[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

The part of your argument that I honestly don't get Marcus is your hangup on the word "performing".  Yes, spellcasting is linked to Skill-F, both reasonably/logically so as well as explicitly so by way of the example.  It's a given that spells observed while cast use the Skill-F threshold mechanic.  That rationale has nothing to do with sustained spells, as the skill is no longer being used.  To the best of my understanding, your argument about the 5th edition language is that because sustained spells aren't called out as a specific example, they're not governed by the rule. Set aside the fallacy that sustained spells should be exempt based on how it's "supposed to work" or worked in prior editions....your argument is faulty because by implication characters can't perceive conjuring spirits, counterspelling, and everything else besides spellcasting and wards as those are the only two examples given.  And that implication linked to your argument can't be true, as quite a few things are listed as non-exhaustive examples in the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph as being explicitly perceptible.

On the other hand, the Ward example being pegged to 6-F gives us a concrete precedent on how to handle sustained spells. Sustained spells can obviously be perceived (if only in 5th edition) because they're under the umbrella "all magic" language, and coming "into the area" with a sustained spell is an analagous circumstance of coming to observe a Ward after the performance to cast the ward is completed.  The examples tell us explicitly: During the spellcasting test, use Skill-F to see if it's been perceived.  They also tell us implicitly through the example of the Ward: use 6-F in those cases where skill was initially involved, but is no longer being used.  E.G. Sustained Spells.

[Xenon]

understand that intent of the rules is that you only observe it when it is cast, as it has always been.

Marcus, are you are suggesting that a victim of a manipulation spell is not entitled to take a perception test to notice magic unless he actually observe the performing magician when the spell is cast?

[Reaver]

understand that intent of the rules is that you only observe it when it is cast, as it has always been.

Marcus, are you are suggesting that a victim of a manipulation spell is not entitled to take a perception test to notice magic unless he actually observe the performing magician when the spell is cast?

"Notice Magic" and "its the third guy on the left down the hall next to the water cooler" are two different things.

As I believe you pointed out, it says directly under Manipulation Spells that they in fact do get a test. But as I say above, there is a heck of a lot of difference between the two examples. Yes, he gets a test, and even if he passes, he just knows magic is in play. That doesn't mean he knows from exactly where - depending on the situation at hand.

[Xenon]

As I believe you pointed out, it says directly under Manipulation Spells that they in fact do get a test.

Yes, I think it is clear that they do.

However, by the sound of it Marcus might be of a different opinion. That the perception test can only be taken to notice the actual magician when he is casting a spell.

you cannot detect spells except when they are being cast

1. That you are only allowed to take the Perception + Intuition (Skill rating - Force) [Mental] Test to notice twitchy fingers when someone is actually casting a spell (because of the word "Performing").

It is clear that the victim of a subtle manipulation spell can notice it...
It is clear that you in this edition can notice magic that is being cast...

2. That you can take the Perception + Intuition (Skill rating - Force) [Mental] Test to not only notice "twitchy fingers" when someone is casting a spell but also to Notice Magic (or the the "Bad Vibes") you get when "you are the victim of a manipulation spell" (because both cases are explicitly described in SR5).

Yes, he gets a test, and even if he passes, he just knows magic is in play. That doesn't mean he knows from exactly where - depending on the situation at hand.

Agreed.

[Marcus]

I don't have an issue with the direct target of a spell getting a roll to know they were effected by a spell, i do mean a direct target, at the time spell goes off. It's fit spirit of the rules. Yes there's a lot complicated issues with that, but to me in general it logically follows.

[Marcus]

Sustained spells are governed by the rules. When you cast the spell you going to sustain/quicken/foci/spirit up anyone standing right there at that moment can get perception roll, as magic perception rule say. After that, they can Look astral and assenssing will show you stuff based upon the relevant table, mitigated by meta-magic etc. As has always been the case. Further i agree that if your sustained spell interacts in some direct way then it possible to perceive it See the spell armor and bullets. I said that in the first thread days ago. So i have no idea where your getting that idea.

[Senko]

I wasn't going to way in on this again as I'd said my piece (these are the rules as I read them, I don't like that so here's how I houserule my games) but I just wanted to restate why I don't like the notice magic rules as it seems other people keep asking Marcus about that. The issue is that in a world where magic is known and anyone can fell high force magic you make using spells specifically designed to be subtle a lot harder to actually use. Whether your trying to balance enough force to work and not enough to notice + reagents to limit break or something else. If anyone can sense powerful magic it would be incredibly easy of part of a guard's orientation to train them to notice and react to it. 40 guards + 1 mage + multiple high force spells and an 80% pass mark.

Then Joe Slummingit a rentacop at a facility see's the director walking towards him and feels that hair raising on the back of his neck (I'm not saying he'll always notice it just assuming for this example he made his check) he's come to associate with powerful magic and hits the alarm button. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know the guy walking towards him is someone under a physical mask spell, he could think its the real director being mentally controlled or a spying spell of some sort maybe he believes its a death worshiping ninja lurking on the border of hell and about to slaughter everyone in the facility.  It does matter that the whole plan to quietly walk in and access some files from a low level facility linked to the corporate database just went out the window because a guard with zero magic potential felt magic and hit the panic button. Now everythings sealed off, locked down and actual mages + HRT force are enroute. Yes magic is rarely subtle but there are a huge number of spells in the shadowrunner options that are designed to be subtle. To allow a black trenchcoat, sneak past the threats and actually contribute to the party achieving their goal. I'll stop there before I devolve into a rant that people seem to feel a need to screw mages over while happily waving on melee/tech classes when the situation is the same.

I have no problems with a mage or in my games magic sensative doing that but I don't want to be threading that needle evey single time and I doubt my players would want to be either. That's not just magic related by the way I've played in games where the GM seems to meta-counter all tactics (as in the way some people seem to consider fun as something you can barely beat every, single, time.)

Suffice it to say I agree with you on the rules I just don't like them either as a  mage player or as a gm who see's a whole chunck of options for a mage to contribute getting whittled away. If you don't let the mage use subtle magic the mage is going to try and out dps the samurai because its their only way to feel like their contributing.

[Kiirnodel]

The solution I would use for resolving this disparity is that a person only gets to "Perceive Magic" when they are in some way interacting with it. This would include: Witnessing a spell being cast (being in the vicinity of the casting), passing through an astral form (even if you are mundane; see Astral Forms), being the target of a spell, etc.

By my understanding, this doesn't violate any of the principles set forth in the rules outlined for Perceiving Magic. In fact, I think my list matches up with the examples that they give pretty well. It solves the problem of being able to "see the magic" of spells that are designed to not draw attention (such as Invisibility). Although in some cases I might be willing to let a character be able to notice something by spending the Observe in Detail Simple Action if they have some reason to suspect magic is in play. (essentially, they are looking for the "signs of magic")


I will add one more thing: The argument against the idea that the rules specify performing magic when referencing how to determine the threshold, which means that it no longer applies when you aren't actively performing magic... The idea that this means that you just use the 6-F formula instead is inherently flawed. First, that part of the rule is very explicit when it says that it applies when no skill is involved, (which spells very clearly involve a skill). Second, applying that part of the rule post-facto would mean that spells would become easier or harder to spot after the fact. For example, a low-skill magician (Rating 2) essentially can't cast spells that aren't blatantly obvious (minimum 1 threshold), they just aren't skilled enough to keep their "tells" in check, but if we applied that 6-F threshold, their spells suddenly become difficult to spot? Or inversely, an extremely skilled magician (Rating 10) casting at Force 6, their spells are extremely difficult to notice, but then suddenly are obvious? that really wouldn't make sense...

[Senko]

Then of course you have all sorts of questions if you use the books rules...

Q1) I'm sustaining a Heal spell on a sore leg and someome walks past my motel room do the wall and wooden door prevent them getting a check by providing full cover?

Q2) I'm sustaining a spell to translate another language walk into a cinema and sit next to someone they get a check after the lights go down someome comes in and sits on my other side do they get a harder check?

Q3) Related to 2 if your sustaining a force 8 spell  and enter an area with a background count of 4 is it easier, harder or the same for people to detect the spell.

Q4) Is a force 6 spell able to be detected further away than a force 2 spell or is it just easier to notice.

Q5) Is there a range limit e.g. can a spell be detected at 1m. 10m, 100m, 1000m?

Q6) Related to 5 is there a range penalty like there is for sounds so a spell is harder to detect at 10m than 1m?

Q7) What about adepts if one has a +4 to strength from a power can that be detected in this way?

Q8) Is there a penalty from distractions e.g. their watching the latest episode of a series in Ar?

Q9) Why do sustained spells get easier to notice from force 1 to force 5 them plateu with no difference between a force 6 and (if anyone could cast it) a force 60 spell?
These are all examples of things that could come up in a game I thought of off the top of my head plus of course the example above.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I will add one more thing: The argument against the idea that the rules specify performing magic when referencing how to determine the threshold, which means that it no longer applies when you aren't actively performing magic... The idea that this means that you just use the 6-F formula instead is inherently flawed. First, that part of the rule is very explicit when it says that it applies when no skill is involved, (which spells very clearly involve a skill).

If it's flawed, then explain why the example says to use 6-F when a Ward is encountered.  A skill (Ritual Spellcasting) was involved to create it.  And yet explicitly through the example we know to NOT use Skill-F.

Give me a better explanation than 'the book is wrong' or my own synthesis of 'you use 6-F even on skill-created magic if the magic is encountered post-skill use'.

[Jack_Spade]

There are wards that are created without skills involved: Building a lodge for example.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Then of course you have all sorts of questions if you use the books rules...

Keep in mind that Magic is a very broad topic, and the rulebook is already huge without legislating the particulars of every possible interaction.  The rules often presume GM will have to abritrate, and the Perceiving Magic rules are no different.  But to provide what I consider to be reasonable answers to your hypothetical scenarios:

Q1) I'm sustaining a Heal spell on a sore leg and someome walks past my motel room do the wall and wooden door prevent them getting a check by providing full cover?

I doubt such a scenario would satisfy the "in the area" clause establishing relevancy of getting a perception check.

Q2) I'm sustaining a spell to translate another language walk into a cinema and sit next to someone they get a check after the lights go down someome comes in and sits on my other side do they get a harder check?

The rules of Perceiving Magic are making a Perception test.  They say nothing about being immune to environmental modifiers to perception checks.

Q3) Related to 2 if your sustaining a force 8 spell  and enter an area with a background count of 4 is it easier, harder or the same for people to detect the spell.

Depends on whether you're playing that BGCs lower the Force of the spell or the net hits.  Lower Force=Harder to notice.

Q4) Is a force 6 spell able to be detected further away than a force 2 spell or is it just easier to notice.

Strictly by RAW just easier to notice.  But again the "in the area" language is (imo intentionally) quite vague.  GM isn't hamstrung and has authority to be flexible.

Q5) Is there a range limit e.g. can a spell be detected at 1m. 10m, 100m, 1000m?

Per paragraph 3 of the Perceiving Magic rules, some magic is blatant and no test is required.  In those cases if you can see the mage, you can see the magic.  Throwing a fireball at night can be seen for kilometers if LOS is clear.  For the subtle magic where Skill-F/6-F is invoked, one must be "in the area", as defined by the GM.

Q6) Related to 5 is there a range penalty like there is for sounds so a spell is harder to detect at 10m than 1m?

The rules governing perception would be in full force as the rules for Perceiving Magic don't invoke a sort of special Perception test where the modifiers are ignored.  The rule only establishes a mechanic for setting a threshold and adds a special modifier for the case of the observer having a magic related active or knowledge skill.  If a GM is saying "in the area" is a big enough area for sound to die off, then sure that'd apply. Note also there's the +3 bonus if the observer is looking for magic specifically.

Q7) What about adepts if one has a +4 to strength from a power can that be detected in this way?

The only magic that doesn't fall under "all magic", per implication by the book's explanation of the rule, is magic that both is not blatant (invoking paragraph 3) and lacks a Force value (paragraph 2 only governs magic with F values).

Q8) Is there a penalty from distractions e.g. their watching the latest episode of a series in Ar?

If you're gonna say being distracted by the Trid penalizes perception tests and noticing magic is a perception test, then why wouldn't it be penalized?

Q9) Why do sustained spells get easier to notice from force 1 to force 5 them plateu with no difference between a force 6 and (if anyone could cast it) a force 60 spell?

Because Force 6+ is the magical equivalent of un-concealable gear?  Yet in the case of magic, even the hypothetical Force 60 still has a Threshold of 1 meaning it's possible it could be missed.

There are wards that are created without skills involved: Building a lodge for example.

The example didn't specify, and applies to "Wards".  Would you be comfortable saying that the example "clearly meant" Wards created without skills and Wards that were created via Ritual Spellcasting go Skill-F instead?  Or that Wards created by Ritual Spellcasting are imperceptible since the act of "performing" is no longer in effect?

[Jack_Spade]

There are wards that are created without skills involved: Building a lodge for example.

The example didn't specify, and applies to "Wards".  Would you be comfortable saying that the example "clearly meant" Wards created without skills and Wards that were created via Ritual Spellcasting go Skill-F instead?

Personally, I think the author didn't think much at all about those implications. All the fluff descriptions are just obfuscating the crunch (unnecessarily).

The crunch talks about exactly two situations:
a) skill involved during performance: Threshold = Skill - Force, Example given: Manabolt
b) no skill involved: Threshold = 6 - Force, Example given: Ward (unspecified origin)
Fact is further that you have to interact with the ward or "perform an action" to get the test to notice it.

Do with that what you want, for me and my table the implications are clear: As GM I have discretion to let players and NPCs notice magic (=/=see) if it's furthering the plot. Otherwise I'll keep strict to the rules with the given examples.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

... As GM I have discretion to let players and NPCs notice magic (=/=see) if it's furthering the plot...

If we're discussing how it should be used in play as opposed to a strictly academic discussion about the rule itself: I couldn't agree with the above quote more.

[Xenon]

7 pages.... OK. Let's break this down, once and for all :-)


Let us start with what we can and cannot notice.

Things that the Detect Magic spell can detect include; presence of all foci, spells, wards, magical lodges, alchemical preparations, active rituals, and spirits (spells in this context seem to include the effects of sustainable/quickened spells as well as the effects of permanent spells before they have become permanent).

There is also a list of things that not even detect magic can pick up. This list include: awakened characters or critters, astral signatures, alchemical preparations that that have expired or already triggered, or the effects of permanent spells once they have become permanent. I think it is safe to assume that you also cannot notice them with a mundane perception test.

The only things we know for a fact that you may take a mundane perception test to notice are limited to; Spells as they are being cast (in this case it seems plausible that you need a direct line of sight to the performing magician), Manipulation spells you are a victim of, Wards that you pass though and Astral forms that pass through your aura (because there are explicit examples of the above situations). Having said that, the book use the word "magic" in a general blanket sense and without stating a single exception where you may not notice magic - this seem to indicate that the above list of examples are just that (examples) and is not to be viewed as a complete list. E.g. the book clearly state that you may take a perception test if you just stepped through ward which make it likely that you for example also may take a perception test if you just stepped into a magical lodge (even though there is no explicit example of this).


Now lets look at range for a second.

With the exception of spells as they are being cast (which seem to be more of a traditional sight based perception test to notice twitchy fingers or whatnot within your line of sight) the other examples they listed (which seem to be more "6th sense"- or "bad vibes"- or "eerie feeling"-related perception tests) only seem to trigger when your aura is in direct contact with magic (being the victim of a manipulation spell, when you just stepped through a ward, as an astral form pass through your aura).

There is also a glaring absence of rules to govern the distance at which you can pick up an eerie feeling from a magic source with the mundane perception test. Compare this to the Detect Magic spell where it is clear that radius is Force x Magic meter for the normal variant and Force x Magic x 10 meter for the extended variant...

This might or might not mean that your aura need to "touch" the magic before you may get an eerie feeling.

There are things talking against such a limitation (for example fluff that mention "...in the general area") and things talking for such a limitation (no actual rules for distance and all 3 examples seem to have this limitation - hard to tell if it is by design or if it is intended).



Let us play with the idea that mundane perception test can notice all the things you can detect with the Detect Magic spell (but that a mundane perception test will just give you a general eerie feeling while the detect magic spell might give you specifics).

Let us also play with the idea that to get an eerie feeling your aura need to get into direct contact with magic (rather than having a specified radius of Force x Magic meters like the Detect Magic spell).

What would all this mean...?

For starters this would mean that quickened spells would remain undetectable to mundane perception as long as you make sure the magic doesn't touch the aura of the guards near you... but it would also mean that a guard may get a perception test to notice an eerie feeling during a physical body search....

As a GM I would personally not have problems with this.



Would it feel OK to take a mundane perception test to notice magic if someone touch a focus? If they are the victim of a spell? If they just walked through a magical lodge? If they touch or are affected by an alchemical preperation? If they are directly affected by an active ritual? If a spirit go through them in the astral?

Personally i would have no problems with that.


Unlike my other posts I made assumptions in this post and I also added a bit of personal view to point you in the direction how we handle it at our table. If you want to know what you can and cannot do according to a strict reading of RAW you can revisit one of my previous posts in this thread.