[Reiper]

Reading Concealment or Invis, they seem to worded in a way where you can remain invis or concealed during combat (conceal until you are spotted at least).

I generally houserule it where a hostile action will remove invis or concealment and was wondering if anyone else did this as well, and if not, do you have a particular reason why?

Basically just trying to get some varying opinions on the matter.

[Reaver]

Concealment is a ball of wax...

For invisibility,  attackers are treated as "blind firing" (-6 DP?) Until they find some way to overcome the invisibility.

[Cronstintein]

Yeah it's a little tricky with conceal on a high stealth character but I would basically be giving the bonus +3 to perception checks for active search to the npc.

But if the pc is firing concealed from the bushes at 100m (think sniper type situation) it stands to reason the npc is pretty screwed and might just run inside and call for help.

[joe15552]

Reading Concealment or Invis, they seem to worded in a way where you can remain invis or concealed during combat (conceal until you are spotted at least).

I generally houserule it where a hostile action will remove invis or concealment and was wondering if anyone else did this as well, and if not, do you have a particular reason why?

Basically just trying to get some varying opinions on the matter.

Ah, yes, ye ole D&D invisibility spell ends when you attack. Or, you can use improved invisibility in D&D and invisibility ends on the SECOND attack! That's pretty dope. But in SR5, attacks allow the target +5 dicepool modifier for the target find the invisible attacker. +3 for specifically looking (or at least they better be or they are just dumb), and +2 because the invisible attacker stands out, because it's attacking. If the target of the attack reaches the threshold of the attacker's concealment or invisibility threshold, then  the target perceives the  invisible attacker (they know for certain that there is an invisible attacker in a specific location that they can target without the blind fire modifier), but the attacker remains invisible (noone else can do this without the blind fire modifier until they reach the threshold).

[Cronstintein]

I don't think you lose the blind fire penalties for a perception spot on  invisibility.  Concealing though, would be useless once spotted.

  I think you'd need to overcome the spell itself.  I forget the exact stats, willpower+ something (intuition maybe? ) to pierce the invis spell.

[Xenon]

or use a ultrasound sensor


Also,

SR5 p. 291 Invisibility / Improved Invisibility
Attacks against invisible targets suffer the Blind Fire modifier if the attacker is unable to see or otherwise sense the subject of the spell.

depending on your reading of the above it might be enough to hear, smell, taste, feel or in some other way sense the invisible target and you no longer take a blind fire modifier.

depending on your reading of the above it might also be enough to notice the magic and you no longer take a blind fire modifier (Perceiving Magic on p. 280-281).


you get blind fire (-6 dice) on the attack test if a target is 100% behind cover.
you get no negative modifier at all on the attack test if a target is "just" 99% behind cover.

[Cronstintein]

That -6 for 100% cover is for trying to shoot through the cover and hit the guy behind, not sure how well that relates to invisibility.

Hmm, that line quoted above does make it sound like an effective aural perception check would eliminate the blind fire penalty.  That's a little odd conceptually since the pc could move 5 feet and the npc should still be shooting where he landed his last perception test (unless he's close enough to hear the pc move, then it makes more sense)

[Michael Chandra]

The -6 for 100% cover is a blind-fire modifier, while the cover still adds to the defender.  Of course the defender then also can't see the attacker so only has the cover bonus, no defense on their own.

"Whether due to darkness or cover, if the shooter doesn’t know where the target is, they apply the Blind Fire modifier."
"If the barrier between the attacker and defender is transparent, like bullet resistant glass, there is no cover or obstruction to sight"

[Shinobi Killfist]

I hate the rule that if you are behind full cover you don't get to dodge(other thancover dice).  If I am so magically unaware of you that I can't dodge, the attacker in the same position should automatically miss as he is firing totally blind, or it should be a edge off.  If he can figure out enough of where you are to get a mere -6 dice penalty, I should know where the attacker is well enough to make it harder on him and dodge.

[RHat]

I hate the rule that if you are behind full cover you don't get to dodge(other thancover dice).  If I am so magically unaware of you that I can't dodge, the attacker in the same position should automatically miss as he is firing totally blind, or it should be a edge off.  If he can figure out enough of where you are to get a mere -6 dice penalty, I should know where the attacker is well enough to make it harder on him and dodge.

If NOTHING else, you should be counted as aware if you somehow have a visual on the attacker, such as through a video feed from one of the rigger's drones.

[martinchaen]

Pff, that's nothing. Try hitting a minidrone no bigger than an insect at 300 meters up in the air with an assault rifle; a mere negative 3, presuming little to no wind and clear visibility. And that's my point; remember that the GM can pile on those negative dice pool mods to his hearts content, unless all of his shadowruns happens on clear days with no wind, in buildings with, say, no windows.

I would only apply the no dodge pool if the character was physically sitting still as opposed to constantly being on the move; any sort of movement will make the shot much, much harder, as you can't lead what you can't see. That's my interpretation of the rules, anyway.