[Xenon]

IIRC the Detecting Magic section was specific in how non-specific the results of the Perception test results were.  You can't pick the Mage out of a crowd.

It is when the magician for example is actually casting a spell (twitchy fingers).

SR5 p. 280-281 Perceiving Magic
For example, if a magician with Spellcasting 6 casts a Force 4 manabolt, the threshold for spotting her do it is 2 (Skill Rating 6 - Force 4).

Or, crazy thought, raise your Spellcasting.  Just sayin.

But that won't help because they are not seeing the spellcasting, this is just noticing active magic.

According to SR5 p. 292: if you are the victim of a manipulation spell then you may roll to notice the magical effects. Are you saying the Spellcasting Rating of the performing magician will not influence the threshold in this case...?

But now you are saying mages have to start thinking about throwing their spell with juuuuust enough Force to fool their targets and juuuust little enough not to be noticed.

It is clear that a magician need to think of this if he don’t want to risk getting spotted while casting a spell. The more skilled the magician is the harder it will be for the audience to spot him casting the spell. With a higher force it will be easier for the audience to spot.

Presumably all things you were trying to avoid by using magic to be subtle.

If subtle magic isn’t subtle then you cut out a huge chunk of its usefulness.

[In this edition] Magic is rarely subtle. Any form of magic changes the world around it... If the magic is subtle, then you have to pick up some dice. (SR5 p. 280-281 Perceiving Magic).

[ShadowcatX]

Except magic is subtle, anyone who casts an invisibility spell, etc. In front of people isn't being subtle. The whole point of this debate is sustained spells cast far away from people.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Except magic is subtle, anyone who casts an invisibility spell, etc. In front of people isn't being subtle. The whole point of this debate is sustained spells cast far away from people.

You can argue with Xenon as to whether magic is subtle, but you're arguing with 5th edition if you do.  How many ways can you interpret the very first line of the Perceiving Magic rules:  "Magic is rarely subtle."

Now you're absolutely on point with the issue causing disagreement seems to be sustained/quickened spells being brought into some kind of proximity with people who hadn't been in proximity to see the casting.  However the only difference the rules recognize between witnessing the initial casting of magic and encountering it later on post-casting is whether you use Skill-F or 6-F to set the threshold.

It's all down to how you define the magic being sufficiently close to the observer before the perception check is granted.

[Xenon]

Except magic is subtle

The words in my previous post are from the book. Are you arguing that the book is wrong?

The whole point of this debate is sustained spells cast far away from people.

As far as I can tell it is not clear that sustained spells don’t alter the world around them and that they are impossible to notice. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. You seem sure. Can you please provide a page reference?

[ShadowcatX]

Except magic is subtle, anyone who casts an invisibility spell, etc. In front of people isn't being subtle. The whole point of this debate is sustained spells cast far away from people.

You can argue with Xenon as to whether magic is subtle, but you're arguing with 5th edition if you do.  How many ways can you interpret the very first line of the Perceiving Magic rules:  "Magic is rarely subtle."

Do you know the difference between "is not" and "is rarely"? It's a big difference. Magic in the 6th world is used for a lot of things, the 6th world exists apart from shadowrunning. A shadowrunner's illusion magic is not magic as a whole, and is, in fact, a rare thing when you look at the 6th world.

Now you're absolutely on point with the issue causing disagreement seems to be sustained/quickened spells being brought into some kind of proximity with people who hadn't been in proximity to see the casting.  However the only difference the rules recognize between witnessing the initial casting of magic and encountering it later on post-casting is whether you use Skill-F or 6-F to set the threshold.

It's all down to how you define the magic being sufficiently close to the observer before the perception check is granted.

Nope. I will explain this once, because it's already been explained to you and I'm not willing to beat my head against a brick wall more than once.

Noticing magic is a Simple Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test with a threshold equal to the Skill Rating of the being performing it minus the Force of the magic, or 6 – Force if there’s no skill involved (minimum 1 in either case).

Note the use of the word performing and not the past tense of the word perform, which would be performed. Once a spell is sustained, the mage is no longer performing magic, he is now sustaining it.

The ward example is just that, an example. It is illustrating how it works, it is not rules text in and of itself and cannot be applied to spells as though it were.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Except magic is subtle, anyone who casts an invisibility spell, etc. In front of people isn't being subtle. The whole point of this debate is sustained spells cast far away from people.

You can argue with Xenon as to whether magic is subtle, but you're arguing with 5th edition if you do.  How many ways can you interpret the very first line of the Perceiving Magic rules:  "Magic is rarely subtle."

Do you know the difference between "is not" and "is rarely"? It's a big difference. Magic in the 6th world is used for a lot of things, the 6th world exists apart from shadowrunning. A shadowrunner's illusion magic is not magic as a whole, and is, in fact, a rare thing when you look at the 6th world.

The big difference is represented by paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Perceiving Magic rules.  If it's not subtle: there's no check needed per the third paragraph.  If it is subtle, it's Skill-F or 6-F per the 2nd.

Now you're absolutely on point with the issue causing disagreement seems to be sustained/quickened spells being brought into some kind of proximity with people who hadn't been in proximity to see the casting.  However the only difference the rules recognize between witnessing the initial casting of magic and encountering it later on post-casting is whether you use Skill-F or 6-F to set the threshold.

It's all down to how you define the magic being sufficiently close to the observer before the perception check is granted.

Nope. I will explain this once, because it's already been explained to you and I'm not willing to beat my head against a brick wall more than once.

Noticing magic is a Simple Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test with a threshold equal to the Skill Rating of the being performing it minus the Force of the magic, or 6 – Force if there’s no skill involved (minimum 1 in either case).

Note the use of the word performing and not the past tense of the word perform, which would be performed. Once a spell is sustained, the mage is no longer performing magic, he is now sustaining it.

Allow me to take a turn at the dead horse.

Since in the case of a sustained spell the act of performing is complete, you're right it can't be skill-F anymore.  Ergo, it must be F-6.  This is simple deduction, and I don't know why you're getting confused.

The ward example is just that, an example. It is illustrating how it works, it is not rules text in and of itself and cannot be applied to spells as though it were.

On the contrary.  By being the example for F-6 despite being magic that requires a performance/skill test to create, it shows exactly how you treat magic that's still existing after the performance creating it is finished.  The rules start off with describing "all" magic.  There's no language following that to walk it back to exclude sustained spells, so absolutely it applies to sustained spells unless sustained spells are somehow not a member of the group consisting of "all magic".  The ward is, as you say, just an example of one of the many kinds of lingering magic that can be encountered post-skill check.  You cannot omit its relevancy from sustained spells just because you want F-6 to apply only to Wards.

[Jack_Spade]

To muddy the waters some more about the intent of the designers, here some of the rules of previous editions:

SR4 20th anniversary
NOTICING MAGIC
Just how obvious are magical skills? Not very, since most spells and spirits have little, if any,
visible effect in the physical world (unless the magician prefers to have flashy effects, or her
tradition calls for it). An observer has to notice the magician’s intense look of concentration,
whispered incantations, and small gestures. Magicians of some traditions display a more
visible change when practicing magic known as the shamanic mask. The shamanic mask
typically changes the magician’s features temporarily to display characteristics appropriate to
her mentor spirit or tradition—an eagle shaman, for example, might seem to have feathers
or beaklike features while spellcasting or summoning.
Noticing if someone is using a magical skill requires a Perception Test (p. 135) with a
threshold equal to 6 minus the magic’s Force. More powerful magic is easier to spot with
the gathered mana normally appearing as a disturbance or glowing aura in the air around the
caster. The gamemaster should apply additional modifiers as appropriate, or if the perceiver
is Awakened themselves (+2 dice), astrally perceiving (+2 dice), or if a shamanic mask is
evident (+2 dice).

So from a legacy perspective, noticing magic was always limited to the act of casting.
Of course, 5e is it's own thing, but from a continuity standpoint it would make more sense than not to keep it that way...

[mbisber]

As I've previously stated, the equation: Simple Perception + Intuition(Mental) with a threshold equal to the skill rating - the Force of the Magic, is unfortunate.

Any self-respecting Mage should have Summoning 6 and a Sneaking of 9D IMO. Otherwise he is totally geekable.

So, one of the Spirit's Services is Concealment 6. A Sneaking roll should be around 3 hits.

So, let's say that the Spellcasting skill rating is 6. The Spell is cast at Force 4.

Ergo: a Mundane perceiver with 10D loses 6D to Concealment. He now has 4D to meet the threshold of 5. 

Is someone now going to say that Mooks should use Edge, when they otherwise haven't a clue?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Indeed.

If you're worried about Invisibility giving off shimmers/chills to observers and "ruin" the point of the spell, use other existing mechanics to address how easy it is to spot high force magic.

Cast at F1 or 2 to keep the spell reasonably un-perceivable by mundanes, and use reagents or pre-edge to get around the limit of low Force magic.

I'm not seeing a problem to game balance in big Force magic negatively impacting subtlety.  If anything, it's helping game balance by giving reason to pay nuyen and essence for Stat augmentations, letting skills be relevant rather than being trumped by magic, and etc.

[Marcus]

In point of fact this all very simple. We certainly aren't gaining anything by going on about it for 6 pages.
All you have to do, understand that intent of the rules is that you only observe it when it is cast, as it has always been.
It's not complicated it doesn't require new elaborate complex house rules to keep a long list of spell as they were intended. Just understand that the perception of magic rule are only intended to be used when the spell is cast. Just like the Book says it is.

Really it is that easy.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

In point of fact this all very simple. We certainly aren't gaining anything by going on about it for 6 pages.
All you have to do, understand that intent of the rules is that you only observe it when it is cast, as it has always been.

I'm curious about what makes you the authority on what the intent of the writers is.  Things have changed before as to how they worked in-universe from one edition to the next, how do you know this isn't another such example?

It's not complicated it doesn't require new elaborate complex house rules to keep a long list of spell as they were intended. Just understand that the perception of magic rule are only intended to be used when the spell is cast. Just like the Book says it is.

Really it is that easy.

I can accept that we have a fundamental difference of opinion about whether the rules should mean what they say.   I have to agree that you may even have a point that perhaps sustained spells aren't supposed to be perceptible, but this has gone on for 6 pages is because according to the book they are. 

The book says that all magic is perceptible.  Prove me wrong: reference is on pg 280, 1st paragraph 1st and 2nd sentences.
The book says that some magic is SO perceptible, that there's no need to even make a perception check.  Reference: inferred in 1st paragraph, explicitly confirmed in 3rd paragraph.
The book says that of the magic that is subtle enough to require a perception check, you do it in one of two ways.  Reference: 2nd Paragraph, 1st sentence.
The book gives an example of a spell being cast for the first mechanic (Skill-F) and a Ward being encountered for the second mechanic (6-F): Reference Second Paragraph, sentences 2 and 3.

There's no room to debate any of this so far without citing a 5th edition source that exempts sustained spells.

There's no indication that spells can only be observed during the moment of casting in the 5th edition rules.  Prove me wrong: cite something that says otherwise.  Again "how it was in prior editions" is flimsy and can be dismissed simply by saying "yeah, but that's how it was, not how it is now".

The example of wards being relevant for the 6-F mechanic is actually very important.  You must make a skill check to "perform" the Ward's casting, but yet according to the example to support the rules you don't make a Skill-F threshold check.  The examples are also not said to be exhaustive/the only cases of what qualifies for the given tests.  The language used for leading in to the examples is "For example", which unambiguously infers that other circumstance can also apply to the forthcoming examples.

Since you "perform" a skill to make a ward, and yet you use 6-F to perceive when an observed later, and examples aren't exhaustive lists of when to apply the rules, "the rulebook is saying" that you make a 6-F threshold test when an observer is exposed to magic post-performance.  This implicit statement wouldn't be there had the example for F-6 been perceiving a Spirit lurking in astral.

Again, don't conflate opinion and even prior editions with what the 5th ed rulebook is unambiguously saying.

[Marcus]

Look SSDR I really tried to humor you with this, but come on man. All the past editions agree on only when cast, 5th isn't a unique snow flake it generally follow the system like previous editions before it. How many spells make no sense? 10+? How many times has subtle magic use helped move a run forward at your table? For me it's countless as a GM and as a Player. Just based off invisibility alone it's obvious this wasn't what is intended. We have both played for decades. I'm not guessing this how it works. This is how it has always worked. It's time to go find something useful to discuss. We no shortage of pressing topic, TMs errata, magic bullets, all that really does need to be sorted. Yet we spent six pages trying find a set of house rules that magically make the system work under some new definition of magic perception?  It's too crazy man, and nothing suggest has come close to being a logical fix it.

How can you have played this game as long as I have suddenly think we have been doing this wrong the whole time?  I said from the beginning this is how this argument has always gone, and until you find something in rules that makes that interpretation make any sense it's gonna stay that way as far as I'm concerned.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Look SSDR I really tried to humor you with this, but come on man. All the past editions agree on only when cast, 5th isn't a unique snow flake it generally follow the system like previous editions before it. How many spells make no sense? 10+? How many times has subtle magic use helped move a run forward at your table? For me it's countless as a GM and as a Player. Just based off invisibility alone it's obvious this wasn't what is intended. We have both played for decades. I'm not guessing this how it works. This is how it has always worked. It's time to go find something useful to discuss. We no shortage of pressing topic, TMs errata, magic bullets, all that really does need to be sorted. Yet we spent six pages trying find a set of house rules that magically make the system work under some new definition of magic perception?  It's too crazy man, and nothing suggest has come close to being a logical fix it.

How can you have played this game as long as I have suddenly think we have been doing this wrong the whole time?  I said from the beginning this is how this argument has always gone, and until you find something in rules that makes that interpretation make any sense it's gonna stay that way as far as I'm concerned.

What you're discarding out of hand is the possibility that the intent has changed as of 5th edition.  The rules say all magic is perceptible, and it just may mean exactly that. 

[Marcus]

What you're discarding out of hand is the possibility that the intent has changed as of 5th edition.  The rules say all magic is perceptible, and it just may mean exactly that.

I'm discarding possibility b/c it doesn't make any sense. We have quoted the section back and forth a dozen times "Performing" is crystal clear to me, it fits the example, it fits with how the system has always worked. and all the spells are functional and make sense under that definition. As do all NPC response tables, as do 5 editions of support fluff and game play examples.

It can't be more simple then that. If only way your going to be happy, then put it up to Catalyst and ask them for a ruling.

[Reaver]

No, Things have changed lots over the editions, that is true.

Initiative, Good/Bad Karma, Dice pools, target numbers have all changed through the editions. As has magic (Shamans and mages and adepts were at one point entirely different "schools" of magic, remember?).

And I am not willing to dismiss this is not an intended change out of hand...

But there are some serious issues here with implementation. For example:

I am willing to accept that magic will cause a noticeable effect on the surroundings, be that a Cold Spot, a Shimmer, Pixie Dust, a Swarm of bats, Ringing church bells,  or what have you. There is no denying that its in the book (so no, you don't have to link it yet again ). But here is my issue. At what range do they get a test to "Perceive" my Enhance Willpower sustained spell?

From across the city? Across the block? The building? What exactly is the detection range of this after glow of detectable mana?

Now, the Ward thing makes sense to me, you are after all passing directly through an astral construct. And we know form astral travel what happens when auras touch. So does that mean that they only get a perception test to spot my sustained spell if they "rub auras" with me? - or again is it from across the city?

***

Now don't get me wrong, I play a mage all the time, and I am a pretty harsh believer in the limitations of magic all the same, but this rule is... just so poorly phrased as to determine the implementation, limitation, and objective of it in all situations...