[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

... 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?"

[Xenon]

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.

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Xenon]

...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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

...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.

[Xenon]

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).

[Odsh]

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  ), 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?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.