[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

There's even room to say that if the particular perceptible thing the observer notices is that he feels an unexplained sudden chill, he might not even realize it's magic-related and look instead to the environmental control settings to see if the AC suddenly got a surge. 

While the 'dumb henchman' is a staple of adventure/fantasy/sci-fi stories, I would never play them *that* dumb.  You're saying a security guard, in a world of common magic where magical 'runners' regularly attack secure facilities, isn't going to pay attention to sensory triggers he/she associates with magic?  That seems to me to be a worse solution than the no-roll solution. I bet your *players* will never mistake that 'cold feeling' for anything other than what it is, will they?  If it's hard to interpret for the npcs, how are you going to make it equally hard to interpret for the pcs?

What I'm saying is in the Sixth World where any place that bothers to spend money on security, they'll bother to spend *some* of that money on Magical security.  And that the mundane security guard has no real way to tell the difference between heebie jeebies he gets from his own magical security as it passes by in the astral from an invisible Shadowrunner sneaking past him.  Is he guaranteed to presume some heebie jeebies isn't an intruder and that it must be the new hire, that freaky goth kid with the Thaumaturgical Degree again?  Of course not.  My point is neither is he guaranteed to presume some heebie jeebies mean shadowrunners are present, either.  The GM decides what the NPC does in the event the NPC realizes magic is present.  Honestly, if you know the guard's training is to always go to red alert the second he sniffs magic then maybe you shouldn't use magic and dress up in a ninja suit for stealth instead?  Just saying...

Another problem with the 'always roll' is that corporate defense/security mages are now in a really bad spot; if they summon a guardian spirit or sustain a detection spell, it messes with their own security guards' perception of magic.  And, again, you're basically giving the players an easy way to tell if there's a mage on the defensive side.

Works as intended?  Not seeing the problem you apparently are.  "Geek The Mage First" is a trope that goes back to 1st edition.  You can't Geek the Mage first if you can't identify him.

Spells not being able to (reliably) replace/render moot entire archetypes like Face and Covert Ops Specialists is something I unapologetically consider to be a Good Thing for game balance.

That doesn't sound to me like a 'this is RAW, we should accept it' argument. That sounds more like 'I don't personally like powerful magic and want a way to limit the ability of mages to be stealthy' argument.

Then see my participation in the first 8 pages.  "You expressed an opinion, and I don't give a frag about your opinion" is why I stick to what the rulebook says (and doesn't say).

[Marcus]

I'm happy folks are interested in and contributing to the conversation. Maybe folks can use it to write a very nice set of house rules. From my point of view all this discussion remains pure speculation. There is still no reason to assume the classic interpretation is incorrect. Nothing has changed. Unless some higher authority rules otherwise, I will continue to firmly believe the only time you will detect a spell with normal perception is when it's cast (Baring the small list of extenuating circumstances), as it has always been in edition previous and as we have discussed for last 9 pages.

[Senko]

The problem is in that kind of situation you have the guard call it in. If it's a false positive he continues his rounds if it isn't he gets a bonus for picking up an attack. It was actually used in one novel I read a guard noticed birds reacting oddly and called  it in when the invisible attackers used mental control to make him say it was nothing they went to full alert as they didn't get the correct code phrases. In a world with magic if everyone gets a chance to notice it them the cheapest security measure is getting your staff to call in any odd twinges, chills or full body spasms.

On another related note something that occured to me what about foci/alchemy do they also give a chance to notice magic? Sure the one is likely to only be active around a mage and the others mostly useless but they are technically sustained magic and that's what the check deals with magic/supernatural events not spells.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

On another related note something that occured to me what about foci/alchemy do they also give a chance to notice magic? Sure the one is likely to only be active around a mage and the others mostly useless but they are technically sustained magic and that's what the check deals with magic/supernatural events not spells.

Going by what's in 5th edition, I'd have to assume yes.

1) Foci fall under the "all magic" language that the first paragraph establishes as the breadth of what's covered by the rule
2) Foci have a Force rating

The part that's open to debate is "how close is close enough to get the perception check".

[Reaver]

Which is VERY important.

The range question either blows the entire thing out of the water, or makes it workable. If George the Guard gets a chance to perceive spells from say half a block away, then the rule is unworkable, as every dual nature thing with in that half block creates such background static of feelings and twitches it would become unnoticeable. 

If it when the spell enters LOS, then it makes all subtle magic unworkable as it defeats the very nature of subtle magical spells by the very fact they ARE noticeable.
 
If it is when in contact with an aura, then this is less of an issue, as it still gives a perception check for subtle magics -when there is argumentatively a reason- while still allowing subtle spells to have a place.

[Redwulfe]

I am not sure that it makes all subtle magic unworkable, I do feel it is harder yes but not unworkable.

To quote the book "Magic is rarely subtle."

What it does do is make regents more important in my mind as well as having a team. Improved invisibility is not the be all end all and a single mage can not just do the run without help. I would have to say that 90% of the runs I have ran or played in never went through the front door and using rating in meters to define the "area" would not have stopped any of the teams I ran for.

On an opposite note limiting the range to touch only would make the perception check unnecessary in most situations, though that wouldn't be the first wast of page space that is in the book.

[Marcus]

Then come up with a way that invisibility and all subtle illusion would not be useless under your system. Because they are right now.
It's not harder, the higher the force and there-fore systematically the more effective the spell should be the less likely they are to be useful. That's the reality under what you're advocating.

[Jayde Moon]

I am thoroughly amused by this thread.

The fluff is the fluff.  It also has a lot of (purposefully) ambiguous text.  Can.  Sometimes.  Oh, and people's anecdotal experiences.  I know some folks feel that the fluff demonstrable illustrates their case, but I just don't see it.

"WELP,  Ol' Cletus and me was loadin up the van and then I swear, I got this feeling of dread an' I turnt around and it was a big ol' sludge monster!"

Maybe he did have a moment of sixth sense.  Or maybe he's embellishing his tale.  I know people who tell me of the dread they were feeling just prior to something happening... were they detecting magic or do I not believe in their ESP?

Regardless, that's all fluff.  Then there are a few hard rules.  Those have been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.  I think the key question is 'sustained spells'.

For my table, the answer is 'No, you do not get to roll to detect an ongoing sustained spell.

By my reading, the RAW is not entirely clear and wavers between whether you notice magic because you see the mundane aspects of its creation (seeing the mage casting or the spotting the literal markings used to anchor a spell) or because of spooky 6th sense stuff.

So, then I have to look at it contextually and determine, overall: What's the intent?

Previous editions are fairly clear.  Is there anything to indicate to me that there is an intended change from previous editions?  Most changes relate to actual setting changes, such as the advent of the wireless world, or with metagame changes (things that alter how something works mechanically but not thematically, that is, it doesn't actually change the setting).

So with the Matrix rebuild, there was an in setting change (Crash 2.0) and a subsequent change in how the Matrix was accessed.

But in 2074 (end of 4th Ed.) and 2075 (beginning of 5th Ed.), there is nothing to indicate something changed with how magic works that suddenly being able to notice sustained spells is a thing, when they weren't able to do it before.

Of course, there are exceptions, like Vampires and Cyberware, but that's a rebalancing issue that is frankly unnecessary in this case.

The next clue that the intent is to leave sustained spells out of the equation is the breadth of particulars I'd have to extrapolate from this very limited bit of fluff followed by 3 short and specific rules.

Senko's list, and other questions, illustrate this beautifully.

I'll also note that it's somewhat ironic to express a need to proceed with RAW because that's, like, how it's written, man!, but then default to all sorts of questionable resolutions for the plethora of 'what abouts' that follow on the heels of adhering to the letter of that law.

If there is that much that is unclear about how to proceed if the writers intended a change, then perhaps it makes more sense that they didn't intend to change it, thus freeing up all of the time I might have spent wondering why Joe Average gets to perceive my Detect Enemies (Extended) or what that even means to anyone.  Is my Mindnet spreading rainbow vibes throughout the entire possible range of the spell or will you only get unicorn bumps if you pass directly between the invisible phone line connecting my friend's brain to mine?

For that matter, without a mana barrier, I would assume that in most places, magical noise might even render the whole issue moot.  So what if 'they' sense that magic is afoot.  Of course they sense that magic is afoot.  Magic is always afoot.  Everywhere.  All the time.  Afoot.  Why am I dealing with this mechanically on an individual, by spell basis?

For all of those reasons, no.  No, the NPC's don't get a chance to notice that they have 'come into contact' with a sustained spell.

That's my gaming table and right now, I run a pretty big gaming table.

For the record... regarding the detection of sustained spells rendering illusion and invisibility useless... I think both sides of the debate were over/underestimating the impact, respective to tour position on the issue.  It wouldn't be a showstopper, nor is it an insignificant consideration.

[Overbyte]

If your invisible shadowrunner makes the security guard call environmental services to inquire about the air handlers, that's hardly rendering your invisibility spell useless.  If the guard assumes the heebie jeebies he just felt was the security spirit making its rounds past his post again, that's hardly rendering your invisibility spell useless.  Taking the spirit of the game and the fluff of the 1st paragraph of the rule in mind, the probable worst case scenario/fallout for your invisibility spell being "perceived" is nothing more than the guard radioing that he suspects something magic is afoot.*   There's nothing at all for a reasonable person to presume that perceiving the presence of a high force invisibility spell means the effect of the invisibility is countered by being perceived.  Let's not make what a sadistic GM might do with "perceiving a sustained invisibility spell" the default assumption for what a normal GM would do.

*= if your infiltration plan consists of nothing more than "I cast invisibility" your plan sucks.  If you're not able to cover the contingency of jamming a guard's radio communications, I don't know what to tell you other than maybe you should have some mundanes around like Deckers  (Or in this particular case, spend some nuyen on a Jammer).  Spells not being able to (reliably) replace/render moot entire archetypes like Face and Covert Ops Specialists is something I unapologetically consider to be a Good Thing for game balance.

Except... your example / conclusion is bad.

SR5 p.135
"Making the threshold on a Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test indicates that you’ve noticed something subtle or important (or both)—net hits determine how much detail you get."
So a high force Invisibility (or any spell) will have a low threshold and therefore more likely that an observer will get net successes. This means they won't just think it's cold they will have an idea where it is coming from and it won't be from the air vents. Or the guard will know a spirit didn't pass thru him cause he knows what that feeling is.
If you really think that the perception roll wouldn't give them any useful information, then why even allow one? That is rhetorical.

I have a feeling that this just comes down to two camps that aren't going to agree:

1) Those who feel that you shouldn't get a roll for all magic because:
    a) Subtle spells become less subtle as their force gets higher
    b) It allows mundanes to ruin any plan that involves any magic
    c) Reasons

2) Those who feel you should get a roll for all magic because:
    a) The limited knowledge you would get from the perception won't ruin your plan.
    b) Your plan shouldn't rely on using a single magic spell.
    c) Reasons

I fall into camp 1, for all the reasons all the previous posters have given.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

@ Jayde Moon:  Thanks for chiming in.  Giving your opinion that the so-called fluff of the first paragraph invoking what's covered by the perceiving magic rules actually should be read to include an unstated exclusion for sustained spells is potentially a pretty big bomb that could change the trajectory of the thread.  I'm curious and would like you to further clarify if your reference to "your table being big" means your post is citable as a coy but official ruling for SRM?

And since in your view the first paragraph doesn't mean what it says about covering "all magic", are there other sorts of magic that also get unstated exclusions?   The line "Any form of magic (conjuring, spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, spirits, etc.)" absolutely means those explicitly listed things are governed by the rule, and the "etc" at the end of the list undeniably says the list is not exhaustive/there are more things than those explicitly listed that are governed by the rule.  In your view "et cetera" doesn't cover Sustained Spells.  In your view does anything else not make the list of things governed by the rule?  Perhaps active Foci, as asked about a few posts upthread?  Enchanting is explicitly covered, but would you say Alchemical Preparations are not?  I'm not trying to give you a hard time here.. it's just that if there should be one unstated exclusion it's easy to argue there should be other ones as well.  And we know that some sorts of magic can be perceived post skill use so it can't just be you only ever may perceive magic as it's being performed... So what, if any, other exceptions should there be to perceiving magic?

@ Overbyte: The perceiving magic rules present the perception test as a binary result that doesn't scale with extra successes, although arguably one might infer that more hits means more info about the magic.  Without that inference, a successful test ONLY tells the observer that magic is present.  Not what kind of magic, not where the magic is, etc.  Just that "something magic is present" and absolutely no further info than that.  And that's why I acknowledge that perceiving sustained spells complicates using stealthy magic, but disagree that it makes using stealthy magic untenable.  Even if your Invisibility spell is perceived, the perceiver has no way of knowing that it's an instance of invisibility much less having reason to know where you are and cancelling out the effect of the invisibility.

[Senko]

Which also brings us back to what I said before as it is right now there is far too much of a gray area if you decide to apply it to all magic. Yes Gm is always right their game their rules but I can see a lot of problems coming up because 90% of how it applies is inference. Lets say you and Overbyte are both players in another persons game you say its a binary result success/fail they say its a perception check and thus the more successes the more information. The poor Gm looks through their books and finds nothing to tell them either way so they make an on the spot ruling, come here for help and create this thread. 9 pages and no clear this is how it works just this is how I think it works (and yes that applies to me too).

[easl]

I think the key question is 'sustained spells'.

For my table, the answer is 'No, you do not get to roll to detect an ongoing sustained spell.
...

...Is my Mindnet spreading rainbow vibes throughout the entire possible range of the spell or will you only get unicorn bumps if you pass directly between the invisible phone line connecting my friend's brain to mine?

For that matter, without a mana barrier, I would assume that in most places, magical noise might even render the whole issue moot.  So what if 'they' sense that magic is afoot.  Of course they sense that magic is afoot.  Magic is always afoot.  Everywhere.  All the time.  Afoot.  Why am I dealing with this mechanically on an individual, by spell basis?

For all of those reasons, no.  No, the NPC's don't get a chance to notice that they have 'come into contact' with a sustained spell.

Thanks much for your response, JM.  I agree with Senko about making the rules clearer.  Though It could probably be done fairly simply: Combat and Manipulation spells, yes (if you even need to make a roll...most of the time, they will be obvious).  Illusion and detection spells: you only get the resist/perception rolls listed in the spell description (or for illusion spells, in the descriptive block at the start of the section), no 'generic' perception roll one on top of that unless some special circumstance warrants it.  Health: probably not a major area of contention, but I'm thinking a good rule of thumb is yes perception roll if the subject is in your LOS (that runner moving really fast has some odd waves around him), but no roll if they're just in the nearby area, unseen.

[Marcus]

Thank you Jayden Moon. An Admin is good enough for me. i'm done here. Good Luck with whatever other ideas you guys have on this topic, but for me this is closed. Peace.

[Xenon]

Example: I'm a mage, I'm in a hallway and around the corner is a security guard, so I cast my improved invisibility spell to sneak past him, now I don't want to be seen so I cast it at force 6 and gets my 6 hits I then turn the corner and try to sneak past him.

At this point the guard can.....
Potentially smell me
Potentially hear me
Potentially resist my illusion with a Intuition + logic

And you want to give the guard what is essentially another way to detect me with yet another easily made perception roll to detect magic?

No matter how Notice Magic is read the guard will only get to take ONE opposed Perception + Intuition [Mental] test.

And, again, you're basically giving the players an easy way to tell if there's a mage on the defensive side.

The magician on your team only need a single hit on his astral perception test to figure out if a subject is awakened or not. It is as obvious as noticing a neon sign or a running crowd. And he doesn't even need to take a test to automatically notice the presence of astral forms (such as an active foci).

...I will continue to firmly believe the only time you will detect a spell with normal perception is when it's cast (Baring the small list of extenuating circumstances)

And the list you are talking about include (but might or might not be limited) to sense that you are under magic effects from a subtle manipulation spell (SR5 p.292), to either sense or spot a ward as you pass through it (SR5 p.281) and to sense an astral form passing through your aura (SR5 p.314).

On another related note something that occured to me what about foci/alchemy do they also give a chance to notice magic?

Astral forms (that for example an active focus have) are obvious to notice with astral perception (doesn't even require a test).

It is clear that you may take a physical perception test to notice magic during artificing and during the creation of a preperation.

The part that's open to debate is "how close is close enough to get the perception check".

IF you can even detect in the first place THEN it seem as if the range does not reach beyond touch.

All examples where you can get "bad vibes" (rather than seeing a magicians twitchy fingers) are when you are affected by the spell in some way (victim of a subtle manipulation spell, walking through a ward, astral form pass through your aura....)

Also there is no rules at all explaining any "range" (unlike for example the Detect Magic spell which is explicit in the range you can detect magic) which make it even less likely that the intent is that you can get "bad vibes" from a distance.

The fluff "in the area" might simply be explained with the a magician casting Mob Control "in the area" (subtle mental manipulation spell is a documented case where you do get to take the test).

If it is when in contact with an aura, then this is less of an issue, as it still gives a perception check for subtle magics -when there is argumentatively a reason- while still allowing subtle spells to have a place.

This.

I would not mind if the GM rule that NPCs get to take a test to notice if they get "bad vibes" if I am sustaining Increased Reflexes while they search me. If I really don't want them to notice then I would probably just drop the spell or cast it at a low force and break the limit with edge or reagents. Also, distracting the NPC probably give him a negative dice pool modifier of 2 dice....

I also would not mind if the GM would rule that NPCs does not get to take a test to notice if they get "bad vibes" if I am sustaining a spell while they search me. Both options are fine by me.

[Overbyte]

@ Overbyte: The perceiving magic rules present the perception test as a binary result that doesn't scale with extra successes, although arguably one might infer that more hits means more info about the magic.  Without that inference, a successful test ONLY tells the observer that magic is present.  Not what kind of magic, not where the magic is, etc.  Just that "something magic is present" and absolutely no further info than that.  And that's why I acknowledge that perceiving sustained spells complicates using stealthy magic, but disagree that it makes using stealthy magic untenable.  Even if your Invisibility spell is perceived, the perceiver has no way of knowing that it's an instance of invisibility much less having reason to know where you are and cancelling out the effect of the invisibility.

There is nothing in the perceiving magic rules to indicate that you don't use additional successes. The rule states:

p.280
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).


This is the same as any other perception test.

p.135
Making the threshold on a Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test indicates that you’ve noticed something subtle or important (or both)—net hits determine how much detail you get.

No reason to think this situation is some sort of special case, where you only get to know "magic is present" and not where or what it is.