce the invisibility. So a camera rolls 9 dice. But at my table, a drone's camera also rolls 9 dice to pierce the invisibility, not 15. It would roll 15 when resisting a Levitate, though.
First of, I still disagree with drones rolling Object Resistance against something made to fool their sensors. You're not flinging the drone, you're causing it to be misled by its sensors. If the drone's camera can't spot the invisible person, the drone's pilot shouldn't have a clue either.
Yes, SSDR, I eagerly promote that drones should roll Sensor OR against Illusions. I've found records of that opinion of mine going several years back. In my personal opinion, having drones roll their Object Resistance for sensor observation is rubbish, since it makes invisibility spells way too weak. Cheap spy-drones functioning far better than cameras against magic, makes said magic way too useless against security.
I mean, yes, you don't target single drone parts with combat spells, makes sense. But there's no proper explanation on whether a drone's OR applies even when it's sensing. Of course even if the rules did say so, I'd still argue it's rubbish. A drone observes through its sensors. That camera doesn't suddenly become better when it's a part of a drone. If you want to turn a drone into a Vessel, or Fling or Animate it, it makes sense that you face its 15+ OR. But I don't buy that a drone or commlink outbeats a camera when it's just using the onboard camera.
See, taking a CCTV camera off the wall and fixing it to a drone and suddenly that "same camera" is rolling 15 dice instead of 9 dice makes sense to me. When it's a stand-alone sensor, it doesn't have the drone's complicated systems integrated into its function. The intent, in my opinion, is clear that once you get into the realm of something as complex as a computer, it's a case of 15+ OR dice. A camera that's just feeding data to an outside recipient (whether that recipient is a metahuman or Host)? Sure, 9 dice. But by what's in effect the same logic as cybereyes counting as "part of you" rather than external/standalone devices, a camera that's integrated into a drone's complicated systems is part of the drone rather than a standalone component.
-
So, related to the OP's question but unexplored in the thread so far is "how many perception tests do you make when an invisible person is trying to sneak past you".
To me it's clear that it's 1 opposed test versus Agility + Stealth, and 1 success test vs the status threshold. Of course in the case of sensors/drones, that success test becomes an OR test vs same threshold rather than a 2nd perception test. And actually, you need to do the latter first, as whether you pierce or fail to pierce the invisibility is pretty relevant to the circumstantial edge for the Stealth test...
What it absolutely is not is 1 test combining the two. a) Opposed tests don't have thresholds and b) if it did, suddenly being invisible would dramatically help you be silent and undetectable by other non-visual means, when invisibility certainly shouldn't be.
-
MC is correct that one could also argue a case for Sensor + Clearsight
I never said that? I simply noted I disagree with drone OR instead of sensor OR. No idea why you keep putting words in my mouth.
-
I think I'd stick with what I was trying to express above and when I run a game i will, drones use senors+clear sight, a wall mounted camera would effectively use the same as I'd treat them as a fixed location drone. Its a perception tests for humans it should be the same for a drone as the drone is not targeted with anything for it to "resist" it. Ideally I'd treat chaos style spell the same way as while a camera may be targeted it is physically generated lights hitting it and the parallel would be a indirect combat spell, not a direct combat spell. I wish they made an attempt to make the OR rules logically consistent with how magic worked, but they haven't tried that since I think 3e.
-
MC is correct that one could also argue a case for Sensor + Clearsight
I never said that? I simply noted I disagree with drone OR instead of sensor OR. No idea why you keep putting words in my mouth.
I did, so he was probably just mistaking you for me.
-
I think I'd stick with what I was trying to express above and when I run a game i will, drones use senors+clear sight, a wall mounted camera would effectively use the same as I'd treat them as a fixed location drone. Its a perception tests for humans it should be the same for a drone as the drone is not targeted with anything for it to "resist" it. Ideally I'd treat chaos style spell the same way as while a camera may be targeted it is physically generated lights hitting it and the parallel would be a indirect combat spell, not a direct combat spell. I wish they made an attempt to make the OR rules logically consistent with how magic worked, but they haven't tried that since I think 3e.
The problem there is that cameras, microphones, etc, don't have autosofts. So in that case, it'd make way more sense to roll OR. Same with, random example, taking a picture.
I guess there's some logic in rolling Sensors + Clearsight for a drone to interpret its sensor feed and realise there's an invisible person, though it feels a bit weird. So I'm still leaning towards Sensor OR myself. But having them roll Sensors + Clearsight does balance things out more, and it also means you can actually make a drone better at piercing illusions: by upgrading its sensors and software.
-
MC is correct that one could also argue a case for Sensor + Clearsight
I never said that? I simply noted I disagree with drone OR instead of sensor OR. No idea why you keep putting words in my mouth.
I did, so he was probably just mistaking you for me.
Apparently I did. Mea culpa.
-
I think I'd stick with what I was trying to express above and when I run a game i will, drones use senors+clear sight, a wall mounted camera would effectively use the same as I'd treat them as a fixed location drone. Its a perception tests for humans it should be the same for a drone as the drone is not targeted with anything for it to "resist" it. Ideally I'd treat chaos style spell the same way as while a camera may be targeted it is physically generated lights hitting it and the parallel would be a indirect combat spell, not a direct combat spell. I wish they made an attempt to make the OR rules logically consistent with how magic worked, but they haven't tried that since I think 3e.
The problem there is that cameras, microphones, etc, don't have autosofts. So in that case, it'd make way more sense to roll OR. Same with, random example, taking a picture.
I guess there's some logic in rolling Sensors + Clearsight for a drone to interpret its sensor feed and realise there's an invisible person, though it feels a bit weird. So I'm still leaning towards Sensor OR myself. But having them roll Sensors + Clearsight does balance things out more, and it also means you can actually make a drone better at piercing illusions: by upgrading its sensors and software.
I don't find that to be a problem, so low tech cameras with less programs to analyze what they see get fooled more easily its just a sensors test. Just like a NPC not trained in perception. What fees weird to me is OR kicking in when the object is not impacted at all. And then high end drones with really expensive cameras see more flaws in illusions sporting the invisible character more often.
object resistance is the more technology in an object, the harder it is for it to be affected by magic. The thing is if I am sitting there invisible in a room how is the drone affected. It isn't what is it resisting, what technological complexity am I trying to overcome. I turned me invisible not the drone.
Basically we already have a system in place for this with combat spells, direct for indirect. That same logic should apply to all spells, all spells should be labeled either direct or indirect to let people know what defenses will be used. Having the logic of I created fire and indirectly hit it with the fire so we don't use OR but then saying I created lights and did something that was not damage so now it uses OR makes no sense to me.
As an aside since I saw it mentioned in this thread I would not give levitate a OR test, the spell gives a threshold, gives way for living creatures a way to resist I think if OR was supposed to be used it would be mentioned as well. On the surface this would seem to be a direct spell under my paradigm, but 1 specific beats general normally and it would be like fling and mention it if it got the OR and 2 I think it is supposed to be generating a telekinetic force that then lifts the object as you can hulk out to break free of it, if it was some kind of spell directly effecting you your strength would not logically matter as i would not be pushing against it.
-
... What fees weird to me is OR kicking in when the object is not impacted at all....
I think SK (again, sorry MC for conflating the two of you) our core philosophical disagreement lies right there.
In prior editions..... sigh it's so bad to have to even say that in a rules discussion.... there were subjects and targets. The TARGET of Invisibility is the one who's hard to see. The SUBJECTS are everyone who looks at the target. Now, what was both true then and still true now is "invisibility" is technically speaking a misnomer. You are never actually invisibile.* This is demonstrable, because if you resist the illusion then you can see the "invisible" person. This is obviously true in the way mana illusions work (it tricks your mind into ignoring the target) but, mechanically, this is also true for the physical Improved Invisibility. If one drone can see the invisible ninja and the other cannot, then logically the ninja is not TRULY invisible. It's just some magic that's somehow tricking the 2nd drone but not the first once. Under older paradigms, the drones are subjects and as such are being affected by magic, and therefore entitled to Object Resistance.
So... going back quite a few posts to my bemoaning 6e's lack of rules about spell targeting... THIS. This is exactly the sort of problem its absence has wrought.
*= since we're well down into the weeds, how about some different pedantry for "fun":
1) Invisibility never specifies that it affects your gear at all. Whether it's something you were wearing at the time, or anything you pick up afterwards. Frankly, if you look at the fluff-theory behind spells, it's actually a pretty strong argument that your gear is NOT part of your aura and therefore not affected by the spell. Cyberware? Sure, since you paid essence for it it's a part of you, as far as spells are concerned. But your clothes? Never heard of paying essence for clothes.
1a) of course, either way, surely you can cast Improved Invisibility specifically ON someone's clothing. I'm sure that's a prank that's happened more than once at MIT&T.
2) Doesn't say whether you're invisible to yourself. Can be potentially problematic for fine motor control actions, like picking a lock.
3) Doesn't say whether objects you insert into yourself after becoming invisible remain visible. Food you eat? Contraband you hide in your *ahem* smuggling compartment?
4) Doesn't say you are not blind. Because if you're invisible, the light is passing through you unimpeded and therefore not impacting the receptors in your eyes. But, luckily, you're NOT truly invisible, so this is just a theoretical "what if you WERE, though?"
-
It would roll 15 when resisting a Levitate, though.
Levitate is resolved as a simple test, just to figure out the max weight you can levitate. Object resistance is not part of the equation here (in neither SR5 nor SR6).
Are you perhaps thinking of fling...?
how many perception tests do you make when an invisible person is trying to sneak past you
One.
Magician roll once to cast the spell.
- This set a threshold to be visually spotted (even for situations where the infiltrator would normally be immediately obvious without an invisibility spell).
Infiltrator roll once to sneak.
- This set a threshold to be heard (in situations where infiltrator is close enough to be heard)
- And if infiltrator roll more hits than the magician it also set the new threshold to be visually spotted (but only for situations where the infiltrator would not be immediately obvious without an invisibility spell).
The potential observer roll perception once
- Then you compare hits.
-
Yeah the lack of targeting rules has issues. I prefer a robust core over tons of specifics so its easy on the GM to wing it. So if there were core targeting magic rules a GM could easily wing invisibility instead of reading 6 different sections trying to find a specific rule/.
I guess the way I see it, they switched to a perception test instead of a real resistance test in 6e. I think that was the correct design decision given what physical invisibility was supposed to mean. Now I do think it is odd if you pierce the illusion you fully see through it, I'd have ran it more as you see a distinct enough distortion that you know a invisible person is there but you still don't make out the details. Though I guess it could be seen like the photos where initially you look at it and say boobs, then you study it and are like oh two wine glasses seeing through the illusion. Be that as it may in 6e its not mentally resisting a physical illusion, its a perception test to literally see through it. Which tracks with the lore better, and is how i think they should treat it for devices as well.(as an aside as a pro street sam person it also gives Sams a better shot at seeing the illusion, most of mine are tossing 12+dice in visual perception tests where as if it was intuition+will they'd maybe throw 9 dice.)
Maybe the magic book will help here, though I kind of suspect it wont. It is not as obvious of an issue.
-
how many perception tests do you make when an invisible person is trying to sneak past you
One.
Magician roll once to cast the spell.
- This set a threshold to be visually spotted (even for situations where the infiltrator would normally be immediately obvious without an invisibility spell).
Infiltrator roll once to sneak.
- This set a threshold to be heard (in situations where infiltrator is close enough to be heard)
- And if infiltrator roll more hits than the magician it also set the new threshold to be visually spotted (but only for situations where the infiltrator would not be immediately obvious without an invisibility spell).
The potential observer roll perception once
- Then you compare hits.
Devil's Advocacy about doing it that way:
How do you know whether or not the infiltrator is entitled to circumstantial edge because the observer can't see him, or if the observer may be entitled to circumstantial edge because the infiltrator doesn't know they're being visually seen?
With respect, I don't think you CAN do it that way. It must be a 2 step process.. first resolve if the magic is relevant or resisted, then resolve if the stealth worked.
-
...the observer can't see him
The observer can't see the infiltrator if his perception test didn't get enough hits.
...the infiltrator doesn't know they're being visually seen?
The observer can see the infiltrator if his perception test did get enough hits.
-
...the observer can't see him
The observer can't see the infiltrator if his perception test didn't get enough hits.
...the infiltrator doesn't know they're being visually seen?
The observer can see the infiltrator if his perception test did get enough hits.
That's not the point. The point is you have to already know if the observer has pierced the invisibility or not before rolling Intuition + Perception vs Agility + Stealth, because whether or not the infiltrator is invisible relative to the observer matters for who gets edge. Ditto, if the infiltrator is walking around in the open just focusing on being silent, unaware the observer can see them clearly. Either side could have used that edge on the opposed test.
Edit: Furthermore, there's no mechanical precedent I can think of to apply the outcome of one die roll to both an opposed and a success test. Two tests should mean two rolls. Not only is it logical (imo) again... Edge. Getting use of Edge on 2 tests at once is double the impact for the usual price.
-
Not sure I follow you.... Are you thinking of a specific section of the book?
You typically roll for stealth at the beginning of an infiltration. This set a threshold against potential observers. This is also what invisibility and silence does.
SR6 p. 97 Stealth
Typically, a Stealth + Agility test is made at the start of such an effort, with the net hits being used as a threshold for others to notice what the character is up to.
They don't stack, instead you typically just use the highest threshold between stealth and invisibility when it comes to visual spotting and the highest threshold between stealth and silence when it comes to hearing.
Invisibility obviously doesn't help when sneaking up on someone from behind and stealth obviously doesn't help when standing right infront of the observer (as you would typically be immediately obvious if it wasn't for the invisibility spell).
And even if the invisibility spell was not resisted you can still be heard (but not seen).
edit. And even if the observer got enough hits to potentially resist the invisibility spell you might still remain unseen if you got even more hits with your stealth test (which typically mean that you managed to stay hidden in the shadows).
-
Not sure I follow either. Assuming the guard/camera/drone doesn't pierce the (improved) invisibility spell, to me they don't see the target, period.
In which case, the Stealth vs. Perception test is optionally there to check if they don't betray their presence through other senses (most likely hearing).
In case the invisibility is resisted (or seen through, don't want to start the whole debate again ;D), then it depends.
Either the target is counting entirely on the invisibility and is otherwise moving past the guard in plain sight. In which case, he is seen, even if he tries to be silent.
Or, the target is trying to hide in addition to the invisibility, just in case. In which case the Stealth vs. Perception test is also (and probably primarily) a visual test.
In any case, that second Stealth vs. Perception test has nothing to do with magic anymore. So I hope we all agree that a drone will use its Sensor + Clearsight dice pool for it?
-
Going unseen and going undetected are not the same thing. An observer can still detect an invisible infiltrator by hearing them, smelling them, noticing a door just opened for no apparent reason, etc.
-
The whole point in explicitly changing invisibility and silence resistance rolls from Logic + Willpower or Intuition + Logic to Perception is that potential observers now just have to roll once. Then you compare hits. Done. This is fast. Smooth. It speed things up. Almost as if it was changed by design ;-)
This is similar to how you typically don't take one perception test to first see something that is visually hidden and if you fail then you take another perception test to figure out if you can instead hear it. You just roll once. Compare hits. Evaluate how much you see and hear from that. Done.
Or if there are two ninjas sneaking in the shadows. This is not resolved as two separate perception tests. You still just take one perception test. Compare hits. Done. Depending on rolls you might spot both of them, one of them or none of them.
In the case a subject is sneaking, have an invisibility spell and a silence spell you are not adding any value at all by resolving it as 3-4 separate perception tests. All you do is that you slow things down. For no apparent reason at all. Just roll once. Compare hits. Done.
Mechanically stealth work just like invisibility + silence (with the exception that stealth doesn't work in situations where you would be immediately obvious for an observer). All three set thresholds for future perception tests to beat. Observers roll once. Compare hits. And based on the rolls (and the situation) the observer either see the intruder, hear the intruder, both see and hear the intruder or doesn't see nor hear the intruder.
Example;
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 2 hits
Stealth with 4 hits
Intruder sneak up on a guard. Guard roll perception once. Guard get 3 hits. Guard doesn't hear the intruder. Guard is unaware and does not get to spend Edge when intruder backstab him. Doesn't matter if the guard didn't hear the intruder because he was sneaking very carefully or if he had an active silence spell. And in this scenario it doesn't matter at all that the intruder had an invisibility spell since vision was not part of the equation to begin with. Important thing is that the guard failed to hear and as a result potentially ended up with a knife in his back.
Intruder stand in front of a guard and give him the finger. Guard gets 3 hits. Since intruder is immediately obvious and the guard resisted invisibility the guard see the intruder. He is not happy.
Intruder stick to the shadows. Guard get 3 hits. Guard doesn't see the intruder (nor does he hear the intruder). Doesn't matter if guard didn't see the intruder because the intruder was hiding very carefully in the shadows or because he had an active invisibility spell. Important thing is that the guard didn't visually see the intruder.
In any case, that second Stealth vs. Perception test has nothing to do with magic anymore. So I hope we all agree that a drone will use its Sensor + Clearsight dice pool for it?
Since drones doesn't resist improved invisibility with Sensor + Clearsight you have to resolve it in two steps (just like how you would resolve invisibility + stealth against living subjects in the previous edition) :-(
But this is yet another argument for Shinobi Killfist's case....
IF drones had resisted improved invisibility and silence with Sensor + Clearsight (instead of OR, as he suggest) THEN they too would just have to roll once to resolve if they notice a subject using stealth + imp. invisibility + silence ;-)
Going unseen and going undetected are not the same thing. An observer can still detect an invisible infiltrator by hearing them, smelling them, noticing a door just opened for no apparent reason, etc.
Precisely.
Which is why infiltrators typically still roll stealth at the beginning of the infiltration attempt, in addition to the magicians invisibility and silence spells.
But the guard still just roll perception once. Compare hits. Done.
-
I'm all for simplifying things and rolling less dice. But...
Example:
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 5 hits
Stealth with 3 hits
Guard gets 4 hits
-> Guard spots the intruder (because he for example wasn't careful when opening a door).
I would find it really strange (bordering on absurd honestly) that the Stealth test is not made easier thanks to the unresisted Invisibility & Silence spells (else why cast them in the first place?).
-
I'm all for simplifying things and rolling less dice. But...
Example:
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 5 hits
Stealth with 3 hits
Guard gets 4 hits
-> Guard spots the intruder (because he for example wasn't careful when opening a door).
I would find it really strange (bordering on absurd honestly) that the Stealth test is not made easier thanks to the unresisted Invisibility & Silence spells (else why cast them in the first place?).
If you have a silence 5/invis 5. I'd go with don't make a stealth check unless they are doing something that can be noticed without sound/sight. I mean go ahead and make the roll if the person wants to, but nothing would be less than 5 hits, outside maybe like if dogs were there and you still needed to hide vs smell. Now yes if you are opening a door that is in view of a guard doing it in a way that does not arouse suspicion would be a stealth check, you fail that the guard would know the door opened without a visible reason and would be suspicious, but they would still not see or hear you so unless they had some other form of detecting you would not spot you. Given its a world with magic and tech that can make you invisible, they might raise some alert, maybe not a full alert but a low key one.
-
I'm all for simplifying things and rolling less dice. But...
Example:
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 5 hits
Stealth with 3 hits
Guard gets 4 hits
-> Guard spots the intruder (because he for example wasn't careful when opening a door).
I would find it really strange (bordering on absurd honestly) that the Stealth test is not made easier thanks to the unresisted Invisibility & Silence spells (else why cast them in the first place?).
I agree somewhat. But on the other hand, rolling one test against multiple thresholds does end up being an indirect nerf to MagicRun. If you still need to invest in Stealth rather than just having the mage make you invisible, then those who DID invest in Stealth didn't waste their time when the mage makes them Invisible. Personal anecdote: I got pretty frustrated in 5e playing a covert ops/infiltrator type because the mage could just give everyone Concealment at force 9. Hooray. I specialized in stealth for no reason.
I think the thread has reached a point where we're discussing the Art of GMing, rather than what drones/cameras roll. I have to admit Xenon made a compelling argument. I'm still not sure if I agree that 1 roll covering multiple things is the best way to do it, but I have to admit that it's a more elegant approach than applying OR... especially since the basis for the argument is rooted in 5e rather than 6e per se.
However, what's keeping me from embracing it is Edge generation. That is a huge deal in this edition. It's not just a feature of combat. You should be able to generate Edge by sneaking past guards, but that's not possible when the Stealth test establishes a threshold and then the guard rolls gainst that threshold. Again with the Art of GMing... but I'm convinced that the rolls need to be opposed so that Edge can be generated. It's a matter of whether action outside of combat exists only to establish context for combat, or if action outside of combat is equally important to the game as combat. You wouldn't have combat be resolved by one Firearms/Close Combat test, would you? Why should an infiltration be resolved by a single Stealth test that applies one threshold that's then checked multiple times? Especially since contexts will change... Sneaking through a lonely, dimly-lit warehouse with lots of cover is one thing, but then when you have to sneak past the guard standing at the well-lit doorway to the Manager's Office... that dramatic change in environmental context really demands (in my opinion at least) another Stealth test, distinct from the one you rolled to go thru the "easy part".
-
Personal anecdote: I got pretty frustrated in 5e playing a covert ops/infiltrator type because the mage could just give everyone Concealment at force 9. Hooray. I specialized in stealth for no reason.
I can relate to that. Same reason why the adept wonders why he invested in wall running, freefall and traceless walk when the mage can just levitate everyone around. There is a reason for STMF...
That's why I personally don't mind a drone resisting with 15 dice to Improved Visibility. It gives the decker or the Infiltration expert an occasion to shine.
-
I'm all for simplifying things and rolling less dice. But...
Example:
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 5 hits
Stealth with 3 hits
Guard gets 4 hits
-> Guard spots the intruder (because he for example wasn't careful when opening a door).
I would find it really strange (bordering on absurd honestly) that the Stealth test is not made easier thanks to the unresisted Invisibility & Silence spells (else why cast them in the first place?).
Grant Edge to the Infiltrator if they're invisible, silenced and such. Possibly 2 Edge if multiple magical or technological sneaking effects are on. Let the player decide, use the Edge to improve the Stealth checks or carry the Edge over into combat to represent getting the drop on the opposition.
-
I'm all for simplifying things and rolling less dice. But...
Example:
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 5 hits
Stealth with 3 hits
Guard gets 4 hits
-> Guard spots the intruder (because he for example wasn't careful when opening a door).
I would find it really strange (bordering on absurd honestly) that the Stealth test is not made easier thanks to the unresisted Invisibility & Silence spells (else why cast them in the first place?).
Grant Edge to the Infiltrator if they're invisible, silenced and such. Possibly 2 Edge if multiple magical or technological sneaking effects are on. Let the player decide, use the Edge to improve the Stealth checks or carry the Edge over into combat to represent getting the drop on the opposition.
That's the rub... you don't KNOW if the spells are in effect for the interaction until after the observer rolls.
So maybe the best thing to do is a sort of delayed effect. Invisible has its threshold. Observer rolls against it. If successful, not only is it ignored, the observer gets awarded Edge. THEN, the infiltrator rolls Stealth against a threshold the Observer just established. With Edge if the Observer failed to pierce invisibility.
-
I'm all for simplifying things and rolling less dice. But...
Example:
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 5 hits
Stealth with 3 hits
Guard gets 4 hits
-> Guard spots the intruder (because he for example wasn't careful when opening a door).
I would find it really strange (bordering on absurd honestly) that the Stealth test is not made easier thanks to the unresisted Invisibility & Silence spells (else why cast them in the first place?).
Personal anecdote: I got pretty frustrated in 5e playing a covert ops/infiltrator type because the mage could just give everyone Concealment at force 9. Hooray. I specialized in stealth for no reason.
.
The one thing they could have done which would have fixed 90% of magic run is fix spirits, the one thing they did not do is fix spirits. Though I'd also like a buff to mundanes, how I loved it in 2e when my troll had more bioware than god with 0 essence loss from it so he could then shove another 5.9 essence of cyber into his body while magical types any bioware cost essence, so they were well behind in the ware curve.
-
I am curious. You mentioned this a few times now.
Where did you get this whole idea that Edge can only be earned on strictly opposed rolls...?
You should be able to generate Edge by sneaking past guards
Please walk me through the reasoning why you should be able to generate edge simply by sneaking past guards (unless you first created some sort of distraction etc to grant you a tactical advantage of sorts while sneaking).
but that's not possible when the Stealth test establishes a threshold and then the guard rolls gainst that threshold.
Please walk me through your reasoning why there would be any difference between rolling stealth in advance to set a threshold or rolling stealth at the spot (when it comes to Edge).
I'm convinced that the rolls need to be opposed so that Edge can be generated.
Are you referencing some specific part of the book here or where did you get this idea from?
Why should an infiltration be resolved by a single Stealth test that applies one threshold that's then checked multiple times?
For the same reason you typically don't make a Spellcasting + Magic test against every possible observer...
Sneaking through a lonely, dimly-lit warehouse with lots of cover is one thing,
This is when Sneaking is actually useful.
but then when you have to sneak past the guard standing at the well-lit doorway to the Manager's Office...
There are situations where no amount of sneaking will get you pass. This is one of them.
Situations like this is where invisibility become useful. Or tranq darts. Or alternative routes. Or distractions. Or social infiltration.
That's the rub... you don't KNOW if the spells are in effect for the interaction until after the observer rolls.
That is the point.
You don't know in advance if the illusion will be enough or if you need to keep to the shadows.
You can't decide to sneak after the observer already resisted the illusion. By then it is way too late.
You decide if you want to stick to the shadows (even if you have an invisibility spell). Then the guard take his test.
And the result is binary. Either his hits were not enough and you were not spotted (at which point it doesn't matter if it was because of the spell or your skill - not spotted is not spotted) or his hits were enough and you were spotted (at which point the observer will not notice that you had an invisibility spell to begin with and will just see that you are trying to hide in the shadows).
If successful, not only is it ignored, the observer gets awarded Edge.
I don't get this part.
Please walk me through the reasoning why an observer would automatically get a point of Edge just for resisting a spell.
-
If successful, not only is it ignored, the observer gets awarded Edge.
I don't get this part.
Please walk me through the reasoning why an observer would automatically get a point of Edge just for resisting a spell.
It's taking something of a liberty (aka, "Art of GMing") but it's trying to allow for the possibility of Edge gain during the sneak, rather than waiting for combat. Which is what your suggestion seems to be doing.
You asked me to explain quite a few things in that last post, I'll try to cover them all with one explanation. First, what is Edge and why do I think you need to be getting it during the sneak, as opposed to the sneak giving you edge during a backstab:
The concept is described on pg 44. It never explicitly says it's only generated during combat or whether you can potentially generate it outside of combat. During the intro, it uses a couple combat contextual examples, but it also uses language like "It’s both what you plan for and the unexpected moment when you seize an opportunity and make it your own" that to me says it doesn't have to be during combat. And indeed, we DO have explicit rule support for generating Edge during hacking (outside of cybercombat) and during social encounters. We also have Edge that triggers on the gear leg of the triad like Chameleon suits and certain augmentations. When you look at the rules for a Chameleon Suit, for example, it's implicitly obvious that you can earn edge while sneaking, even when that sneaking doesn't result in combat. I don't think there should be any disagreement thus far?
Assuming you CAN earn edge while sneaking as opposed to sneaking only giving an edge in surprise attacks in combat:
Look at the Chameleon Suit. It gives bonus edge for sneak tests. Ok, cut and dried, but rule zero is still assumed to apply. If you're already invisible, should you really still get the chameleon suit bonus? How could it affect anything if you're invisible? But still, if the invisibility is resisted and you're NOT invisible, then obviously you SHOULD get the bonus. None of this is illogical I trust.
Let's walk through a scenario: A ninja is trying to sneak through a dark warehouse patrolled by few sentries. The goal is to reach a crime boss in a well lit office inside the warehouse, and that area is much well guarded/patrolled than the warehouse at large. The ninja is wearing a chameleon suit and a friendly mage cast Improved Invisibility on him (and for pedantry's sake, we'll assume the spell covers the gear as well as the person)
If I understand your proposal Xenon, the process should work like this: The spell has a threshold (we'll say 4). The ninja should only roll 1 stealth check, without regard to the number of times they come into proximity with an observer who might notice them, and also without regard to the changing conditions across the entire infiltration (dark and easy cover and no bottlenecks, then bright and little cover and a guarded bottleneck that must be transited). Let's say that test results in 5 hits.
via whatever mechanic that resolves this, while crossing the warehouse and before reaching the guarded door, only 1 patrolling guard ends up being in position to potentially notice the ninja. You're saying he rolls a perception test once. If he gets 4, he sees through the invisibility. If he gets 5, he notices the ninja. In this particular iteration, seeing through the invisibility is irrelevant as it takes 5 to notice the ninja anyway. If the thresholds were reversed however, at 4 hits the guard would have heard or otherwise noticed the ninja, but it would take 5 hits to SEE the ninja. Repeat for when the ninja tries to get past the guarded office door.
So, if I don't understand your recommendation/suggestion, I apologize. what I just said is how I understand it, so as I attack it please accept a proactive mea culpa.
Problems with the above: 1) We have no idea if the ninja should have gotten edge for the Agility+Stealth test. If invisible, the effect doesn't even work. And we don't know if the invisibility works or not until after the guard rolls, which logically must occur after the start of the infiltration. So, literally: Ninja rolls Agility+Stealth. Does he get the Edge for wearing the suit while invisible, or not? You can't say, under this paradigm. 2) one stealth test for the entire infiltration doesn't differentiate between the very different contexts of one guard patrolling a vast, dark warehouse with lots of obscuring cover and one stationary guard just watching a well lit chokepoint. 3 (only potentially an issue) if your stealth test is better than the mage's spellcasting test, being invisible gives no mechanical benefit.
Walk through on what I propose/believe is the best "art" to adjudicate this scenario:
Ninja's mage friend rolls for the invisibility before the sneak even begins, as with yours. However the ninja does not roll Agility+Stealth at this time. We only have a threshhold for the spell. Then, once by whatever mechanic resolves that a guard came close enough to potentially notice the ninja, the observer will roll perception against the invisible status. If unsuccessful, we know the sneak suit will be irrelevant. If the observer IS successful, invisibility doesn't matter but the sneak suit will. Consider this a trigger point, for later explanation. Then, ONLY after this test, the ninja rolls Agility+Stealth. The suit either gives or doesn't give its gear bonus, based on what we now know about whether invisibility is in play. Additionally, invisibility either does or does not factor in for the circumstantial leg of the edge triad. Originally, I was saying the observer should now roll again to make this test opposed. However, I do see the merit in your argument at least for streamlining things, and can abide with the # of observers hits now being a threshold for the ninja to make a succest test against. One where we now know whether the suit or invisibilty is factoring in for edge for the ninja, as well.
Ok so, because I came around and agreed that 1 perception test instead of 2 (for one potential notice) makes sense, we do still have a bit of an edge problem. Delaying the Stealth test until after resolving whether the observer is affected by invisibility answers questions about whether the ninja gains edge on the Stealth test, it doesn't allow opportunity for the observer to gain edge during that same test. Ergo, the trigger point I referenced before. Giving the observer edge at that point (for successfully piercing invisibility) is just a way to give retroactive edge to the observer for the ninja's stealth test. Of course in this particular case, you might decline to give edge to the observer due to the sneak suit. Or maybe because it's dark and he doesn't have low light vision. or maybe you just award both edge and let it go as a wash. Adjudicating edge is an art, not a science. It's not legislated what gives edge and what doesn't, and that's by design. But the process needs a place to evaluate the factors for potential edge award. That's a hard need.
Of course, after the ninja gets past the warehouse patrol (either via stealth or combat) there's another "encounter" in getting by the bodyguard at the well lit office doorway. The process repeats, rather than one test representing an entire infiltration. This guard might fail or succeed to pierce invisibility without regard for how the first guard did. Also the ninja's Agility+Stealth roll is made in an entirely different environmental context (bright, little cover, a guarded chokepoint that must be passed through) than before, which can end up having completely different consequences for edge generation than the first test did.
Clearer than mud?
TL;DR
1) You get edge for stuff even outside combat, such as sneaking
2) You should manage the rolls for tests in such a way to allow for the potential TO gain edge for sneaking. for both sides.
3) combat isn't resolved in one test. Social encounters aren't resolved in one test. Edgo, an entire infiltration shouldn't be resolved with one Stealth test.
-
We also have Edge that triggers on the gear leg of the triad like Chameleon suits and certain augmentations.
Yes, if you are dressed in ruthenium polymer then you have a reason to argue that you have a tactical advantage while infiltrating a plant and you might earn one point of edge for that. Agreed.
SR6 p. 265 Chameleon Suit
You gain a bonus Edge when performing Stealth tests to hide while wearing an active suit.
(note it says 'a' bonus Edge even though it says multiple 'tests').
If you killed the power to have the whole facility on backup generators and emergency lightning then I would also consider it a reason to award tactical advantage while sneaking and you might earn one point of edge for that. Or if you fill the area with smoke then you could also argue for a tactical advantage while trying to stay hidden while people are looking for you and you might earn one point of edge for that.
Outside of combat you typically gain a point of Edge that you need to spend on the related test or you gain one point of Edge at the beginning of the encounter, conflict or endeavor (or if not at the beginning then you might instead earn it when something special special happens during the encounter itself). There are exceptions but I'd say you would typically not gain multiple points of Edge simply for infiltrating a plant or for negotiating the price of a run (but I also understand that different people probably rule this differently).
SR6 p. Social Edge Tests
Generally speaking, Edge would be awarded once, either at the beginning of an encounter or when particular circumstances arise, not repeatedly throughout the encounter.
And while just sneaking while not having anything to give you an edge over your opponent in the situation should typically not grant you edge at all.
And observers should probably also not randomly gain edge just for spotting things (again, unless of course they used some sort of gear or quality etc that would give them an edge in the situation.... blindly trying to sneak around in smoke while the observer have thermographic vision and can see you perfectly well, for example, could perhaps grant one point of edge to the observer).
If I understand your proposal Xenon, the process should work like this: The spell has a threshold (we'll say 4). The ninja should only roll 1 stealth check, without regard to the number of times they come into proximity with an observer who might notice them, and also without regard to the changing conditions across the entire infiltration
There is no firm rule here, but book (I didn't write the book) seem to suggest that most of the times you simply take the test at the start of the infiltration which will set a threshold for potential observers.
SR6 p. 97 Stealth
Typically, a Stealth + Agility test is made at the start of such an effort, with the net hits being used as a threshold for others to notice what the character is up to.
And other times the book (not me) says that you instead roll it directly as part of an opposed test.
SR6 p. 97 Stealth
Sometimes the attempt at stealth happens spontaneously, so it is a Stealth + Agility vs. Perception + Intuition Opposed test.
If you see it fit to reroll the stealth test for whatever reason then you just do it.
And if you want to reroll stealth every time an observer look at the ninja during the infiltration, then you just do that as well (although the book is pretty clear that you typically just roll once to set a threshold).
If you want you can probably also reroll Spellcasting + Magic against every potential observer as well (although here the book is pretty clear that you should always just roll once to set a threshold)
Same as you can also roll visual perception, followed by audio perception, followed by noticing magic perception, followed by resist invis perception, followed by resist silence perception. And you can do this for every potential observer as well.
Or you just roll once. Same thing really. But quite a lot faster to resolve. Sometimes you can notice many different things with many different senses. Sure as hell a lot faster to resolve it as a single test. And the outcome is very similar. Even after your post I honestly don't see what the extra rolls would add :-/
Walk through on what I propose...
So if I boil all that down you would not award edge as long as the observer fail to resist the invisibility spell. Fair enough.
But the ruthenium polymer is something that would be considered giving the intruder a tactical advantage when trying to stay out of sight against observers that successfully resisted the invisibility spell. Also fair I guess.
I don't fully agree with your reading that the ninja would earn one point of Edge for every single observer that successfully resisted the invisibility spell, but I can see what you are aiming for here.
I also don't agree with your reading that observers would automatically earn edge for no other reason that their perception test was successful. Not sure I fully understand your reasoning here to be honest, but that is also fine.
The real question is; With your reading, what stop you from evaluating it precisely like that even if you roll stealth in advance....??
Back to my example where you roll once for infiltrating the plant.
Silence with 5 hits
Invisibility with 2 hits
Stealth with 4 hits
First Guard roll 1 hit. No edge for the intruder (as chameleon suit never came into effect this time). Ninja is still hidden.
Next Guard roll 3 hits. Award edge for the intruder (as guard resisted invis). Ninja is still hidden.
Third Guard roll 5 hits. Award edge for the intruder (as guard resisted invis). The guard is about to spot the ninja!
....but the ninja might consider it worthwhile to spend some of his tactical advantage to reroll a few hits for the observer.
After all, to gain a tactical advantage that he could spend when most needed, is why he bothered to dress up in ruthenium polymer to begin with. Right? ;-)
If the guard turns out to actually spot the Ninja he is awarded a point of Edge for that. Not sure why, but OK :-)
-
Two ninjas plan to infiltrate a plant.
One of them have an active Chameleon Suit. This ninja get one point of Edge because of that.
Both ninjas roll Stealth + Agility (and Spend Edge) to set the thresholds for guards to notice them.
On the route our two ninjas chosen they will encounter two separate guards.
Guard on the ground floor roll Perception + Intuition against both thresholds. Once.
Depending on his roll he might notice both (even with a single roll), one or none of the ninjas.
Guard on the top floor also roll Perception + Intuition against both thresholds. Once.
Depending on his roll he might notice both, one or none of the ninjas.
Done.
Instead of focusing on rolling massive amount of dice for each single guard, the time and effort is instead put into the narrative part of the actual infiltration. The role playing. The action. The fun stuff.
Sure, you can probably resolve it as two separate perception tests (but why)
Guard on the ground floor roll Perception + Intuition against the first ninja
Guard on the ground floor roll Perception + Intuition against the second ninja
Depending on his rolls he might notice both, one or none of the ninjas.
Guard on the top floor also roll Perception + Intuition against the first ninja.
Guard on the top floor also roll Perception + Intuition against the second ninja.
Depending on his rolls he might notice both, one or none of the ninjas.
Basically the same result. But with twice as many rolls.
Team's adept is about to infiltrate the plant. The team's Shaman cast invisibility on him.
Neither the Adept nor the Shaman have anything specific to grant them Edge.
Adept roll Stealth + Agility (and Spend Edge) to set the threshold for guards to resist stealth.
Shaman roll Spellcasting + Magic (and Spend Edge) to set the threshold for guards to resist invisibility.
On the first floor the Adept run into a guard.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition against both thresholds. Once.
If the guard beat both thresholds then the adept is seen and combat will start.
If the guard does not beat the threshold of invis but beat threshold of stealth then guard will hear something and get suspicious.
If the guard does not beat the threshold of stealth then the guard will not notice anything.
Again very few rolls from a mechanical point of view. But that just mean we get more time to focus on the narrative and describing the infiltration attempt and how close it was that the guards noticed the player.
If you want you can also still resolve it with two perception tests (like how we used to do it in previous edition).
Guard roll Perception + Intuition against invis threshold
Guard roll Perception + Intuition against stealth threshold
If the guard beat both thresholds then the adept is seen and combat will start.
If the guard does not beat the threshold of invis but beat threshold of stealth then guard will hear something and get suspicious.
If the guard does not beat the threshold of stealth then the guard will not notice anything.
Same result. But twice as many rolls.
On the top floor there is a well lit corridor with no cover with a guard standing in the middle of the corridor looking at the direction of the adept.
The Adept know that he would be immediately spotted if he tried to sneak pass the guard.
He could find another route. Try his social skills. Try to neutralize the guard. Wait for a shift change or the guard to leave. Etc.
But since he have an active invisibility spell on him he decide to just silently walk pass the guard in clear sight.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition against both thresholds. Once.
If the guard beat the threshold of invis then the adept is seen and combat will start.
If the guard does not beat the threshold of invis but beat threshold of stealth then guard will hear something and get suspicious.
If the guard does not beat any thresholds then the guard will not notice anything.
If you want then you can also resolve it with two perception tests.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition against invis threshold
If the guard beat the threshold of invis then the adept is seen and combat will start.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition against stealth threshold
If the guard does not beat the threshold of invis but beat threshold of stealth then guard will hear something and get suspicious.
If the guard does not beat any thresholds then the guard will not notice anything.
Again, same outcome.
-
Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.
You will likely need an additional test to determine if his suspicions become certainties though. So I'm not sure you roll less dice in the end.
What if you replace Invisibility by a Silence spell and the guard succeeds against the Stealth test, but fails against the spell? In other words, the guard spots the PC that is trying to hide, but doesn't hear him. Does he get suspicious, or does he raise the alarm?
I find the first possibility much less likely than in your example.
And for the second possibility, the problem is that the unresisted Silence spell is of no help at all.
-
...
Sure, you can probably resolve it as two separate perception tests (but why)
...
Because, again, Edge.
I'll try one more time, putting it another way:
You can potentially gain 2 edge on any given action. In the case of Stealth, that's 1 from gear and 1 from circumstances. And when I say "you", I mean both parties. When a ninja tries to sneak past a guard, that's potentially 2 edge to the ninja AND/OR 2 edge to the guard. Yeah it's laborious to roll more than one perception test per guard interaction. Hell, you might even adapt the grunt group rules to account for sneaking past numerous guards as one roll. But, I'm sure you'll agree here, Edge is mechanically a big deal. IMO you can't (or at least shouldn't) pave over the steps where Edge could be generated for either party in the name of expedience.
You wouldn't skip the AR vs DR evaluation during an attack for sake of expediency, would you? It's a co-equal leg in the edge triumvirate as evaluating whether contextual circumstances warrant edge for the attack or defense. There's no AR vs DR in sneaking... but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.
One more argument against making one pre-rolled stealth test that establishes a threshold for observers to spot:
You can only gain at most 2 edge for your sneak. OTOH, if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard. That's potentially a huge difference by the end of the sneak if you were able to hang on to them for what comes after the sneak.
-
Sorry I'm not adding anything constructive to the discussion with this, but now I can't help but imagine a PC taking unnecessary risks by voluntarily passing by additional guards just to get a chance to generate more Edge ;D
-
Sorry I'm not adding anything constructive to the discussion with this, but now I can't help but imagine a PC taking unnecessary risks by voluntarily passing by additional guards just to get a chance to generate more Edge ;D
Well, first of all that's not a thing. See Preventing Edge abuse (pg. 45). If you're passing by a guard/camera/drone unnecessarily just to gain the edge for doing so, then you don't get the Edge :D Same concept for Riggers... they get edge every time they perform a vehicle related test (while Jumped In... See Control Rig cyberware). Driving to Stuffer shack? Doing a donut just to gain the Edge? GM is empowered, and expected, to put the kibosh on generating Edge just for Edge's sake.
However, if you have to sneak past 2 "checkpoints", then yes you should have the opportunity to generate more edge than if there were only one chance for you to be detected. Absolutely. You take the risk, you (potentially) get the Edge. That's a core facet of the entire edition.
-
Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.
Not sure what you are trying to tell me here..... :-/
I personally find it plausible that most guards will act (raise an alarm / attack / call in high threat response units / whatever) if they have actual visual confirmation of an intruder trying to sneak in the shadows. That it in this scenario it doesn't really matter if they can also hear the intruder.
I also find it plausible that guards will just become suspicious if they hear something strange (they might or might not report to central that they heard something and that they will investigate further), but I also find it plausible that they would want to get visual confirmation before they will act for real (raise an alarm / attack / call in HTR / whatever).
But it will also depend on the situation, how professional the guards are and how on edge they are.
Feel free to make another call that you think is more fitting.
How the guard choose to react in each situation was not really the point of the post anyway ;-)
What if you replace Invisibility by a Silence spell and the guard succeeds against the Stealth test...
Invisibility is often more useful than Silence. Silence typically only come into play when there is no line of sight.
Like if you you are already invisible, are trying to sneak up on a guard from behind or if the room have some sort of sound sensitive scanners (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar0xLps7WSY).
But it can also be used to prevent a guard from vocally calling for help ;-)
but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.
Agreed.
But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.
if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard.
Not sure I agree with that reading, but if this is how you typically rule it then I don't understand what is stopping you from awarding the ruthenium polymer coated ninja one point of edge each time a guard take a perception test against his stealth threshold?
-
but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.
Agreed.
But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.
Au contraire, mon frère. Not getting your edge until well after the roll was made means you can't use that edge to reroll dice in that roll. Granted it's usually more beneficial to reroll opposing hits rather than your own failures... but if you're rolling hits to establish a threshold that will then be tested against multiple times, then THAT changes the calculus. Even if you don't agree that nothing beats pushing your hits up higher in this sort of case, giving retroactive edge later on is still taking this perfectly legal option away from the ninja.
if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard.
Not sure I agree with that reading, but if this is how you typically rule it then I don't understand what is stopping you from awarding the ruthenium polymer coated ninja one point of edge each time a guard take a perception test against his stealth threshold?
I think we can agree to agree that we've deconstructed the question in the original post all the way down to the Art/Habits of GMing. I agree that streamlining rolls is a very advantageous thing, even when it might impinge on the "technically correct" way of doing things. For example: if the ninja has both silence and invisibility going, I still say the "technically correct" thing to do is for every potential observer to make 3 perception tests: one against each status and a third against the stealth test. However, I concede that's kind of unwieldly/unfun way to actually run a game. I'd put it at 2 tests: 1 against the statuses and 1 against the ninja's stealth test. I could (and have, at length) pick at the problems of boiling it down to 1 instead my preference of 2. But it's ultimately a matter of preference/keeping play going and the difference between the two is fuzzy anyway. Even grouping 1 test against both silent and invisible has its problems, even though I just said I'd be amenable to doing it. What if the guard has Audio Enhancement in his earbuds? That bonus to hearing things is suddenly helping him see through invisible as well, if one perception test is simultaneously being tested against both statuses.
We're (ok, I've been) getting pedantic about best practices in GMing, really.
-
Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.
Not sure what you are trying to tell me here..... :-/
No irony nor sarcasm, sorry for my poor wording if it's how it was perceived.
Unresisted Invisibility or Silence should give an edge on Stealth tests i.m.h.o. Said differently, if you have the same chance of getting caught with and without Invisibility or Silence, something is off.
From my understanding, your approach is to make failed Stealth test less impactful by making the guard suspicious instead of raising the alarm. Works well for Invisibility, maybe less so for other similar spells (but I agree, highly debatable).
Stainless Steel Devil Rat means to give actual Edge points, which is true to the rules. However, it doesn't fit perfectly well with the idea of a single Stealth test that fits all circumstances in advance.
Personally I see pros and cons in both cases and I find both interesting. And indeed, I have nothing better to propose.
-
I still say the "technically correct" thing to do is for every potential observer to make 3 perception tests...
I am not getting upset if people rule that each individual guard get to roll perception multiple times against each intruder and that each intruder reroll their stealth against every single guard they run into (and in some cases perhaps even multiple times against each guard).
I just don't think this was what the authors had in mind when they deliberately changed sneaking, invisibility and silence to set 3 different thresholds for perception before the infiltration was even started.
The astral perception table have list 17 items over 5+ thresholds, yet I am pretty sure you just take one astral perception test to resolve that.
From my understanding, your approach is to make failed Stealth test less impactful by making the guard suspicious instead of raising the alarm.
Ah, now I think I understand what you mean! Sorry :-)
No, my approach was that:
A guard that See an intruder (for whatever reason and no matter if he also Hear the intruder or not) will raise alarm.
A guard that Hear (for whatever reason) but does not See (for whatever reason) an intruder will become suspicious.
A guard that doesn't See (for whatever reason) nor Hear (for whatever reason) an intruder will not react at all.
Reason why the guard 'Heard but not See' the intruder in the example was because invisibility was successful but stealth was not. But the guard would probably also be suspicious if the intruder was walking around like normal in the next room, or if the intruder was walking as normal behind a guard because he had a silence spell but the guard resisted the silence spell, or if the intruder was walking in front of a guard while using invis and silence but the guard resisted the silence spell. Etc. There could be any number of reasons. Not all of them depending on failed stealth specifically. Failing 'Stealth' was not really the key here. Guard 'Hearing but not Seeing' the intruder was.
Stainless Steel Devil Rat means to give actual Edge points, which is true to the rules. However, it doesn't fit perfectly well with the idea of a single Stealth test that fits all circumstances in advance.
With few exceptions, outside of combat and hacking Edge from *gear or qualities* etc typically either just award one point of Edge for the entire encounter / scene or they reward you with one bonus Edge point for a specific test that also need to be spend directly on the related test.
Since book is pretty explicit that you typically just roll once at the start I think the intention here is actually that you do just roll stealth once (just how you typically just roll spellcasting once for invisibility or silence = streamlined) and reward one edge if you have coating. This also opens up the possibility to have a larger patrol of guards to roll perception once as a Grunt Group (rather than two-three opposed rolls for each member of the patrol). This me and SSDR *disagree* on. Which is fine. There is no fixed rule either way I think. But still.... automatically earning 2 Edge every time a pair of guards walk pass you...? That will pile up a lot of Edge very quickly(!)
Anyway.
But then I also *agree* with SSDR that both parties may gain additional edge during the infiltration attempt based *on circumstances*.
Trying to sneak pass a checkpoint that is well lit and there is little cover will be harder than normal and will probably grant a point of Edge to the guard at the checkpoint. Sneaking pass a guard in a large warehouse with AGVs moving all over the place, is poorly lit and have a lot of cover will probably instead grant a point of Edge to the intruder. No issue here.
What to spend Edge on then? Well.... Guard can spend Edge on his perception test. Intruder can also spend Edge on the guard's perception test. I don't really see the issue with this to be honest.
-
I think we're saying the same thing, but with different words :-)
I don't think I was able to convey the issue I perceive very well though. The lengthier a discussion gets, the less constructive it usually becomes, so please bear with me as I give it another try.
Let's look at a first example where a runner tries to infiltrate a facility by just relying on his skills to remain undetected. He must go past multiple guards at different places in the facility, but the whole infiltration part is resolved on his side by making a single Stealth roll in the beginning. I agree that mechanically speaking this is not a bad thing: if you keep adding Stealth tests along the way, he is bound to roll poorly sooner or later and eventually get caught, plus it speeds up the dice rolling part to concentrate on more interesting aspects of the game.
Now let's rewind and consider the same runner attempting exactly the same thing, but this time he benefits from a beefy Silence spell that none of the guards are likely to resist. Apart from the spell, nothing changes, and by that I mean he never relies exclusively on the spell to remain undetected. Basically, he acts exactly in the same way as in the first example.
If you look at those two examples, his chances of success *should* be higher in the second case (unless all guards are deaf or something, but let's assume this isn't the case).
Let's take a closer look at the dice rolls.
First example:
Runner: Stealth test, X successes
Guard: Perception test, Y successes
Second example:
Runner: Silence test, Z successes
Runner: Stealth test, X successes
Guard: Perception test, Y successes, Y < Z
I *would* see a big problem if the runner would be detected in both cases simply when Y>X ("the guard sees you, but doesn't hear you, so he raises the alarm"). Because that would mean that the Silence spell doesn't help at all. Which is why I'm specifically interested in how you address that particular issue in your examples. Unless I missed something, the only mechanism I could see in those examples that contributes to that is the "I detect you" vs "I become suspicious" thingy in the case of Invisibility. And that's really fine, but if you look at the big picture and replace Invisibility with other kind of bonuses, to me it's a system that relies a bit too much on GM fiat rather than rules. I would prefer, if possible, a generic system that could take any kind of advantage the runner might have into account to improve his chances of success.
And that's where the situational Edge system fits perfectly well in i.m.o. But with the big caveat that you can't have that one Stealth test in the beginning to rule them all if some of the guards resist the spell and others don't, especially if you have drones and such in the lot. Or you simply don't care and rule that, since the spell fools most of the guards, the runner globally has a situational advantage and you toss him that Edge point and make a single Perception test for the group of guards. In any case, I don't see a perfect solution.
-
Because that would mean that the Silence spell doesn't help at all. Which is why I'm specifically interested in how you address that particular issue in your examples.
Invisibility is typically a lot more useful while infiltrating than Silence.
Magicians typically always prioritize Invisibility over Silence (or cast both).
Benefit of Silence is that you can for example cast it on a guard (that will prevent him from verbally calling for help).
But this have nothing to do with if perception is rolled against thresholds or direct opposed by stealth ;-)
You stick to the shadows while sneaking pass a guard. You have Silence but not Invisibility.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs [Threshold set by Stealth before infiltration]
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.
Same outcome.
You silently try to sneak behind a guard (no line of sight).
If guard hear you he will likely turn around and you will be immediately spotted.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. [Threshold set by Silence spell before infiltration]
If guard fail then all is well and you continue.
If guard is successful then he take an Opposed Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility test.
If the guard fail then all is well and you continue.
If the guard beat this threshold as well then the shit is about to hit the fan.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition
Compare hits against Threshold set by both Silence spell as well as Threshold set by Stealth skill before infiltration.
If the guard does not beat the highest threshold then all is well and you continue.
If guard beat the highest threshold then the shit is about to hit the fan.
Same outcome.
-
You stick to the shadows while sneaking pass a guard. You have Silence but not Invisibility.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.
I think we just have to agree to disagree at this point.
To me a Stealth test is not purely opposed by the visual perception, it encompasses all senses, not just the visual perception. In which case, if you try to remain out of sight and not making any sound, the Silence spell not helping at all in the above example doesn't sit well with me.
-
You stick to the shadows while sneaking pass a guard. You have Silence but not Invisibility.
Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.
I think we just have to agree to disagree at this point.
To me a Stealth test is not purely opposed by the visual perception, it encompasses all senses, not just the visual perception. In which case, if you try to remain out of sight and not making any sound, the Silence spell not helping at all in the above example doesn't sit well with me.
While it is more than just visual, most people are visual based, and sound just does not travel the same as sight. On most surfaces if you are more than 10 feet away from someone even without them trying to stealth they wont be heard, unless you have squeaky shoes or something. At best in most circumstances you are looking for a glitch which seems uncalled for to even ask for a roll. Now if the guard has cyber ears maybe make them roll, if they are trying to sneak up on them make them roll, if they are trying to manipulate a object in view without it being noticed make them roll etc.
If they successfully are invisible to the target I'm going to ask myself is there some reason I am even calling for a stealth roll at this point. There can be easily enough, proximity, maybe its to reflect navigating through a busy corridor without bumping into anyone since they can't see you to avoid.
And even if I call for a stealth test due to some circumstance that makes sound relevant I have to make a judgement call on what a failed stealth test means. Like you roll stealth and get 3 hits, he rolls perception and gets 3 net hit 0 but hit the threshold.(I'm forgetting which way they go on this if you need a net hit or just hit the threshold on stealth) What does 0 net hit on a hearing test when a person is invisible mean? Is it they hear footsteps, 10 feet away to the northeast, or are they just did I hear something? For example hearing whispering is a threshold of 3, if they just hit the threshold but not exceed it do you have them not just hear whispering but understand it clearly? Me if they hit the threshold I'd say they hear that people are whispering, a net hit they'd pick out a few words(but I wouldn't be a dick about it and make them only hear words that mislead them unless it was also a glitch), 2 net hits now they pretty much hear the conversation, maybe missing a word or two here and there, 3 net hits they heard it clearly. Invisibility is kind of the same boat, your primary sense is saying there is nothing so you are entirely relying on hearing, there may be circumstances that make things easier, lone person in a corridor on a tiled floor, but carpeted floor 5- 6 people in the hallway if I made them make a stealth test which is unlikely at this point, what would just hitting the threshold or 1 net hit mean.
-
My point was that it doesn't really matter if you Pre-Roll or Re-Roll, but we can explore this topic as well I guess ;-)
A guard within hearing range but not within line of sight will perhaps get auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??
A successful invisibility spell represent that you avoided visual confirmation.
The guard will not see you at all. As long as he is not within hearing range he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard is within hearing range then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??
A guard with just line of sight but not within hearing range will perhaps get visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??
A successful silence spell represent that you avoided auditory confirmation.
The guard will not hear you at all. As long as he doesn't have line of sight he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard have line of sight then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??
-
A tangent that I think adds an interesting, and potentially relevant wrinkle:
How would you represent trying to sneak past a dog? Hearing and scent is how it's gonna detect you. Sight is a distant third in the precedence for their senses. I'd say a dog is functionally immune to invisibility due to this. Maybe being invisible would help you defend against being bitten...maybe. But being detected? Zero help whatsoever. Does the presence of a guard dog alter how you'd manage the mechanics of stealth and invisibility?
What about a drone that works just like a dog, primarily locating intruders via non-sight based means?
My instinct would be to just assign a threshold for the ninja to test against, and probably a high one. And I'll have to think about why I'm more willing to do success tests here than opposed tests vs metahumans.
-
I personally think it makes more sense to use stealth exclusively for staying out of sight and moving silently. Palming, blending in, sneaking, etc.
That you need to deal with dogs with help of other means (snacks, tranq darts, staying at distance and down-wind, pepper punch, covering yourself in shit or possible using tailored pheromones, etc.)
Edit.
Having said that, if you cast invisibility on yourself (to prevent him from attacking you) and silence on the dog (to prevent others from hearing when it is barking) then it doesn't really matter if he can smell you ;-)
-
Don't forget that skills aren't just about doing something, they imply a practical knowledge of said skill.
So someone trying to sneak past a dog using infilration (or whatever the 6e skill is called) would know what to watch out for, and how best to approach the situation. With greater skill ranks impling more complete knowledge....
Just cause YOU don't know how to get past a dog, doesn't mean your character is oblivious to that knowledge.
-
My point was that it doesn't really matter if you Pre-Roll or Re-Roll, but we can explore this topic as well I guess ;-)
A guard within hearing range but not within line of sight will perhaps get auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??
A successful invisibility spell represent that you avoided visual confirmation.
The guard will not see you at all. As long as he is not within hearing range he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard is within hearing range then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??
A guard with just line of sight but not within hearing range will perhaps get visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??
A successful silence spell represent that you avoided auditory confirmation.
The guard will not hear you at all. As long as he doesn't have line of sight he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard have line of sight then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??
If you limit the amount of senses that the guard can detect you with, then yes, you should get a bonus to stealth since the whole endeavour just became easier.
He doesn't just "have line or sight" or "not have line of sight". You're sneaking about. Attempting to move from hiding spot to hiding spot when he's not looking. Not making any noise just ups the chances of not drawing his attention towards your position and him not looking in your direction at the wrong time.
I find it really strange that you insist on a single dice roll that abstracts the whole procedure, but then analyze in details very specific and individual situations without looking at the big picture.
A dimly lit warehouse. A single guard with his dog, sitting on a bench in the middle of the night.
"15 minutes to go until the next shift buddy" says the guard while yawning and patting the dog lying next to him.
Suddenly, the dog rises up and stares intently straight ahead, its ears pointed up.
"Ah come on, seriously, I'm really not in the moods for chasing rodents this time..."
The guard shifts his gaze in the same direction and frowns. Did he just see something moving behind those crates, or is his fatigued mind playing tricks on him?
He stands up, points a flashlight towards the crates and starts moving, the dog ahead of him and pulling insistently on the leash.
"Nothing, you see". His voice doesn't sound very convincing though. The dog starts sniffing the ground and becomes more and more agitated.
The guard lets himself be guided, resisting with one hand the dog's now frantic pulling to keep a steady and careful pace and illuminating the way ahead with the other hand. He finally arrives at a door, just in time to see it closing.
"Rodents definitely don't open doors." He gulps, pulls out his handgun. "And I'm definitely not paid enough for this job". He moves forward.
That could be the roleplay behind a single Stealth roll.
Would Invisibility have helped?
Would Silence have helped?
Would something that eliminates scent have helped?
To me, yes, they should have.
-
I find it really strange that you insist on a single dice roll that abstracts the whole procedure
Just because stealth is typically rolled once when you sneak into a research facility (according to SR6 p. 97) does not mean you should abstract the whole procedure into a single roll. All patrols still roll their perception tests.
...but then analyze in details very specific and individual situations...
Reason why we analyzed it in detail here in the thread was because you asked very detailed questions.
If silence is successful then the character is not heard.
If invisibility is successful then the character is not seen.
If stealth is successful then the character is not noticed at all.
Silence can also be used to prevent someone else from making sounds.
Invisibility can also be used in situations where stealth is not an option.
It is not more complicated or detailed than that.
....without looking at the big picture.
As in all situations in SR6 (not limited to stealth nor if you preroll or reroll), if either side can argue that they have some sort of circumstantial tactical advantage over the other then they might earn a point of Edge for that.
-
We're running in circles, ain't we :-)
As in all situations in SR6 (not limited to stealth nor if you preroll or reroll), if either side can argue that they have some sort of circumstantial tactical advantage over the other then they might earn a point of Edge for that.
Yes sir, I agree!
Except for the "nor if you preroll or reroll", but more on that below.
And so I'll argue that I have a circumstantial tactical advantage over the other when I'm under the effect of an Invisibility or Silence spell that he hasn't resisted.
And thus...
Grant Edge to the Infiltrator if they're invisible, silenced and such. Possibly 2 Edge if multiple magical or technological sneaking effects are on. Let the player decide, use the Edge to improve the Stealth checks or carry the Edge over into combat to represent getting the drop on the opposition.
That's the rub... you don't KNOW if the spells are in effect for the interaction until after the observer rolls.
So maybe the best thing to do is a sort of delayed effect. Invisible has its threshold. Observer rolls against it. If successful, not only is it ignored, the observer gets awarded Edge. THEN, the infiltrator rolls Stealth against a threshold the Observer just established. With Edge if the Observer failed to pierce invisibility.
But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.
Au contraire, mon frère. Not getting your edge until well after the roll was made means you can't use that edge to reroll dice in that roll. Granted it's usually more beneficial to reroll opposing hits rather than your own failures... but if you're rolling hits to establish a threshold that will then be tested against multiple times, then THAT changes the calculus. Even if you don't agree that nothing beats pushing your hits up higher in this sort of case, giving retroactive edge later on is still taking this perfectly legal option away from the ninja.
-
I'll argue that I have a circumstantial tactical advantage over the other when I'm under the effect of an Invisibility or Silence spell that he hasn't resisted.
If your GM rule that you get a point of Edge when sneaking in situations where you cannot be seen (because you are sneaking up from behind or because perception test didn't beat your invisibility threshold or whatever) or if you can not be heard (because you are not within hearing range or because perception test didn't beat your silence threshold or whatever) then GM will just award you a point of Edge (or even two). It is not more complicated than that.
And just because stealth is typically rolled once when you sneak into a research facility (according to SR6 p. 97) does not mean you can't spend Edge on rerolling perception hits for your opponent ('Reroll one dice' is a post Edge action, which mean you take this action after the perception test is already made). But as long as the perception test didn't beat your stealth threshold you can also save your tactical advantage until later, when you really need it.