[SpellBinder]

Overall, since I first read the rules on how BGC works in SR5 it's been less threatening to me than it has in previous editions.

Works for me.

Anyway: Killing Hands is impacted, remember? "A background count impose a negative dice pool penalty equal to its rating for all tests linked in any way to magic". Your opposed test has you buffed through a magic-imposed penalty on the other side. That means you suffer the penalty.

Using Concealment is not a test, just like using Killing Hands is not a test.  However, just like Killing Hands, it indirectly affects the outcome of a test.  Sneaking in the case of Concealment, and Unarmed Combat in the case of Killing Hands.

Concealment is a magical effect and it makes you harder to be seen.  That's pretty plainly affecting the outcome of your Sneaking test by almost any measure.  I'd say it's perfectly appropriate to trigger BGC penalties for someone getting a Concealment buff from a friendly spirit.

Active adept powers are specifically called out, but then I suppose that then an adept with Improved Reflexes takes a BGC penalty to initiative (as then would anyone under an Improved Reflexes spell), and one with Mystic Armor takes a BGC penalty to resisting damage as well.

And what about spells that impose penalties in a similar fashion to Concealment?  Are spellcasters going to take a double dip to spells like Physical Camouflage, Silence, and Chaotic World if those spells are cast in an area of BGC?  Guess then the Blind Fire modifier to hit someone under an Invisibility spell gets negated by BGC, too.  I get that these spells will have their Force reduced, but the spell's Force doesn't always play that much into the penalties they impose (especially Invisibility).  Well, I guess there's a silver lining here, as the Decrease Gear Limits spell will really screw someone over as not only the Limit gets reduced, but then because magic's involved they take a BGC die penalty to using it as well.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I don't think there's any reasonable way to read the BGC rules in such a way that a single test is penalized more than once for the BGC.  I.E. if it's a BGC of 2, you only ever suffer no penalty (no magic affecting the task at hand) or -2 dice, no matter how many different magical effects are impacting the test.

[Michael Chandra]

Guess then the Blind Fire modifier to hit someone under an Invisibility spell gets negated by BGC, too. 

It sounds as if you're just randomly throwing out things because you dislike the idea of Concealment (which directly impacts the Opposed Test) being impacted, while at the same time complaining BGC was nerfed. Is there a point to this? It doesn't sound like it, so I'm bowing out.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I'd add that the way Invisibility is impacted by a BGC is the same way every sustained spell brought in is: by being weakened.  With less hits on the spell due to the BGC, it's easier for perceivers to resist outright.

[Reaver]

Overall, since I first read the rules on how BGC works in SR5 it's been less threatening to me than it has in previous editions.

Works for me.

Anyway: Killing Hands is impacted, remember? "A background count impose a negative dice pool penalty equal to its rating for all tests linked in any way to magic". Your opposed test has you buffed through a magic-imposed penalty on the other side. That means you suffer the penalty.

Using Concealment is not a test, just like using Killing Hands is not a test.  However, just like Killing Hands, it indirectly affects the outcome of a test.  Sneaking in the case of Concealment, and Unarmed Combat in the case of Killing Hands.

Concealment is a magical effect and it makes you harder to be seen.  That's pretty plainly affecting the outcome of your Sneaking test by almost any measure.  I'd say it's perfectly appropriate to trigger BGC penalties for someone getting a Concealment buff from a friendly spirit.

Active adept powers are specifically called out, but then I suppose that then an adept with Improved Reflexes takes a BGC penalty to initiative (as then would anyone under an Improved Reflexes spell), and one with Mystic Armor takes a BGC penalty to resisting damage as well.

And what about spells that impose penalties in a similar fashion to Concealment?  Are spellcasters going to take a double dip to spells like Physical Camouflage, Silence, and Chaotic World if those spells are cast in an area of BGC?  Guess then the Blind Fire modifier to hit someone under an Invisibility spell gets negated by BGC, too.  I get that these spells will have their Force reduced, but the spell's Force doesn't always play that much into the penalties they impose (especially Invisibility).  Well, I guess there's a silver lining here, as the Decrease Gear Limits spell will really screw someone over as not only the Limit gets reduced, but then because magic's involved they take a BGC die penalty to using it as well.

Not sure what you are trying to say.

Care to reword this?  How are they being "double dipped" as you put it?

[SpellBinder]

Heh, ninja'd by Reaver.

Being thorough here.  Why should a spell like Physical Camouflage not get impacted the same way Concealment does when it comes to the opposed Perception test?  BGC isn't penalizing the same test twice in this case; there's two different tests (the 'double dip'), Spellcasting and Perception, and in the later Perception test Physical Camouflage applies a negative dice pool just as Concealment does.

Besides, reduced Force isn't necessarily going to mean reduced [net] hits.  Reagents can be spent to replace Force as a Limit, and if Edge is spent for the initial Spellcasting test then there is no Limit at all.

[Reaver]

Heh, ninja'd by Reaver.

Being thorough here.  Why should a spell like Physical Camouflage not get impacted the same way Concealment does when it comes to the opposed Perception test?  BGC isn't penalizing the same test twice in this case; there's two different tests (the 'double dip'), Spellcasting and Perception, and in the later Perception test Physical Camouflage applies a negative dice pool just as Concealment does.

Besides, reduced Force isn't necessarily going to mean reduced [net] hits.  Reagents can be spent to replace Force as a Limit, and if Edge is spent for the initial Spellcasting test then there is no Limit at all.

Ok, IF I understand correctly:    (and thanks SpellBinder!)

you are saying/asking why a mage gets hit with a DP modifier to the spell casting, and then an other modifier to the sustained spell?

Well, right from the source: (SG page 30.)

Background count affects the Awakened, by making
drawing mana more difficult. Magic just feels sluggish,
like slurping a milkshake through a, in more extreme
cases, like slurping gelatin). That alone makes them
troublesome for spellcasters and adepts, but then you
have the additional danger of aspected domains, where
magic might be harder for you to grab, but the person
with the proper alignment can draw it faster. Facing opponent
mages is hard enough; facing mages with a distinct
home-court advantage is even more challenging.
Another combined challenge and opportunity that
areas with background count provide is that astral entities
can use high background counts to avoid being
tracked or chased in astral space. The challenge areas
with higher background counts present to assensing
and astral perception means that spirits and other astral
entities may duck into these areas to stay hidden. The
advantage is they’ll be tough to see; the disadvantage
is if they’re seen, they likely will have reduced magical
abilities to draw upon in their defense.

Then on page 32 we have the rules (in bullet form)

* A background count impose a negative dice pool penalty
equal to its rating for all tests linked in any way to magic (such
as spellcasting, summoning, and skill tests that use active adept
powers such as Killing Hands or Improved Sense)

*Dual-natured creatures
or purely astral creatures take a negative dice pool penalty to all
actions equal to the background count.

*Pre-existing active foci, sustained spells, quickened/anchored
spells and rituals are reduced by the background count. If they are
reduced to 0 or less, spells fizzle, wards and rituals collapse, foci
deactivate. A foci cannot activate while under the influence of the
background count. Anchored rituals and quickened spells if they
have not expired revive themselves at 1 point of Force per hour,
up to their preexisting Force. Preparations triggered while within
a background count have their potency immediately reduced by
the background count. Adepts may use a Simple Action to turn on
or off a passive power in cases where penalties from background
counts might exceed bonuses from their powers.

*Background count makes Assensing, Astral Perception, and
Astral Combat more difficult to do. Impose a negative dice pool
penalty for tests associated with these skills.


Yes, back ground counts suck ass. Hence why no one wants to be around one.... But there are steps one can take to limit their effects long term.

[SpellBinder]

Sorry, not quite.  If Concealment is going to take a BGC hit in how effective it is in applying its penalty to Perception, then why not spells like Physical Camouflage too?

Maybe a scenario?  Say, Lagos, Toxic +2 going on there, probably.  Spellcaster takes a -2 to the Magic + Spellcasting [Force] test, sure, no problem.  Say, 4 net hits.  If I'm understanding right what's been said, some here are saying that the opposed Perception test takes a -4.  Say Force 4 spirit in the same area uses Concealment, the opposed Perception test takes a -2?

[Reaver]

Sorry, not quite.  If Concealment is going to take a BGC hit in how effective it is in applying its penalty to Perception, then why not spells like Physical Camouflage too?

Did he cast Physical Camo in the BGC?

If he did then he takes a DP modifier equal to the BGC (First point of how a BGC works!)

Did he walk into the BGC with Physical Camo sustained?

If he did then the force of the spell is reduced by the BGC (3rd point of how BGC works)


IS he trying to cast AND sustain the spell in a BGC?

Then he takes a DP modifer equal to the BGC to cast the spell. Then as soon as he tries to sustain it, the BGC reduces the force of the spell by the BGC.
(these are covered in the points of what a BGC does)

example:

Boob the Mage walks in to a background count of 8, and decides to cast Increased Reflexes.
Boob, being a boob, thinks he will cast his Increase Reflexes at force 4 so he can get 4 initiative passes and rule the day as "Boob! The Speedy wonder mage!!!"
To cast the spell, Boob will haves his dice pool decreased by the background count, in this case Boob has a -8 DP. (which is going to make casting this spell really hard for a Boob!)

After resisting Drain for the casting, Boob is now sustaining his force 4 increased reflexes spell. However since the background count is 8, and the spell is only force 4, The Spell immediately fizzles out as the background count is higher then the force of the spell....


SAME IDEA BUT A BACKGROUND COUNT OF 2
Boob the Mage walks in to a background count of 8, and decides to cast Increased Reflexes.
Boob, being a boob, thinks he will cast his Increase Reflexes at force 4 so he can get 4 initiative passes and rule the day as "Boob! The Speedy wonder mage!!!"
To cast the spell, Boob will haves his dice pool decreased by the background count, in this case Boob has a -2 DP. (which is going to make casting this spell really hard for a Boob!)

After resisting Drain for the casting, Boob is now sustaining his force 4 increased reflexes spell. However since the background count is 2, the Spell's force is dropped by the level of the background count. So Boob's Increased Reflexes goes from force 4 to Force 2, and he looses a die in off his initiative and 2 points off his initiative score. (for the drop in power)




 

[Kiirnodel]

Background only reduces pre-existing spells (3rd point).

If the spell was cast within the background its Force is not reduced (the dice pool for the casting was affected instead).

[Jayde Moon]

I find humor in how there are cases where folks will cling heavily to RAW in one thread and then extrapolate in another... depending on what they want.

By the RAW, there is no DP penalty to apply when using the concealment power in BGC.  As previously mentioned, strict interpretation of RAW would actually improve the efficacy of the Concealment power.

If someone wants to homerule it to add to their perception test so that it makes sense, that's lovely (and a ruling I'd agree with), but if you did not impose a DP penalty to anyone effected by the Concealment power (as beneficiary or or perceive, you would not be wrong

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I find humor in how there are cases where folks will cling heavily to RAW in one thread and then extrapolate in another... depending on what they want.

By the RAW, there is no DP penalty to apply when using the concealment power in BGC.  As previously mentioned, strict interpretation of RAW would actually improve the efficacy of the Concealment power.

If someone wants to homerule it to add to their perception test so that it makes sense, that's lovely (and a ruling I'd agree with), but if you did not impose a DP penalty to anyone effected by the Concealment power (as beneficiary or or perceive, you would not be wrong

I don't know if I'm one of the ones providing you that humor... I suspect I am

But whether or not that's the case, the BGC "RAW" is notably less cut-and-dried than many other rules/concepts in SR5.  Adjudicating BGCs very much must take into account the clarifications/rulings that have been provided.  For example, the SG rules block says an active spell is "diminished" when it is brought into a BGC.  If you're not a connoisseur of this forum's rules debates, you might not know that it's the position of TPTB that "diminished" means reduction in net hits as opposed to reduction in force, which is a notable difference from how wards and foci are affected even though they're in the same rule sentence.  Likewise you'd never know Killing Hands reduces your Unarmed Combat roll based solely on what's in SG; you need to be aware of yet another ruling/clarification to bake that in to your adjudication.

So without a ruling/clarification (that I'm aware of) for Concealment, you have to go not just by SG's RAW but also consider other precedent as well.  So yeah I'd agree with you that probably the best way to represent the effect of BGC on Concealment, given the spirit of other clarifications, is that the Concealment's effect becomes a penalty to the observer's perception dice pool of F-BGC rather than F.

[SpellBinder]

And I'm sure I'm adding to Jayde Moon's humor in all of this, too.

Sorry, Reaver, we're going in different directions.  I'm not looking at the casting or the effects the magician has in sustaining the spell, in or out of BGC.  I'm looking at the after effects (and some of the potential silliness, that apparently got lost previously).  In this case, a spell like Physical Camouflage doesn't get its effects determined by the Force of the spell, but by the net hits in the Magic + Spellcasting test, which I have no issue with the effect BGC has on this.  It's the reduction to the subsequent Intuition + Perception test for others trying to spot the object/subject that a spell like Physical Camouflage was cast upon.

As SSDR stated, essentially house ruling, Concealment's effects are diminished by BGC.  This would also mean that, in his game, spells like Physical Camouflage will also have their net hit tally diminished by BGC.

Or to complicate things a little, a magician casts Physical Camouflage on himself in a +2 BGC area at Force 6, skip the rest and net result is 4 hits on the Magic + Spellcasting (at -2DP) test.  Per the spell, this imposes a -4 dice pool penalty to Intuition + Perception tests to visually spot him, but then because of the +2 BGC it's actually -2?