[Redwulfe]

Net hits should give you info but I am not sure you should get its a spell right off the bat. It seems more fluff oriented to me to use the unknown as simply that. For example.

At threshold you may fill a chill or it is like your blood sugar dropped or other physical phenomena that could be something else besides magic.

at one net you feel like someone is watching you or you feel dread or something small but out of the ordinary but it could just be your imagination.

at two net hit your saw a shimmer in the air or the hairs on the back of your neck stand up and you get goose bumps. Now you are sure something is not right and it is definable.

at three net you are sure something wooji this way comes.

I run perception tests the same way. If a character is stealthing around a building and the guard meets the treshhold they are suspicious but that doesn't mean they know that you are their. Thinks to himself "Did I actually hear what I thought I heard or am I going to be made a fool off in the lunch room tomorrow." "where you going?" "um, just taking a walk around"

With one or two net hits they are sure it is not just them but are still uncertain and may enlist others to help them check, "did you hear that," "what?" "I thought I heard something, bring up the cameras on the first floor."

With three or more they are sure that something is going on even if they don't know for certain "Did you hear that? I think we have an intruder, call in K9"

In any case I thing presenting problems for players to solve like perceiving magic creates drama and tension and makes game more enjoyable than not. So I will continue to use it in my games.

As far as usefulness subtle magics will still be useful.

Invisibility will still be useful I may cast a force 1 and blow regents to help in my casting but I will still use it to plant wireless taps for the party, peek through windows to get surveillance on locations, or scout out areas. I just may stay out of a 3 meter range while doing so and if I do happen to get closer then hopefully they can't get more than 5 hits on their test and I will cause a distraction to give them the -2 while doing it.

Heck even when mental magic gave you the knowledge that you where affected by it my players still came up with clever uses of them.

To me all perceiving magic means is that it is not a "I win" button. Which is not that bad for the game.

On another note however using previous editions to justify RAI is problematic in my opinion. Since editions change things for several reasons and they don't always need to write fluff for justification. In first edition you could burn focus rating for auto success, in 3rd the time you could spend in astra was based on your essence, Shamans at one point could only summon spirits based on the domain they where and not by tradition, and in one of the edition you could target characters from astral space with spells so long as you had an anchor to go through like and active focus. It is possible that the "everything has a cost mentality" is why perception of magic is based on force of the spell and such. Or not.

In the end play it the way your groups wants it played.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Deciding whether Alchemical Preparations can be perceived is kind of another big deal in my mind at this point.  I skipped 4th edition but own a copy of that edition's core rulebook... but near as I can tell you can't use the inertia from prior editions to decide whether they should be perceivable in 5th as they didn't exist before 5th edition (or 2075, if you want to view it in-universe).

For argument's sake I'm willing to take Jayde Moon's post as canon even if it's "only" his personal opinion with no binding relevance beyond his home games.  But to explore that position: Since the first paragraph apparently DOESN'T establish "all magic" as being governed by perception rules afterall, teasing out what's covered and what isn't seems like something that is logically required.  Spellcasting, Conjuring, Enchanting, Magical Lodges, and Spirits are all explicitly mentioned as being covered.  There's also the linguistic cue that the list is not exhaustive and other things are also covered without being explicitly mentioned.  According to the prevailing interpretation, Spellcasting is covered but Sustaining/Sustained Spells is not.  This would seem to imply that while Enchanting is covered, Alchemical Preparations carrying sustained spells probably aren't either, as it'd render being unable to perceive the Sustained Spell moot if you can perceive the magic thanks to the Alchamical Perparation's magical energy.  And if you can't perceive the presence of an Alchemical Preparation post spell trigger, it makes even less sense to perceive an Alchemical Preparation pre-trigger.

So if you can't perceive Sustained Spells or Alchemical Preparations, what's the larger picture from there?  You can't perceive ANY magic unless it's during the moment of creation?  That seems to be going out awful far on a branch given no such thing is explicitly said, and even arguably is directly contradicted by the 6-F rule and that rule's supporting example of perceiving a ward outside the moment of that ward being created.

[Overbyte]

Net hits should give you info but I am not sure you should get its a spell right off the bat. It seems more fluff oriented to me to use the unknown as simply that. For example.

At threshold you may fill a chill or it is like your blood sugar dropped or other physical phenomena that could be something else besides magic.

at one net you feel like someone is watching you or you feel dread or something small but out of the ordinary but it could just be your imagination.

at two net hit your saw a shimmer in the air or the hairs on the back of your neck stand up and you get goose bumps. Now you are sure something is not right and it is definable.

at three net you are sure something wooji this way comes.

The issue here, IMO, is that you've just automatically increased the threshold. Because if you just make the threshold you haven't really gained any info at all. In particular your roll to perceive magic results in you not perceiving magic. Even at +1 you still think it might not be magic. So really only at Threshold + 2 does a person (NPC?) get any actionable information by your description.

And there is another problem.. How often do you get to roll? If it is a continuing effect you should continue to get rolls. Particularly if you made the first one, now you are going to get another one at +3 because you are specifically looking for it. Which means you are going to get more successes.

I run perception tests the same way. If a character is stealthing around a building and the guard meets the treshhold they are suspicious but that doesn't mean they know that you are their. Thinks to himself "Did I actually hear what I thought I heard or am I going to be made a fool off in the lunch room tomorrow." "where you going?" "um, just taking a walk around"

With one or two net hits they are sure it is not just them but are still uncertain and may enlist others to help them check, "did you hear that," "what?" "I thought I heard something, bring up the cameras on the first floor."

And in this description you are really making my point about the magic spotting. Even with +1 hit you think there is something there and going to check it out (at +3) and/or get others to help look.

With three or more they are sure that something is going on even if they don't know for certain "Did you hear that? I think we have an intruder, call in K9"

Even with 3 over threshold they are still not certain? Wow. Perception is TOUGH in your game. 

Invisibility will still be useful I may cast a force 1 and blow regents to help in my casting but I will still use it to plant wireless taps for the party, peek through windows to get surveillance on locations, or scout out areas. I just may stay out of a 3 meter range while doing so and if I do happen to get closer then hopefully they can't get more than 5 hits on their test and I will cause a distraction to give them the -2 while doing it.

But this is the very conundrum that people like myself don't like. You can't cast a more powerful stealth spell to make it more effective because it becomes less effective due to visibility. And it carries over into detection spells as well, where the force determines range as well. And many of these spells are maintained.

To me all perceiving magic means is that it is not a "I win" button. Which is not that bad for the game.

In the end play it the way your groups wants it played.

Agreed.

I have to say though, this carries over into another problem with perception I was having the other day and that is concealability. With the rules as they are written, it is nearly impossible to carry a concealed weapon and not have it seen. But that is a discussion for another thread (although it is related to this threshold issue).

[Redwulfe]

I can see your points.

I never looked at as a threshold though because it was graduated success scale where threshold seemed more of a black in white you get nothing if you don't beat this number type of thing. Or from my prospective at least. and is minor in the long scheme of things.

As far a being hard, I never saw that in play. If you tell a player that they think they heard something after they rolled a perception test they assumed success at that point almost every time. especially when you never give them false info unless they glitch.

The progressive net hit perception thing is something I do for my NPCs to give me guidance on how the NPCs should react so I am not overpowering the players and to be consistent in the game which gives them a shot at a second roll or to take action to turn the failure into a success, so one lucky roll doesn't hang them out to dry. It still does put a wrench in their plans usually. It is more of a house rule/interpretation that I have used for a long time. I try to present challenges but in the end I am on their side rather than their opponent.

I fully agree however on the conceivability and perception in general. to me it was always to black and white and not enough shades of grey.

[mbisber]

There seems to be a lot of confused cross-purpose going on in this topic.

As I said before, the F-6 Threshold does not take Concealment, Stealth, et.al, into account. Therefore it is useless as an equation or a threshold as is. That leaves only fluff for rationalizing using Perception vs. Magic.

For Assensing vs. Magic, for perceiving and interpreting Auras, Astral Signatures, and the like, there remains the opposed test in Masking: Magic + Initiate Grade, p.326, and other possibilities for obfuscation with the other meta-magics.

And, whether one believes that Power Foci increase Magic ratings, or just effective Magic ratings as it states on p.319, that is more still more dice to oppose an Assensing attempt.

[Michael Chandra]

Oh god, please not the 'it raises Magic itself' debate -.- It doesn't raise Magic, which would impact Overcasting, it's just more dice by Common Sense (which I houseruled as Logic+Intuition).

Edit: Holy heck people have apparently used my statements regarding Power Foci as source on Reddit before, while mentioning I'm still fallible. That is kinda awesome.

[Reaver]

Oh god, please not the 'it raises Magic itself' debate -.-

How's that song go again??


"The more times change...."

[Michael Chandra]

♫ I believe I can see the future ♪
♪ 'Cause I repeat the same routine ♫
♫ I think I used to have a purpose ♪
♪ But then again, that might have been a dream ♫

♫ I can't remember how this got started ♪
♪ Oh, but I can tell you exactly how it will end ♫

♫ Every day is exactly the same ♫
♫ Every day is exactly the same ♫
♫ There is no love here and there is no pain ♫
♫ Every day is exactly the same ♫

[mbisber]

'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).'

So, if the manabolt in the example were overcast at Force 12 by a Mage with Spellcasting 6, the threshold for spotting it would seem to be -6. That 's beyond 'Easy', by the table on p.45.

Is the minimum 1 in either case? With good Stealth, the perceiver might get 0 hits. But, if the perceiver has no dice at all, he can't reach any threshold.

[Xenon]

Is the minimum 1 in either case?

Yes.

If the manabolt in the example were overcast at Force 12 by a Mage with Spellcasting 6, the threshold for spotting it would be 1.


SR5 p.280 Perceiving Magic
(minimum 1 in either case)

[Jayde Moon]

At the risk of shining the spotlight back om this thread, I was directly asked a few questions and would like to respond:

snip 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?

Unofficial, I have a team and we'll run it by them.  It's honestly not something any of us thought to be a 'thing'.

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?

So, understand that my answer is a compromise between the fluff and the practicality of Shadowrun Core mechanics.

So, I'm going to break down the fluff so we can get to the meat of the mechanics.

"Magic is rarely subtle"  By what measure are we determining subtlety and b what perspective.  Being invisible isn't subtle by any stretch of the imagination.  But that doesn't mean it's detectable by those unaffected by the spell or should be detectable via any other means.  The guy that's invisible knows, for sure though.  Mindnet?  There is nothing subtle about a dude talking in your head.  But that doesn't mean anyone outside of that net should have any clue whatsoever that magic has been used except that... (to be continued below)

"Any form of magic changes the world around it."  ANY.  There are no exceptions.  But what defines change?  To what extent.  again, with Mindlink the change is present in the ability to communicate telepathically.  That's a change and it's in the world around the magic.  Detect Enemies?  That's a change personally, but it also changes in ways that aren't immediately recognizable, the world for your enemies.  Who thought they were about to surprise you, but inexplicable are not.

"Sometimes it’s obvious through a magician’s gestures or incantations" and sometimes not.

"Spirits sometimes cause the air to shimmer, even from astral space."  And sometimes they don't?  I mean it doesn't say ALL the time.

"People have reported feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is in the area."  And, at any given moment, any number of magical effects could be, and probably are, occurring at any given location.

So, basically, the fluff tells me that anything is potentially detectable as a magical effect.  What it DOESN'T tell me is that it's because of some latent glowey magic field or because you can somehow see magic like heatwaves rising off of asphalt to whatever.  A lot of discussion in this thread has been around hypothetically shimmery fields or whatever.  But the fluff tells me that I'm seeing a spell being cast because I LITERALLY SEE the wizard in the ACT of casting the spell, not because of some pseudo astral vision.

So, extrapolate that to any other spell and the 'sustained' effect.  I can detect a sustained invisibility spell if I HEAR someone two feet in front of me but don't see anyone.  Or if they bump into me.

I 'detect' a Mindnet because of the preternatural coordination in the tactics of three absolutely silent individuals.

I 'detect' Mind Control when my companions start behaving in ways completely counter to their nature.

I detect a fireball because there's a gorram fireball.

The fluff tells me that magic makes things happen and that the effects of those things are things that can be seen, heard, or felt.  But not necessarily in the moment, maybe in hindsight.  It's pretty amorphous and meant to be... well... fluff.  A way to bring our collection of crunchy mechanics to life.

SO... at the end of the day, there are mechanics in place for detecting active spellcasting and going through a ward (which is probably a balance thing, really).  But everything else is just good intuition and storytelling and outside of the scope of the mechanics.  Which is why it was included as fluff.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Jayde Moon I'd like to thank you again for sharing your opinion as well as honoring my request for clarification.

As far as I'm concerned, the sustained spells thing is done (unless your team collectively reverses your opinion that is ).  What I was hoping for more clarification on was other sorts of magic that are similar to being sustained but are not sustained spells.  Basically, any ongoing magical effect that is encountered post-performance.

Because the fluff describes spirits hanging out nearby in the astral and wards passively sitting there as both also being perceptible, it's clear that the perception rules can't be ruled to ONLY apply to magic as it is cast/performed/created, however.  So if it's not a case of "everything is perceptible" it's a matter of going through a laundry list of what's perceptible and what's not. Now using your shared thought processes I believe I can extrapolate some more "outs":

Quickened/Anchored Spells (pretty much the same thing as being Sustained)
Critter Powers that have a duration encountered after being first "cast"
Enchanted items/Alchemical Preparations



It's harder to extrapolate should be "in" with the spirits and wards.  Active Foci perhaps?

Again, thank you Jayde Moon for weighing in and I hope you'll see fit to do so at least this one more time

[Marcus]

It's always seemed very clear to me that it's not a "thing". If we need to ask Firebug to errata that language to match the previous editions to make that crystal clear to those whom seem to have doubts, then by all means lets get that done. With the settlement of the perception question the purpose of this thread seems unclear to me. I'd suggest new one SSDR to address whatever further concerns coming from the settled topic, help clear up the cross talk and confusion.

[Redwulfe]

Jayde Moon I'd like to thank you again for sharing your opinion as well as honoring my request for clarification.

As far as I'm concerned, the sustained spells thing is done (unless your team collectively reverses your opinion that is ).  What I was hoping for more clarification on was other sorts of magic that are similar to being sustained but are not sustained spells.  Basically, any ongoing magical effect that is encountered post-performance.

Because the fluff describes spirits hanging out nearby in the astral and wards passively sitting there as both also being perceptible, it's clear that the perception rules can't be ruled to ONLY apply to magic as it is cast/performed/created, however.  So if it's not a case of "everything is perceptible" it's a matter of going through a laundry list of what's perceptible and what's not. Now using your shared thought processes I believe I can extrapolate some more "outs":

Quickened/Anchored Spells (pretty much the same thing as being Sustained)
Critter Powers that have a duration encountered after being first "cast"
Enchanted items/Alchemical Preparations



It's harder to extrapolate should be "in" with the spirits and wards.  Active Foci perhaps?

Again, thank you Jayde Moon for weighing in and I hope you'll see fit to do so at least this one more time

For Active Foci I would think thy would fall into the "out" category in the same way that enchanted Itms and Alchemical preparations would be. Under the interpretation we are moving forward with, even though they have an astral form they would not be any different on the physical world than when they are inactive, and activating them would only make them more perceptible to those beings actively perceiving on the astral. Whoever under the logic that a character would use, as described by Jayde, I think if you see a person carrying feathers and items engraved with odd looking carvings a player could assume that he is looking at foci. Hopefully I interpreted Jayde correctly and thank you Jayde for taking this to your colleges to discuss in a time where you don't have much time, since origins is so close. Thank you.

[Jayde Moon]

There is no mechanism for 'noticing' spirits on the Astral plane.  Given that the fluff says 'sometimes', I'd say that this is a prime example of giving the GM a narrative tool without obligating a perception check from the PC.

Spirits that are materialized and use a magic effect fall under the Simple Perception rule.  So like a Fear power could be noticeable as a sudden fearsome visage change, even if only momentarily, that sends someone running in terror.

Concealment might be noticed at the moment of employment.  However, once it has been turned on, it becomes a 'sustained effect' for purposes of noticing magic.

Critter Powers the same.

In both of these cases, success on the Perception test might not actually divulge what power or ability was used, if the effect isn't obvious.

Wards... this is mostly a case of feeling magic that is directly working on you, so for balance sake I think it was included.  Regardless of why, it's directly listed with Mechanics so that's that.

Active Foci, you could make a case for noticing the activation of a Foci if that fits the flavor of your table... turning on a force 6 or Higher Foci maybe... causes an intense flare of light that's nearly impossible not to notice.  If a GM made that call at a home brew table I was sitting at, I'd accept that as fun and flavorful and not unfair.  But once it's been activated, it's "sustained".

But for Missions, there is no Mechanism to notice a Foci being activated.