Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Sphinx on <04-22-18/1233:23>

Title: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Sphinx on <04-22-18/1233:23>
It's worth noting here that anyone can spot a quickened or sustained spell or other magical effect with a Perception Test [threshold = skill – Force] (see "Perceiving Magic," SR5, p.280). Low-Force effects are subtle, but the higher the Force, the easier they are to notice.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-22-18/1301:18>
It's worth noting here that anyone can spot a quickened or sustained spell or other magical effect with a Perception Test [threshold = skill – Force] (see "Perceiving Magic," SR5, p.280). Low-Force effects are subtle, but the higher the Force, the easier they are to notice.

That's during casting.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Sphinx on <04-22-18/1331:43>
That's during casting.

I don't think so. The rules on p.280-281 don't say anything about making the perception test only when the relevant magical skill is being used. On the contrary, you can see the shimmer of a spirit any time, not just as it's being summoned. You can feel the tingle of a ward that's already in place, not just during the ritual that creates it. If the magic is strong enough, anyone can sense it. A high enough skill with a low enough Force can be practically impossible to spot, but there's always a chance.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <04-22-18/1520:06>
I think Marcus is in the right here:

"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). 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). If you just stepped through a Force 5 ward, the threshold to notice the markings or feel the tingle is 1 (6 – Force 5). You get a + 2 dice pool modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active or Knowledge Skill. Obviously, if a magician is throwing fire from his fingertips, you’re probably going to notice without making
a test. But if the magic is subtle, then you have to pick up some dice."

The important word here is "performing" rather than "sustaining".
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Kiirnodel on <04-22-18/1534:19>
Right, and noticing a magical barrier as you walk through it, an astral form passing through your aura, or the effects of a spirit materializing are all exceptions to that general guideline that it only applies to "as it is happening" magic.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/1634:24>
I think Marcus is in the right here:

"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). 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). If you just stepped through a Force 5 ward, the threshold to notice the markings or feel the tingle is 1 (6 – Force 5). You get a + 2 dice pool modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active or Knowledge Skill. Obviously, if a magician is throwing fire from his fingertips, you’re probably going to notice without making
a test. But if the magic is subtle, then you have to pick up some dice."

The important word here is "performing" rather than "sustaining".

I gotta disagree, and agree with Sphinx.

The operative words in the case of noticing precast/sustained/quickened spells isn't "being performed" but "if there's no skill involved".  After the spell is cast, the spellcasting skill is no longer relevant and ongoing magical effects are just 6-F (minimum of 1), for example Mana Barriers.

Edit:  It doesn't say "Wards and only wards are 6-F", they were just listed after "For example" as an example of a no skill involved case, even though skill test was obviously required to establish a Ward in the first place.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-22-18/1755:06>
I've had this argument before, and result is always the same, the language in the rules is very clear. Performing means when you cast it. If you wanna house rule it for ya'lls table be my guest.  That rules is consistent across multiple editions, and comes up reasonably often. I recall looking it up on multiple occasions.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: PiXeL01 on <04-22-18/1802:26>
Perceiving Magic is only during casting or when you are the target of a magical effect. It isn’t to see active magical effects.
Shamans would constantly have their totemic mask visible is that wasn’t the case. 

Back in the days there used to be rules for seeing powerful spirits, barriers hiding out in astral space as their power would bleed through into physical space, distorting reality by mere presence.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/1804:43>
I've had this argument before, and result is always the same, the language in the rules is very clear. Performing means when you cast it. If you wanna house rule it for ya'lls table be my guest.  That rules is consistent across multiple editions, and comes up reasonably often. I recall looking it up on multiple occasions.

It's not a house rule to look at the second half of the rule.

To do more than just give a snappy quip:

Quote from: SR5 Pg 280-281: Noticing Magic
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). 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). If you just stepped through
a Force 5 ward, the threshold to notice the markings or
feel the tingle is 1 (6 – Force 5).
You get a + 2 dice pool
modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active
or Knowledge Skill.

To say that spells can only be noticed during the act of being cast is to ignore everything italicized in the rule.  Quoted from the rulebook- not a house rule.   To argue that you can't notice a sustained spell because it's no longer in the act of being cast is to logically also argue that you can't notice a standing ward because it's not during the Ritual Spellcasting skill test... and that's explicitly not true since the example lists noticing a ward even after the ward was cast.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/1807:45>
Perceiving Magic is only during casting or when you are the target of a magical effect. It isn’t to see active magical effects.
Shamans would constantly have their totemic mask visible is that wasn’t the case. 

Except that it explicitly IS the case that you can see active magical effects, as the "for example" example given is a Ward.  Since you can see a Ward even after the Ritual Spellcasting test is made, it's nonsense to argue that you can't see a Spell after the Spellcasting test is made.

Quote
Back in the days there used to be rules for seeing powerful spirits, barriers hiding out in astral space as their power would bleed through into physical space, distorting reality by mere presence.


Quote from: SR5 pg 280, Noticing Magic (the "fluff" before the crunch)
Magic is rarely subtle. Any form of magic (conjuring,
spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, spirits, etc.)
changes the world around it. Sometimes it’s obvious
through a magician’s gestures or incantations (magicians
seen by non-Awakened people are sometimes
called “twitchy fingers”). Spirits sometimes cause the
air to shimmer, even from astral space. People have reported
feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations
they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is
in the area.

You absolutely have the chance to "see" a spirit lurking in astral space, even if you're a mundane.  So long as your perception is good enough/the spirit's Force is high enough.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-22-18/1826:24>
It goes back to third edition, when you could take gaes to add things like chants and stuff to spell casting to make it truly obvious, or look at the new Shamanic mask optional  rules.  I didn't say it couldn't be noticed see what Kiir said, or if armor spell blocks a bullet, then there is something to notice it. But if all that happens is a mage walks in the door with quickened enhanced reflexes there is nothing to see.  Unless your astral observing there's no chance to detect that spell.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/1831:03>
It goes back to third edition, when you could take gaes to add things like chants and stuff to spell casting to make it truly obvious, or look at the new Shamanic mask optional  rules.  I didn't say it couldn't be noticed see what Kiir said, or if armor spell blocks a bullet, then there is something to notice it. But if all that happens is a mage walks in the door with quickened enhanced reflexes there is nothing to see.  Unless your astral observing there's no chance to detect that spell.

Well I don't know what to tell you.  Not only do the rules flatly contradict what you're saying, there's contextual affirmation that the rules mean what they say in that even mundanes can potentially see the "sparkles or shimmers or whatever" passively imposed into the physical world by active magic.

Quote from: SR5 Tactics for Mundanes pg 357
Before anything can be done, a magical threat must
be identified. If a front-line security guard has received
any kind of professional training, they will have been
taught how to identify a variety of magical threats:
metahuman magicians, critters, and spirits, among others.
If magical activity is identified in an opposing force
(see Perceiving Magic, p. 280), the security guards immediately
act to counter it.

Being able to "see" your sustained spells is implicitly called out as a suggestion/rule for how the GM has security know who's the mage in order to "geek him first".  This text is saying that even your mundane bouncer/doorman/rent-a-cop can potentially see active magic so long as they've (quoting here) had "any kind of professional training".  I don't know how one can honestly argue that spells don't fall under the category of "active magic".

Now when it comes to house rules: I think a reasonable one is that a mage can end his own quickened spells without having to dispell them off.  It does seem arguable that stricly by RAW he'd have to scrape them off with a Barrier or Dispel them away, but it seems reasonable to me that he can chose to simply end them.  I think it does seem the consensus is that you can't turn a quickened spell back "on" though after it's been removed.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-22-18/1906:52>
SSDR, 4 people have told you how those rules works, and how it's always been used in play. I can't make you agree, and if I could I wouldn't. But you haven't responded to ether points concerning Gaes or the optional rules that do make it obvious. Sustained spell can be spotted by astral or by why was discussed by Kiir.

The Tactics rules are for when guards see people cast spells in front of them. Other magic are pretty obvious, most elemental indirects fireball, lightning bolt those sorts of spells. High force direct can be kinda obvious, gonna take a decent amount of force to drop someone with stunbolt, but then again someone walks in reagents a stunbolt, effective force of 1, odds anyone spots that is super low, that's all working as intended. But there nothing in there that says they spot quickened spells man. Try reading it from our interpretation and you can see it works just as well that way.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/1931:00>
SSDR, 4 people have told you how those rules works, and how it's always been used in play. I can't make you agree, and if I could I wouldn't. But you haven't responded to ether points concerning Gaes or the optional rules that do make it obvious. Sustained spell can be spotted by astral or by why was discussed by Kiir.

The Tactics rules are for when guards see people cast spells in front of them. Other magic are pretty obvious, most elemental indirects fireball, lightning bolt those sorts of spells. High force direct can be kinda obvious, gonna take a decent amount of force to drop someone with stunbolt, but then again someone walks in reagents a stunbolt, effective force of 1, odds anyone spots that is super low, that's all working as intended. But there nothing in there that says they spot quickened spells man. Try reading it from our interpretation and you can see it works just as well that way.

Well I'm participating in the thread because I do want to understand alternate points of view, so I appreciate your humoring me.  My difficulty with what you've been saying is that it doesn't jive with what the rulebook says.  Doesn't matter what you say the rule says, the rulebook says what it says.  And it's been quoted repeatedly upthread so I won't quote it again here. 

Near as I understand you, you're saying that either you can't notice any magic at all if it's not during the casting, or that sustained/quickened spells are not analagous to Wards for the purposes of this rule.  Obviously you can notice magic post-casting, or else there wouldn't be a mechanic spelled out for doing so (6-F formula) and an example given doing so (noticing a Ward without mentioning the Ward's creator's Ritual Spellcasting skill level as being relevant).  The rulebook also uses the language of "skills" as opposed to mentioning "spellcasting" specifically, so sustained spells can't be non-analagous to Wards on the basis of being different skill.  The rule and example make an implicit but IMO clear statement that magic doing nothing other than passively existing is potentially perceptible on the physical plane, even by mundanes.  I'm simply not following your logic when you say by implication that spells don't count.

As for my lack of answers to your points:  Yeah I've ignored them, but that's because I don't understand what you're getting at rather than bad faith arguing.  What about Geasa and optional rules render moot the rules as described in the core rulebook on pages 280-281?  Honestly.  Give me a citation and let me see what you're looking at, because I've played since 1st edition and I have what I consider to be a better than decent understanding of how the magic rules have changed over the editions and yet I still have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Geasa (they are voluntary restrictions on the performance of your magic as a means of making magic easier- it's been that way since the 1st ed Grimoire and confirmed for 5th in SG on pg 142).


Edit:  If any Mods happen across the thread, it'd be super if you could split the thread out from Sphinx's post (https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=27289.msg498239#msg498239) and use the discussion since then as a new thread entitled "Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?" or such.  Greatly appreciated.

Edit2:  Thanks!
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-22-18/2003:57>
After reading through I have to agree with Marcus et Al. I just don't see anything in your quotes that implies in any way that magic that isn't obvious (ie. Levitate, ward, etc.) can be seen by anyone after the casting. But let's assume you are correct for a minute.

Do you think foci sparkle as well? If so how do you justify people selling fake foci? How do you justify people having foci, powerful foci in fact, and not knowing it?

Do you have any novels where mundanes notice magic just because? Any piece of fluff? Anything that doesn't go against everything that is essentially Shadowrun?
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/2015:15>
After reading through I have to agree with Marcus et Al. I just don't see anything in your quotes that implies in any way that magic that isn't obvious (ie. Levitate, ward, etc.) can be seen by anyone after the casting. But let's assume you are correct for a minute.

Do you think foci sparkle as well? If so how do you justify people selling fake foci? How do you justify people having foci, powerful foci in fact, and not knowing it?

To requote the lore/fluff at the head of the "Noticing Magic" rules:

Quote from: SR5 pg 280
Magic is rarely subtle. Any form of magic (conjuring,
spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, spirits, etc.)
changes the world around it. Sometimes it’s obvious
through a magician’s gestures or incantations (magicians
seen by non-Awakened people are sometimes
called “twitchy fingers”). Spirits sometimes cause the
air to shimmer, even from astral space. People have reported
feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations
they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is
in the area.

Magic just sitting there in astral space is sufficient for "shimmers" to be perceptible, per the SR5 rulebook lore.  Explicitly in this example, spirits lurking purely in the astral.  The second sentence is explicit in saying any magic, and the following list is not said to be exhaustive nor exclusive, so yes.  I don't see how you can say either foci or sustained spells would be a form of magic that'd be excepted given there are no indications of exceptions being possible.

Now take in context the rules about bringing active magic through a Mana Barrier, and since unbonded/inactive foci are as unaffected as any mundane trinket, it stands as IMO reasonable that an unbonded/inactive focus does not cause "shimmering" in the physical world.

Quote
Do you have any novels where mundanes notice magic just because? Any piece of fluff? Anything that doesn't go against everything that is essentially Shadowrun?

Well using fluff outside of 5th edition sources is problematic, as quite simply stuff changes across editions.  Sometimes there's a reason given for the rules of the universe changing (e.g. Crash 2.0 justifying radically different matrix rules from prior editions) but more often there's not.  Vampires used to be able to have cyberware.  Astral sniping used to be possible.  Sometimes stuff just changes (and generally, for the better).  Whether mundanes ever could notice active magic before is besides the point.  In 5th edition, the rules sure say they can.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/2040:17>
As for my lack of answers to your points:  Yeah I've ignored them, but that's because I don't understand what you're getting at rather than bad faith arguing.  What about Geasa and optional rules render moot the rules as described in the core rulebook on pages 280-281?  Honestly.  Give me a citation and let me see what you're looking at, because I've played since 1st edition and I have what I consider to be a better than decent understanding of how the magic rules have changed over the editions and yet I still have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Geasa (they are voluntary restrictions on the performance of your magic as a means of making magic easier- it's been that way since the 1st ed Grimoire and confirmed for 5th in SG on pg 142).

I don't waste my time in bad faith arguing SSRD, you may not agree with my logic and that fine.  Disagreement is just going to be how it is at times and that's Life, but if i'm actually bothering to reply to you I mean it. I have also played sense First, I remember when adepts has auto successes. You have said in the past that you primarily play missions, I mix it a fair amount but I do missions as well. Your tendency to push ahead and not address language or definitional issue is one that I find troubling and one that has lead me to dismiss your arguments on several occasions.

Gease, implemented primarily as a way to regain magic loss due to essence loss, a use which sadly has not made its way forward, well other then blood crystal thingies. Now gease were varied, but the most common one in my experience was somatic and vocal components (See D&D), which just made spell casting obvious, but didn't make your active spells obvious. The Shamanic mask in original form was similar in that, Shamans when they a different thing from hermetic assumed when he/she was casting a spell, you took on your shamanic animal mask once again making kinda it obvious, you were getting your voodoo on.  Now that concept is updated in the New optional rules for Mentors Mask (182 FA). Which makes your spell effect and adept power visible but in-exchange decreases the drain values by 1. Yes it is an optional rule. But to me it's existence implies the need for something else to make your spell visibly detectable.  I don't know where you got the idea that an active spell is a ward, but it's not. A ward is ward, there have been different ward variants in the past, I don't recall if that made into 5th or not.

I didn't understand you, you haven't understood me; let's start on understanding one another.

To put what I've been saying differently, I'll re-quote the rules for noticing magic:

Quote from: SR5, Perceiving Magic: The entire rules block, pgs 280-281
Magic is rarely subtle. Any form of magic (conjuring,
spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, spirits, etc.)
changes the world around it. Sometimes it’s obvious
through a magician’s gestures or incantations (magicians
seen by non-Awakened people are sometimes
called “twitchy fingers”). Spirits sometimes cause the
air to shimmer, even from astral space. People have reported
feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations
they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is
in the area.

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). 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). If you just stepped through
a Force 5 ward, the threshold to notice the markings or
feel the tingle is 1 (6 – Force 5). You get a + 2 dice pool
modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active
or Knowledge Skill.

Obviously, if a magician is throwing fire from his fingertips,
you’re probably going to notice without making
a test. But if the magic is subtle, then you have to pick
up some dice.

Ok, the first paragraph is lore/fluff.  But as I mentioned in my post immediately before this one, the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph is pretty relevant.  ANY magic is potentially perceptible.  It does not say sustained spells are omitted.

On to the rules crunch: It provides 2 rules mechanics for perceiving magic.  The first case is used when a skill is involved.  Spellcasting, Conjuring, Enchanting, etc.  The second case is when a skill is not involved.  Surely Critter Powers, but I'm saying also Sustained Spells.  And I'm saying Sustained Spells, even though you do indeed use Spellcasting to cast them, you also use Ritual Spellcasting to cast Wards, and the example of a Ward says to ignore Ritual Spellcasting skill and go with the 6-F formula.  Since sustained spells fall under the umbrella of relevancy under these rules invoked by the language "any magic", they have to fall under one of the two rules mechanics.  We're not even disagreeing as to which mechanic to use; you're arguing with me about sustained spells satisfying the "any magic" language to be relevant to these rules!  If I was saying a security guard had to use the Mage's Spellcasting Skill-F instead of 6-F would we still be arguing?

With regards to trying to understand you: as far as the Shamanic Mask optional rules go, near as what I think you're talking about is in SG on page 192... but if so that's just saying use the rules we're discussing with a further +2 dice modifier for the observer.  It's hardly an argument to invalidate the rules it itself is referencing...  Some Geasa involving chanting/singing/whatever is really more of a reason to invoke the third quoted paragraph and say the perception test is flatly unnecessary.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Rosa on <04-22-18/2212:29>
So in essence if you truly could notice any spell of a sufficiently high level being sustained you have just invalidated every single stealthy spell and every single illusion spell in the books because it's apparently obvious to anyone that magic is going on. Pretty sucky to try an be invisible when your tracing magic sparkles in air around you.  One would assume that high level illusions and other stealthy spells were actually supposed to make it harder to be discovered not easier.

Obviously I'm with Marcus on this.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-22-18/2220:24>
For my part I understood you perfectly, and we don't agree. Further it looks pretty clearly we aren't going to agree. I say that rules you reference where skill is involved only works when the spell is cast (See Performed in rules quote we have thrown back forth through this whole set of threads). The concept of having to record your successes for each quickened spell and having to fresh check them in every scene has never been done and would be an pointless complicating mechanic to add, as it would very easy to manipulate to make it very hard to see (Regents would make it Skill-1 forever). Regardless it's not the case, it works as we already discussed. Sustained spells show up in the circumstances as discussed at some length.

As to your response to mentors mask, there has never been any way to see any internal active power on an adept before, the optional rule makes sustained spells and power visibly detectable, That's why they give you -1 drain discount which we all know is super rare mechanic to discount. You don't make an optional rule that gives meaningfully powerful bonus unless it has meaningfully powerful flaw to match it. (Which is 182 FA NOT SG, so I don't know if you are reading the right thing, but Mentor mask IS NOT in SG.)

If you try it your way and a caster has extended masking are you going to negate the whole purpose that meta-magic by having it show up anyway? As I recall There is no language in masking or extend-masking about hiding the spell from normal vision. Honestly your method would invalidate to many things. Further, there's no fluff to support it. Nothing in your little fluff opening discusses quickened spells, which as meta-magic effects are by definition powerful and subtle.

To conclude we don't agree. Sustained spells are detectable by astral sight, and under the other rare circumstance previously discussed, but not by a normal perception check unless you happen to be standing there when the spell is cast in front of you. I don't see ether one of us changing our minds, so ether appeal to higher authority, or agree to disagree. I'm content with ether option.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-22-18/2228:54>
So in essence if you truly could notice any spell of a sufficiently high level being sustained you have just invalidated every single stealthy spell and every single illusion spell in the books because it's apparently obvious to anyone that magic is going on. Pretty sucky to try an be invisible when your tracing magic sparkles in air around you.  One would assume that high level illusions and other stealthy spells were actually supposed to make it harder to be discovered not easier.

Obviously I'm with Marcus on this.

I can respect differences of opinion.  People are going to have them.  When it comes to arguing about what the rules say, well that can get into nitty gritty since we have a common, concrete point of reference and there's the distinct possibility (if not probability) that someone's simply mistaken about something.. and I indulge in order to find out if it's me :)

But opinions?  No point in arguing about them.  I do however want to quibble on a minor point of correction:  No, I wasn't saying stealth/illusion/invisibility is invalidated by being perceivable.  According to the lore/fluff, sure it can be shimmers, but it can also be simple chills or even an unexplained feeling of dread.  A security mook might realize something magic just happened, but that doesn't mean he knows it was an invisible shadowrunner sneaking past him.  He has no reason to know it wasn't a security mage or the mage's spirit or watcher checking in on said goon.  As the rule presents itself, perceiving magic is just a binary thing.  They either know magic is going on or they don't.  Doesn't mean they know what the magic is doing.  And the lore/fluff makes gives no indication that the intent is to negate invisibility by highlighting the subject in sparkles like a SR version of Faerie Fire (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/faerieFire.htm).

To conclude we don't agree.

And that's a fair enough resolution.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-23-18/0158:19>
I'm not sure if you play pink mohawk or what but a lot of times in black trenchcoat a guard going "oh, magic is happening nearby" is totally the same as the guard going "invisibility was cast at force 6, armor is quickened at force 5, etc."
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-23-18/0227:22>
I'm not sure if you play pink mohawk or what but a lot of times in black trenchcoat a guard going "oh, magic is happening nearby" is totally the same as the guard going "invisibility was cast at force 6, armor is quickened at force 5, etc."

lol, yeah the illusion/invisibility issue will be a really wacky to address at SSDR tables, I almost wish i could be there first time it comes up. On the one hand high force invisibility will be hard to see through on the other high force invisibility will be really easy to spot lol. I guess the poor, poor mages at those tables will just have to learn to adapt fast. LOL I think there'll be a fair amount howling lol.



Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/0235:15>
I'm not sure if you play pink mohawk or what but a lot of times in black trenchcoat a guard going "oh, magic is happening nearby" is totally the same as the guard going "invisibility was cast at force 6, armor is quickened at force 5, etc."

Maybe so, but what more can I say?  The rules clearly say that any form of magic being present (including the specific example of a spirit doing nothing but being present astrally) there's a chance to perceive that magic is going on.  Certainly people don't have to like that it means mundanes can detect that magic is present.. but it's inarguable that the rules say that's indeed the case.

Honestly, I don't know what the big hangup is.  If an astral patroller sees the shadowrunner with sustained spells, the gig is still up anyway.  It's just a matter of mundane security still being relevant even if you use magic, and I can understand how that paradigm might be clashing with notions of how Shadowrun is supposed to work.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-23-18/0243:44>
I'm not sure if you play pink mohawk or what but a lot of times in black trenchcoat a guard going "oh, magic is happening nearby" is totally the same as the guard going "invisibility was cast at force 6, armor is quickened at force 5, etc."

Maybe so, but what more can I say?  The rules clearly say that any form of magic being present (including the specific example of a spirit doing nothing but being present astrally) there's a chance to perceive that magic is going on.  Certainly people don't have to like that it means mundanes can detect that magic is present.. but it's inarguable that the rules say that's indeed the case.

Honestly, I don't know what the big hangup is.  If an astral patroller sees the shadowrunner with sustained spells, the gig is still up anyway.  It's just a matter of mundane security still being relevant even if you use magic, and I can understand how that paradigm might be clashing with notions of how Shadowrun is supposed to work.

Well I think you will find most everyone is going to disagree with you about what that rules actually says, and I suspect many will have a lot to say about it. But I really do wanna know how it turns out. So please do report back when it happens.

Best of luck.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/0308:20>
I'm not sure if you play pink mohawk or what but a lot of times in black trenchcoat a guard going "oh, magic is happening nearby" is totally the same as the guard going "invisibility was cast at force 6, armor is quickened at force 5, etc."

Maybe so, but what more can I say?  The rules clearly say that any form of magic being present (including the specific example of a spirit doing nothing but being present astrally) there's a chance to perceive that magic is going on.  Certainly people don't have to like that it means mundanes can detect that magic is present.. but it's inarguable that the rules say that's indeed the case.

Honestly, I don't know what the big hangup is.  If an astral patroller sees the shadowrunner with sustained spells, the gig is still up anyway.  It's just a matter of mundane security still being relevant even if you use magic, and I can understand how that paradigm might be clashing with notions of how Shadowrun is supposed to work.

Well I think you will find most everyone is going to disagree with you about what that rules actually says, and I suspect many will have a lot to say about it. But I really do wanna know how it turns out. So please do report back when it happens.

Best of luck.

Well it very well could be a horror show, as the regular Missions GM for local play has been operating under the impression that Awakened means the same thing as Dual Natured, and as such mages have to test to go thru Wards even if no spells/foci are active, Indirect Combat Area spells allow a dodge test, and well lots of things that just presumably got decided over the course of play to keep a session from derailing over digging into rulebooks but have since become accepted/confused as being the actual rules.  This is just one of the many things, so yeah.  It's absolutely going to be a case of culture shock with different GMs, and as such it'll be important to let slide what truly is allowable to slide and pick battles to be stubborn on "well y'all have been doing it wrong the whole time, the rules actually say *this*"... 

Honestly haven't decided if this is going to be one of the chosen battles or to just let it go.  For the purposes of the forum discussion it's more appropriate to have a "you're wrong, but here's why" kind of discussion in a purely abstract sense than at a gaming table where people are naturally prone to be invested in an outcome... and thus coloring what should otherwise be a pure logic and reason discussion :)
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-23-18/0330:53>
1. It is clear that magic in this edition is almost always obvious and doesn't require a test to notice at all (that you only need to take a test if magic is subtle to begin with).

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
Magic is rarely subtle...But if the magic is subtle, then you have to pick up some dice.


2. It is clear that the victim of a subtle manipulation spell can notice it.

SR5 p. 292 Manipulation Spells
A victim of mental manipulation spell may roll to notice the magical effect according to the usual rules for Perceiving Magic (p. 280). Some of the less subtle mental spells (Control Actions) are pretty obvious, but more subtle spells (like Control Thoughts) can be pretty insidious.


3. It is clear that mundanes in this edition can notice when an astral form passes through their aura.

SR5 p. 314 Astral Detection
Physical beings may sense when an astral form passes through their aura.


4. It is clear that anything active on the astral plane in this edition have an astral form.

SR5 p. 312
Anything active on the astral plane, including spirits, active foci, dual-natured beings, etc., has a tangible astral form.

SR5 p. 319 Foci
While activated, a focus also has an astral form.

SR5 p. 280 Magical Ldoges
Then spend a number of days equal to the lodge’s Force dedicating the space, setting up the physical components, building its astral form, setting up barriers, and harmonizing it to your aura.

SR5 p. 301 Spirit Basics
Spirits are naturally astral forms, much like you’re naturally a physical form.


5. It is clear that spirits in this edition cause the air to shimmer (which mundanes can notice).

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
Spirits sometimes cause the air to shimmer, even from astral space


6. It is clear that you in this edition can notice magic that is being cast

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
Sometimes it’s obvious through a magician’s gestures or incantations (magicians seen by non-Awakened people are sometimes called “twitchy fingers”).... 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).


7. It is clear that you in this edition can notice when magic is in the area

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
People have reported feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is in the area.


8. It is clear that mundanes in this edition can specialize in noticing magic

SR5 p. 314 Astral Detection
Security personnel are trained to recognize this feeling as a sign of an astral intruder. This specialization of Perception is called Numinous Perception, which includes both the chilly tingle of astral forms and the “bad vibes” of noticing magic (p. 280).




In this edition it is not clear that a sustained spell would be impossible to notice.





edit to rephrase my comments from "sometimes" to "can"
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-23-18/0350:44>
That's a lot of sometimes and have reported for "clearly". Lol
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-23-18/0415:06>
That's a lot of sometimes ...
I updated the post to use the word "can" instead. Much better. Thanks for your comment :)
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-23-18/0907:15>
That's a lot of sometimes ...
I updated the post to use the word "can" instead. Much better. Thanks for your comment :)


Oh Look another person who doesn't believes invisibility shouldn't work lol. I guess that group will be bigger then just SSDR, and Sphinx.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: SunRunner on <04-23-18/1042:39>
I am generally with Marcus. You can notice spells when they are cast and in some other specified circumstances. Noticing spirits are present in the Astral is called out as being fluffy and mostly tied to the spirits being lazy and actually touching the mundanes aura, not if its sitting quietly in a corner no one is near. Also as Marcus pointed out if sustained spells are just obvious its self defeating. It also makes a bunch of meta magics worthless as he pointed out. The whole let me invest 2 metamagics worth of initiation(masking & extended masking) into it so that even mages cant tell I have physical mask up is unless they manage to break my masking meta magic or resist my physical mask spell is self defeating when they go i beat a thresh hold 1 perception test to see the magical sparkles around you because you cast a bad ass force 8 physical mask spell. It means mages are by default the Pinkest of Pink Mohawk characters unless and untill they get to a spell casting skill of 10+ so that even medium force spells require at least 3 or 4 hits to notice.

They have some specific rules like if your the target of a mental manipulation spell that get around this, also some of the spell descriptions themselves imply noticable effects that I would use to apply the notice a spell rules even when its being sustained. The armor spell is one of the top of my head as the spell description clearly states you have a nice magical force field glow around you while the spell is active. I also personally apply this to the ghostly Mostly invisible hands you get from the magic fingers spell to sight some specific examples. How ever there are some spells Like body glove, which is the Armor spell with a slightly higher drain code the specifies its the stealth ops version of the armor spell that functions like the armor spell in all ways just with out the distinctive glowing forcefield effect so you can have it active without the glow in the dark problem that prevents you from sneaking around. Also as pointed out pretty much the entire illusion school of magic gets invalidated by this approach, the whole point of them is you cant tell they are there unless you resist them which puts you into a catch 22 death spiral of I need high force so they are not resisted but if they are high force then every one just makes a basic perception test to see my magic sparkles. Thats why the illusion school has the realistic and obvious key words, cause some of the illusions have the obvious key word which means any one whos encounters the illusion knows its not real even if they dont resist it. The also have spells like deflection that state the effects are not really noticeable visually speaking but the results are noticeable, IE they state when some one is just sitting there making no attempt to dodge you shooting them but happens to have a force 12 deflection spell up so you keep missing them eventually you kinda get clued in something is going on that you cant see.

In the end you are choosing to read and interpret the rules a little different then most people I know who play the game. And that is ok and its always a learning process when you sit down at a new table to feel out the GM and see how he handles things. That being said they way you are interpreting things is so self defeating I cant accept that that is how it should work. Its like saying every point of armor you have give results in +1 DV when ever your shot. its like so If I am naked and the guy shoots me with a hold out pistol I only have to deal with 4 DV but because I am in heavy security armor I have to deal with 19 DV. WTF am I wearing armor for, its self defeating. Your making the only viable play style for a mage to be the pink mohawk combat mage that just floats down the middle of the street and is visible form low orbit by your naked eye because he is lit up brighter then most million candle spot lights because of his sustained spells. I cant influence the guards to do anything because as soon as he walks back in the guard shack and says everything is fine the other guards go Ohh your covered in magic sparkles hit the panic button and call in magic back up etc.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/1201:42>
You can notice spells when they are cast and in some other specified circumstances.


You disagree with my assertion that due to the description on pg 280 All magic is perceptible and subject to those Perceiving Magic rules.  Fair enough, but if you can't provide a citation that supports your claim that spells are only noticeable under certain circumstances you'll understand why I consider your claim the weaker one.

Quote
Noticing spirits are present in the Astral is called out as being fluffy and mostly tied to the spirits being lazy and actually touching the mundanes aura, not if its sitting quietly in a corner no one is near.

And yet that's counter to what pg 280 says.  It says nothing about the spirit needing to touch the observer's aura in order to grant the observer the chance to notice the spirit's presence.  And at the same time, it does give the implication that the spirit need simply be in proximity as we have a definitive statement in "spirits sometimes cause the air to shimmer, even from astral space".  At best the only room for disagreement about this statement is a philosophical argument about whether there's a shimmer there to be seen if noone is there to see it.  (the tree falling in the forest with noone to hear rehash)   However if you're going to argue that a character can only see shimmers if the spirit touched that character's aura, I'm going to dismiss your argument as based on "this is how I think SR should work" rather than what SR itself is telling us about how it works.  Gimme a citation to support your opinion or all you got is opinion.

Quote
Also as Marcus pointed out if sustained spells are just obvious its self defeating. It also makes a bunch of meta magics worthless as he pointed out. The whole let me invest 2 metamagics worth of initiation(masking & extended masking) into it so that even mages cant tell I have physical mask up is unless they manage to break my masking meta magic or resist my physical mask spell is self defeating when they go i beat a thresh hold 1 perception test to see the magical sparkles around you because you cast a bad ass force 8 physical mask spell. It means mages are by default the Pinkest of Pink Mohawk characters unless and untill they get to a spell casting skill of 10+ so that even medium force spells require at least 3 or 4 hits to notice.

Going backwards to front on this:  So what if mages are inherently very pink mohawk?  There's a pretty big suspension of disbelief if you're running a "black trenchcoat game but with magic" anyway.

But more to the point, keep in mind that the "but invisibility is worthless!" counter is a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) fallacy: the example on pg 280 never says anything about the magic's effects being countered by tells, nor that the event of successfully perceiving that magic is present gives information to mundane senses about what the magic is doing, or even where it exactly is located.  So no, there's no reason to presume that just because a powerful invisibility spell might be perceived under the Perceiving Magic rules there's no reasonable justification in saying invisibility magic is worthless because it A) still doesn't let the observer know where the invisible person is and B) provide the observer the knowledge that the magic noticed even was specifically an invisibility spell.

Quote
They have some specific rules like if your the target of a mental manipulation spell that get around this, also some of the spell descriptions themselves imply noticable effects that I would use to apply the notice a spell rules even when its being sustained. The armor spell is one of the top of my head as the spell description clearly states you have a nice magical force field glow around you while the spell is active.

Clearly a case of due cause to invoke the third paragraph of the Perceiving Magic rules (pg 281).

Quote
I also personally apply this to the ghostly Mostly invisible hands you get from the magic fingers spell to sight some specific examples.

More power to you.


Quote
How ever there are some spells Like body glove, which is the Armor spell with a slightly higher drain code the specifies its the stealth ops version of the armor spell that functions like the armor spell in all ways just with out the distinctive glowing forcefield effect so you can have it active without the glow in the dark problem that prevents you from sneaking around.

Citation would be appreciated, but going off what you're saying if it's just an Armor spell without the language that it has a visible glowing field, then we're back to the first two paragraphs of the Perceiving Magic rules.  Just as a guard noticing "something magic is afoot" when an invisible target is lurking nearby doesn't invalidate invisibility magic, a guard "noticing something magic is afoot" doesn't invalidate sneaking armor in to someplace you're presumably not supposed/encouraged to have it.

Quote
Also as pointed out pretty much the entire illusion school of magic gets invalidated by this approach....

Aaaaaaaaand... no it doesn't.  Not because I say so btw, because you failed to provide citations that support your claim.  And some of your claims (like you only get a chance to perceive a Deflection spell if you happen to shoot a bullet and might notice the deflection) are demonstrably false.

Quote
In the end you are choosing to read and interpret the rules a little different then most people I know who play the game. And that is ok and its always a learning process when you sit down at a new table to feel out the GM and see how he handles things. That being said they way you are interpreting things is so self defeating I cant accept that that is how it should work.

I don't see where there's something to object to in the assertation that "according to the SR rules governing Perceiving Magic, on pages 280-281 of the 5th Ed Core Rulebook, any magic is potentially perceptible".  May not be popular, may not jive with prior editions (and I'm not prepared to agree it's novel to 5th, just no point in arguing about prior editions) and hell maybe it is game changing.  Nothing wrong with any of this.

Quote
Its like saying every point of armor you have give results in +1 DV when ever your shot.

No, no it isn't.  Me pointing out the rules as they are written isn't like you making up entirely new rules.

Quote
Your making the only viable play style for a mage to be the pink mohawk combat mage that just floats down the middle of the street and is visible form low orbit by your naked eye because he is lit up brighter then most million candle spot lights because of his sustained spells.

I'm not making anyone walk around with say, Force 10 or 12 sustained (or quickened!) Attribute Modification spells.  If you're doing stuff like that, then you're already playing Pink Mohawk.

Honestly, if you're going to use magic in a Black Trenchcoat game, you need a rule like the Perceiving Magic, or else there's no incentive to ever use magical analogues to holdout pistols rather than assault cannons.

Quote
...I cant influence the guards to do anything because as soon as he walks back in the guard shack and says everything is fine the other guards go Ohh your covered in magic sparkles hit the panic button and call in magic back up etc.

If we're going to be hyperbolic about what each other is claiming by implication, then allow me to shed a tear for Mages being inferior to dedicated Faces and Covert Ops Specialists at Faces' and Covert Ops Specialists' own jobs. :)

But to treat your comment with the seriousness that I'm sure you'd want:  lets say you do influence the guard to do something, and while he fails to resist he does succeed on noticing the spell.  Doesn't mean he's going to go press the panic button instead of what you influenced him to do via the spell.  Come on now.

Edit:  In fairness, didn't notice your complaint was about the other guards hitting the panic button.  Yeah, that's kind of the intended point about the Perceiving Magic rules, imo.  You need a better plan than "have the Mage cast a spell at the problem".   You'll have to incorporate your magic into a plan rather than being the plan all by itself.  I see absolutely no problem with this.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-23-18/1219:24>
Oh Look another person who doesn't believes invisibility shouldn't work lol.
So far I have been neutral in this topic and just cited RAW. Please don't confuse that with what I personally believe (or not) or how we treat things at our table. Thank you.


In the end you are choosing to read and interpret the rules a little different then most people I know who play the game...
I think there is an important distinction between debating RAW (which we are doing in this topic, at least as far as I can tell) and how different tables choose to play the game.


Its like saying every point of armor you have give ...
The key difference here is that (by RAW) it is clear that the purpose of armor is to calculate if the attack deal physical damage or stun damage and that the modified armor value act as a positive dice pool modifier to your body resistance roll where each hit will reduce the modified damage value by one. The book also give us rules so we know how to treat various damage types and ammo types. There is no guesswork involved. The rules are clear.

While with Noticing Magic the book first make a blanket statement that magic is rarely subtle (=almost always obvious) and Noticing Magic [when it is subtle] is resolved with a Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test. Full stop. The book does not list any exceptions, but it does list several examples from different areas where the rule is applied (such as walking through a ward, being the victim of the control thoughts spell, a spirit in the astral plane, a projecting magician traveling through your aura, noticing a magician casting a manabolt spell...)

If there are exceptions (and it for example is impossible to notice high force sustained illusion spells) then the book does a poor job at explaining them.

If there are no exceptions (and it for example is possible to notice high force sustained illusion spells) then it make sense that there are no listed exceptions since it would fall under the general noticing magic rule like everything else.

I think a big reason why some people in this thread are arguing that it should be impossible to notice a sustained spell is because they want their high force Invisibility spell and multiple quickened spells without risking people report feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on... Not because of RAW. Again, I am not saying they are wrong. Or right. I am just saying that as far as I can tell they don't have much support from the book as it is written (there is also nothing about noticing magic in the official errata).

On the other hand there is also no explicit example with people that report feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on when a subject under a high force Invisibility spell and multiple quickened spells walk pass them in the corridor.


I cant influence the guards to do anything because as soon as he walks back in the guard shack and says everything is fine the other guards go Ohh your covered in magic sparkles hit the panic button and call in magic back up etc.
It is clear that you can notice magic if you observe the magician as he cast the spell (twitching fingers).

It is also clear that the victim of this specific subtle manipulation spell get a chance to notice magic (feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on - not "glowing sparks" or "lit up brighter then most million candle spot lights").

SR5 p. 292 Manipulation Spells
A victim of mental manipulation spell may roll to notice the magical effect according to the usual rules for Perceiving Magic (p. 280).


Having said that, I know what I believe and I have a good idea on how to handle it. I just can't find a lot of support from RAW...


slipped by Stainless Steel Devil Rat
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/1237:11>
I think there is an important distinction between debating RAW (which we are doing in this topic, at least as far as I can tell) and how different tables choose to play the game.

I think this is very important to remember.  This is a discussion about a rule.  It's a place to discuss how the rule is.  How it "should be" is better argued in person with your own gaming buddies, as that's where the game actually matters in a practical sense anyway.  If you don't like the rules on page 280 or any other page for that matter, by all means ignore or change them.

If someone's opinion is "Well the Perceiving Magic rules are just stupid, and I'm not using them as-is" I have no retort.  That's not my intent.  Hell, I can sympathize.. I'm no RAW is LAW robot... I find the rules as written for spotting hidden matrix icons to be stupid and unplayable.  I'm just not arguing that RAW is saying something other than what it says.  So I totally get opinion based pushback... I'd just appreciate facts and logic rather than opinion in the thread.

Quote
slipped by Stainless Steel Devil Rat

Not sure what that means... should I be flattered or offended? :}
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-23-18/1253:15>
Not sure what that means... should I be flattered or offended? :}
It mostly just mean that you managed to reply while I was typing my reply to the previous poster.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-23-18/1404:30>
Oh Look another person who doesn't believes invisibility shouldn't work lol.
So far I have been neutral in this topic and just cited RAW. Please don't confuse that with what I personally believe (or not) or how we treat things at our table. Thank you.

LOL, Oh Really? Well Xenon, it's really simple. You ether agree with the argument of performing means you can only roll at casting, or you agree that spotted with perception at anytime. It can't work both ways. So which is it Xenon?

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).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/1409:40>
LOL, Oh Really? Well Xenon, it's really simple. You ether agree with the argument of performing means you can only roll at casting, or you agree that spotted with perception at anytime. It can't work both ways. So which is Xenon?

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).


Look at it this way Marcus:

You must make a Ritual Spellcasting skill check to cast a Ward.  The example given says that when someone later encounters that Ward, you ignore the "perfoming skill" and it counts as the 6-F scenario instead of Skill-F.

Either you accept that the deciding factor in relevancy of Skill-F vs 6-F is chronology rather than type of magic, or you tell us why there should be different rules for noticing spells vs wards.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <04-23-18/1436:31>
@Xenon
I appreciate your effort of collecting and clearly labeling sources.

Capitalizing on your work I'd like to point out a few things:

Perceiving is not the same thing as being able to pinpoint magic. In fact Aura contact seems to be very much important for this, as indicated by quote 3 and 8.
Just because there is magic around doesn't tell you that it is this one particular guy. I'd even say, you can't even be sure if you aren't imagining this as the effect is pretty subtle.
I'd go even so far as to say that without aura contact you won't even get that much. Which is supported by the fact that you have to move through a ward to notice it just as an astral form has to move through you to give you a chance to react to it. In fact quote 7 spells it all but out that it would have to be an area spell with you inside the area of effect for you to get a chance to notice anything.

That interpretation would neatly solve this conflict: You can feel sustained magic under certain circumstances - but only if you are in direct aura contact.


1. It is clear that magic in this edition is almost always obvious and doesn't require a test to notice at all (that you only need to take a test if magic is subtle to begin with).

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
Magic is rarely subtle...But if the magic is subtle, then you have to pick up some dice.


2. It is clear that the victim of a subtle manipulation spell can notice it.

SR5 p. 292 Manipulation Spells
A victim of mental manipulation spell may roll to notice the magical effect according to the usual rules for Perceiving Magic (p. 280). Some of the less subtle mental spells (Control Actions) are pretty obvious, but more subtle spells (like Control Thoughts) can be pretty insidious.


3. It is clear that mundanes in this edition can notice when an astral form passes through their aura.

SR5 p. 314 Astral Detection
Physical beings may sense when an astral form passes through their aura.


4. It is clear that anything active on the astral plane in this edition have an astral form.

SR5 p. 312
Anything active on the astral plane, including spirits, active foci, dual-natured beings, etc., has a tangible astral form.

SR5 p. 319 Foci
While activated, a focus also has an astral form.

SR5 p. 280 Magical Ldoges
Then spend a number of days equal to the lodge’s Force dedicating the space, setting up the physical components, building its astral form, setting up barriers, and harmonizing it to your aura.

SR5 p. 301 Spirit Basics
Spirits are naturally astral forms, much like you’re naturally a physical form.


5. It is clear that spirits in this edition cause the air to shimmer (which mundanes can notice).

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
Spirits sometimes cause the air to shimmer, even from astral space


6. It is clear that you in this edition can notice magic that is being cast

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
Sometimes it’s obvious through a magician’s gestures or incantations (magicians seen by non-Awakened people are sometimes called “twitchy fingers”).... 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).


7. It is clear that you in this edition can notice when magic is in the area

SR5 p. 280 Perceiving Magic
People have reported feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is in the area.


8. It is clear that mundanes in this edition can specialize in noticing magic

SR5 p. 314 Astral Detection
Security personnel are trained to recognize this feeling as a sign of an astral intruder. This specialization of Perception is called Numinous Perception, which includes both the chilly tingle of astral forms and the “bad vibes” of noticing magic (p. 280).




In this edition it is not clear that a sustained spell would be impossible to notice.





edit to rephrase my comments from "sometimes" to "can"
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/1521:28>
That interpretation would neatly solve this conflict: You can feel sustained magic under certain circumstances - but only if you are in direct aura contact.

It's an interesting idea, and certainly a much more helpful contribution to the discussion than many other posts have been. ;)

I'm honestly not sure what I think about its appropriateness, but absolutely worthy of thought/further discussion.

To support your idea: The mentions about "magic in the area" are giving no guidelines at all about raw distances. The quoted text in Xenon's point 7 is certainly badly worded if it's supposed to mean "within a spell's area of effect", but then again I'm saying it doesn't cleanly say that because it wasn't meaning to make that exact delineation- just "close enough to be within reason".  But moving on:  even if one were to say auras don't have to come into direct contact but simply be in proximity, you're having to put "how close is close enough" firmly in the realm of GM jurisprudence.  And as expressed upthread, opinions can be expected to vary wildly from GM to GM :)  So taking that variable out is absolutely an intriguing concept.

To possibly rebut the advantage of your idea: "Contact" is still fuzzy from an Astral perspective.  If a mage casts a spell  upon a target in a social encounter clearly the subject gets a perception test to notice the spell being cast (and presumably, everyone else present also gets the chance as well due to the spell being cast in that moment as opposed to being a precast sustained/quickened spell brought into the scenario).  OTOH a mage walking into the social encounter with a quickened Enhance Charisma spell is only at risk of triggering perceptible shimmers/chills/feelings of dread/etc from people he comes into contact with.... is engaging in a one-on-one conversation represented by an opposed social skill check sufficient to count as "contact" and allow the participant to potentially notice the magic that is making his conversation partner supernaturally good looking/insightful/interesting, or only those social encounters that truly involve physical skin-to-skin contact would permit a perception check?
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-23-18/1545:53>
I'm still waiting for an answer Xenon.

Some kind of Aura contact rule could be a work around. However from a RAW perspective, it's one or the other, and nothing anyone has said has convinced me otherwise. The consequences of this are fairly far reaching. There isn't anything in the system that defines how aura contact could be defined. Wards are a fairly clearly Line, while personal aura is fairly nebulous concept arguably equivalent to personal space, it would be closer then melee range. So grappling or the gymnastic version of grappling.


Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-23-18/1802:24>
If it was easy, Marcus, then I would have given you an answer in my first reply on this topic ;)

While it is clear that you can notice magic as it is being cast (twitchy fingers, p. 280), it is also clear that you can sense magic in the area (bad vibes, p. 280, p. 281, p. 292, p. 314), notice astral plane spirits (cause the air to shimmer, p. 280) and feel astral forms passing through your aura (slight breathless, p. 314). Can you notice magic when being targeted by a subtle manipulation spell? Yes you can. Can a mundane person notice a ward? Yes. Magic Lodge...? Same thing. Are we even limited to just noticing subtle Spllcasting and Spirits? Nope... Any form of magic changes the world around it (including, but not limiting to, enchanting and conjuring). In fact I can't seem to find a single exception where they mention magic that you can not notice... It should be noted that the test you take for "noticing magic" (not only "noticing magic as it is being cast") is just a regular perception test (p. 135) and in the book we are given at least three different thresholds that we can use for the test depending on the situation (when magic in question have "skill and focus", only "focus" and even when "no focus" is involved). If successful it basically means that you noticed something subtle or important.


Scenario;

A mundane security guard with Numinous training takes the elevator up to the top floor. The guard does not know this, but in the elevator with him is a magician Shadowrunner with an active high force invisible spell as well as multiple high force quickened spells and a few active foci.

Do we let the security guard take a perception test to see if he notice magic?

I don't think it is clear. The rules as they are written are ambiguous and can be read in more than one way. There is no explicit rule that allow the guard to take the perception test. There is also no explicit rule that forbid the guard to take the perception test. There are good arguments for both sides. Would the guard be allowed to take the perception test if he explicitly spend a Simple Action to Observe in Detail...?

This problem have several possible solutions and, depending on your reading, none of them (or maybe all of them?) break RAW.


Noticing Magic was also a hot topic on this very board when I was active back in 2012-2014.... A conclusion some tables came to back then was that you should quicken spells at force 1 and break the limit with reagents.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Sphinx on <04-23-18/1809:35>
Wow. I had no idea this topic would spark so much discussion. I agree fully with everything SSDR and Xenon wrote. Thanks for making such careful and thorough arguments.

For the record, this is how we play it, even though it's not quite RAW: Mundanes get a Perception Test to notice magic in the same room with them, or within about 10 meters in a large space or outdoors. How much they're able to tell depends on how many net hits they get above the (Skill - Force) threshold, from a vague sense of "I smell sorcery!" at one net hit, to "Somewhere over there" at two hits, to "That direction" at three hits, to "That guy right there" at four net hits.

In the specific case of invisibility, with four net hits I would give them a "heat shimmer" description exactly like a spirit in astral space, and I'd still apply the -6 blind fire penalty for attacking someone invisible ... but it's never once come up at the table. Security goons never get anywhere near enough hits on the Perception Test.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/1836:20>
A funny thing about the Numinous Perception specialization is you get the same bonus for a 1 point investment in a Magic-related knowledge skill.

Quote from: SR5 Perceiving Magic, pg 281
You get a + 2 dice pool
modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active
or Knowledge Skill.

Of course, no reason they wouldn't stack so get the specialization AND 1 rank in a magic knowledge skill for +4 dice to perceive magic.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-23-18/1853:22>
Thanks for making such careful and thorough arguments.
Note that there are good arguments for both sides.

Rules can also be read as you (only) take a:

1. Perception + Intuition (Skill rating - Force) [Mental] Test when someone is actually casting a spell or when you are the victim of a (any) manipulation spell.

2. Perception + Intuition (6 - Force) [Mental] Test when passing through various mana barriers.

3. Perception + Intuition (4) [Mental] Test when an astral form pass through your aura (with a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice if you are awakened).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/1921:40>
If someone were to argue #2 only ever applies to Wards/Mana barriers it'd be a weak one.

If that were true, the rule would say it only applies to this case.  Taken in context with the first half of the rule, it's clear that F-6 applies to all other cases where magic doesn't have a skill that's being actively performed at the moment of perception.  Literally, it can mean nothing else.

As for reconciling #3 with 1 and 2..  folks may not like it but it's easy.  You get a #2 if the ghosting spirit comes "close" to the observer, however "close" is defined.  And then another #3 if the spirit goes so close as to touch the observer's aura.  In the case of ghosting mages..they have a Magic rating but not a Force rating.  So whereas a Spirit's astral presence can physically detected, the rules don't say a mage's astral projection can be.  Unless it potentially directly contacts someone, granting a #3...
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Rosa on <04-23-18/2217:51>
If it was indeed true that they meant you'd get to roll to notice magic everytime you encountered it then the very specific mentioning of being allowed a roll when you're the target of a mental manipulation spell would be totally superfluous. Why mention it specially when it's just the normal rule? That makes much more sense if it is actually an exception to what you would normally be allowed to do. It is worth noting that this "exception " is only mentioned in regards to mental manipulation spells.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-23-18/2228:24>
I prefer just to houserule a no myself allowing for common sense/quality. If the mage is chanting/casting then you can notice that, if a giant fireball has appeared you'll need to be really out of it to miss that, other spells that create a visible effect you can notice that depending on its nature. However you wont notice magic if the spirits on the astral plane you wont be aware of it, if its a subtle spell e.g. invisbility you wont notice it and so on.

Now the exception is if you take my magic sensative quality a mere 4 karma and that gives you the ability to feel the ghostly chills/hair on the back of your neck, perception checks mentioned in this thread for subtle spells. It gives non-magic pc's a way to sense magic and allows for judicious use of magic sensative people at high security locations. You walk past a rentcop at a low level government building using invisiblity you're pretty much guaranteed to be safe as he wont notice if you're dancing along doing invisible rabbit ears behind him on his rounds. On the other hand that elite corpsec guard on a black facility will either have mage support or have been carefully selected to be someone with magic sensativity and trained so if he does get that "someone walked over my grave" feeling he hits the alarm just in case. Then with the response there'll be a proper mage to actually check if it was a false positive or there was something going on.

I'm honestly not sure about the cost for this given its limited nature I may drop it to 2 or 3 and maybe take on a GM approval required to simulate its only a small part of the population say 1% like magic users.

EDIT
Oh and before anyone asks you can notice your own mind being influenced (not necessarily will but can) and you may notice excessive changes in other people's behaviour like oh say the by the book officer suddenly lunging for the emergency fire all tube button. You wont necessarily know its magic but you can notice significant and sudden behaviour changes in others.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-23-18/2235:55>
Given that your interpretation of the rule invalidates 1/6th of all spellcasting, I'd hesitate to call someone else's interpretation weak.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/2244:42>
Given that your interpretation of the rule invalidates 1/6th of all spellcasting, I'd hesitate to call someone else's interpretation weak.

Which sixth is that? the aforementioned straw man assertion that Illusion magic is worthless if someone might be able to detect that there's some kind of unspecified magic nearby?

And yeah, it's objectively a weak argument to say that the F-6 rule applies only to Wards on the basis of Wards being the example given for such a time F-6 applies.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-23-18/2315:35>
Not a strawman at all. It is significantly neutered if not entirely useless.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-23-18/2320:37>
I'll agree that using sneaking skill becomes a lot more attractive than just solely relying on invisibility, but A) that's a good thing for game balance and B) we'll just have to agree to disagree that being tipped off that something "magic" is apparently going on nearby makes invisibility useless.  Where a malicious GM might use what you're calling "my interpretation" to screw over a player, I'm not prepared to agree that's a premise we should be using. 

For one, a malicious GM can just kill a runner at any time via the "Rocks Fall, you all Die" method or by something much more mundane like an undetectable sniper from hundreds of meters away dealing an undodgeable hit of sufficient DV that the runner won't be able to soak it all.  If a GM wants to screw a player over, how you read the rules on 280-281 are in practical terms irrelevant.  And for two: let's go ahead and presume that GMs are operating under the intended playstyle that they should be objective AND that the runners are "supposed to win".    Ergo, under "fair or reasonable GMing" even when mundanes might detect the proximity of magic a probable worst case scenario is a mook is trained to go hit a button and report he had bad mojo vibes.  A security mage comes on out to investigate, and if your invisible shadowrunners are still there when he arrives or are unable to handle the appearance of an astral security element your infiltration plan sucked anyway.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-23-18/2359:26>
I just want to point out in regards to your sneaking skill/game balance argument a mage is already a very heavy karma cost character to play without adding in extra skills that have to be extremely higher (going by usual recommended dice pools on this site).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-24-18/0023:33>
I just want to point out in regards to your sneaking skill/game balance argument a mage is already a very heavy karma cost character to play without adding in extra skills that have to be extremely higher (going by usual recommended dice pools on this site).

What I was getting at is the mundane characters benefit when magic suffers.   If mages do everything best, isn't that obviously a game balance issue?  Is it really for the best if someone with Invisibility out-sneaks the Covert Ops Specialist? Someone with Manipulation spells out Face's the Face?

Noticing magic is actually a pretty fair (IMO) mechanic that makes mundanes more competitive/compelling to play.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Reaver on <04-24-18/0040:21>
Xenon!

Good to see you back on the forums again! You have been missed.



As always guys, the rules are there as a template for you to use (or abuse) at your leisure. A strict, narrow view of the rules is only needed (perhaps) for tournament play.

And even then, I think context would matter as to if a test was needed. While some sustained and quickened spells would be obvious (armor), others could be very subtle (improved Charisma). Where does the NPCs get to test? Or the players? (Good for the goose is good for the gander, remember?).


I know where and when I apply this rule at my table, and I follow where MY GM uses this rule at his.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-24-18/0106:31>
Good lord you guys are busy. Can't a guy have a nice dinner party without the thread going ever where.

I'm think I'm reasonably experienced as a GM and as a player, I can see a fair amount of the immediate effects of changing the interpretation of the magic perceptions rules. But I won't pretend that i have clue what over all effect could be, other then I believe it will be far reaching.

I can tell you right now the illusion change is not a strawman, it will seriously directly weaken any and all subtle application of magic in a very real and serous way. It will negate the usefulness of at-least one full meta-magic tree and maybe more. We have for a very long time always recommend invisibility/improved as one best practice spell, and will render that spell utterly useless. Those are all very serous changes to the game. If you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.

You guys argue this complex, it's really not, this is a binary question. You ether agree that without other rare interference, you cannot detect spells except when they are being cast, based up on the RAW use of performing. Or go the other direction and then it will get very complex, if you don't then it's business as usual.
 
So make your choice Runners. If you go for the way Xenon, Sphinx and SSDR, have recommended then figure out how your gonna handle the longer term ramifications of that choice.  I do think the aura contact work around is your best bet, but you will have find a range figure that will work.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-24-18/0323:18>
Xenon!

Good to see you back on the forums again! You have been missed.
Thank you!

Doesn't seem as if the topics changed much for the last 4 years ;-)



So make your choice Runners. If you go for the way Xenon...
I am still neutral in this topic and just cited RAW. Please don't confuse that with what I personally believe (or not) or how we treat things at our table. This is the second time I am telling you.

I agree that each table have to decide for themselves since the book seem to be ambiguous on the matter. The options in this topic seem to be:


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).

This is a strict reading of RAW.


Mundanes get a Perception Test to notice magic in the same room with them, or within about 10 meters in a large space or outdoors.
You get a #2 if the ghosting spirit comes "close" to the observer, however "close" is defined.
3. That you should take the Perception + Intuition (Skill rating - Force) [Mental] Test to not only notice "twitchy fingers" when someone is casting a spell but also at any time when "your aura get in close contact with Magic when there is a Magic Skill involved" (because "physical beings may sense when an astral form passes through their aura" and because "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 because in cases where a Magic Skill is not involved the book state that you should use (6 - Force) instead).

While I like this reading, it have to be supplemented with house rules for distance and that you can sense magic that does not necessarily have an astral form (which is fine as long as one don't advertise it as RAW).


It should be noted that the test you take for "noticing magic" (not only "noticing magic as it is being cast") is just a regular perception test (p. 135)
I think context would matter as to if a test was needed.
4. Or that you can take the Perception + Intuition (Skill rating - Force) [Mental] Test to notice magic "when a Magic Skill is involved" whenever the GM tell you to (because according to the book this is a perception test mundanes can take to "notice magic" in general, not a limited test to only notice "twitchy fingers").

Depending on your reading this is also RAW.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-24-18/0954:30>
So make your choice Runners. If you go for the way Xenon...

I am still neutral in this topic and just cited RAW. Please don't confuse that with what I personally believe (or not) or how we treat things at our table. This is the second time I am telling you.


I asked you, you answered in something like three paragraphs that it was so complex you apparently couldn't answer. Which given that the question was binary I found to pretty amusing. So unless you want to change your position and give a up or down answer, I think your response already made it pretty clear where you stand.

So claim neutrality, lack of opinion, or whatever you feel like calling it.  I already said everything I needed too on this topic. I'm confident the vast majority will stick the traditional interpretation, and I hope those poor few who ultimately go the other way come up with workable solutions for their tables.  I have a couple theories on how that will ultimately go, and I suspect the result will actually be fairly tragic, I think people will end up just forcing the perception Target to be 6 and casting whatever they feel with even less restraint then we have now. But as that will cost reagents and involve a high point quality I could easily be wrong. 

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: mbisber on <04-24-18/1720:32>
So, I've looked through the posts twice on this topic. While the F-6 equation (p.280) was, no doubt, well-intended, it's wording and description is unfortunate.

Like some such equations in SR, it's a generality for flavor. In the first place, what's so sacrosanct about F-6 in a Magic context!? Why not F-5 or F-7? Is it just arbitrary or is there an explanation? If it is arbitrary, then GMs should just house-rule their sentiments in one way or another, up or down. If there is an explanation, then let's have it!

While it may be comforting to have arbitrary rules in RPGs, I am playing Shadowrun rather than D&D, because I like rules to make more sense rather than less.

Then there are words like obvious, noticing, performing, spotting, etc. All of these terms are mostly visual. Please explain to me how smell, hearing, touch, and taste are all related to F-6?

It is not my purpose to go through the posts here, idea by idea, or even limit addressing Perception to visual. If one looks at Concealment, p.395, it subtracts dice for all senses. So, the equation on p.280 is, as I say, unfortunate.

Like many equations in SR, there are words/variables often left out, which may be found elsewhere. Sometimes 'Counterspelling' appears in spell equations and  sometimes it does not; but it is almost always implicit.

I'm sure that there are other words/variables missing in SR equations elsewhere as well. But, in my opinion, if Magic causes shimmer, chills, dread, etc. then why do we have something called Assensing?



Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-24-18/1734:21>
Some very good points MB. Sadly i doubt your logical will make will give the other side pause.
I fear as with many topics the question may have become more Ideological then Logical.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-25-18/0146:24>
Why not F-5 or F-7? Is it just arbitrary or is there an explanation?
As with all perception tests (this is really just a perception test) the GM decide on a threshold to notice some small detail or something interesting.

Higher force make it more obvious for the character that something is not right (the sensation is pretty vague though... twitchy fingers, shimmer in the air, bad vibes etc... we are not talking about neon signs or spotlights - we are not talking about astral perception or astral projection).

If you are asking about the number 6 specifically you have to ask the author, but: Getting strange vibes or notice the markings when you entering a ward with force 2 (or if an astral form pass through your aura) will be as hard to notice as a secret door, needle in a haystack or subvocal speech. A force 3 will be as hard to notice as an item dropped under table, contact lens or whispering. A force 4 would be rather easy to spot - such as a street sign, pedestrian, conversation or silenced gunfire. A force 5 or higher ward will be very easy to notice, even for a mundane. Magic in this edition is rarely subtle.


Then there are words like obvious, noticing, performing, spotting, etc. All of these terms are mostly visual.
Actually when noticing magic they are mostly using words such slightly breathless, chills, dread, tingling sensation, "bad vibes" or other unnatural sensations.

The two exceptions that the above that seem to be related to sight and not a "feeling that something is wrong" are:
1. "twitchy fingers" when a magician is casting a spell and
2. "cause the air to shimmer" from spirits in the astral.


why do we have something called Assensing?
While a character with only normal perception can get a vague feeling of slight breathless or chills or whatever when an astral form pass through their aura (if they are successful with a threshold 4 perception test) an awakened character can use astral perception and clearly "see" Astral Forms (without taking a test at all).

In addition to this Assensing can also be used to Observe auras in Detail to find out the emotional state, class of spells, force, magic rating, essence rating and presence of implants, diseases or toxins etc.

Normal Perception getting "Bad Vibes" when magic is in the area does not really replace Astral Perception...
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-25-18/0235:29>
So, I've looked through the posts twice on this topic. While the F-6 equation (p.280) was, no doubt, well-intended, it's wording and description is unfortunate.

Like some such equations in SR, it's a generality for flavor. In the first place, what's so sacrosanct about F-6 in a Magic context!? Why not F-5 or F-7? Is it just arbitrary or is there an explanation? If it is arbitrary, then GMs should just house-rule their sentiments in one way or another, up or down. If there is an explanation, then let's have it!

While it may be comforting to have arbitrary rules in RPGs, I am playing Shadowrun rather than D&D, because I like rules to make more sense rather than less.

Then there are words like obvious, noticing, performing, spotting, etc. All of these terms are mostly visual. Please explain to me how smell, hearing, touch, and taste are all related to F-6?

It is not my purpose to go through the posts here, idea by idea, or even limit addressing Perception to visual. If one looks at Concealment, p.395, it subtracts dice for all senses. So, the equation on p.280 is, as I say, unfortunate.

Like many equations in SR, there are words/variables often left out, which may be found elsewhere. Sometimes 'Counterspelling' appears in spell equations and  sometimes it does not; but it is almost always implicit.

You have your opinions and you're entitled to them.  They don't change what the rules say, though.

Quote
I'm sure that there are other words/variables missing in SR equations elsewhere as well. But, in my opinion, if Magic causes shimmer, chills, dread, etc. then why do we have something called Assensing?

Kind of a tangent, but Assensing isn't a duplication of Perception for the Astral.

Quote from: SR5 Assensing Skill description, pg 142
This skill allows practitioners
to learn information by reading astral auras.

Ergo, if something is hidden/hard to see you'd still use Perception to see it.  The Numinous specialization of Perception would be relevant for spotting hidden Magicky things, btw (SR5 pg 314.  Also note this citation is also directly referring the relevancy to the rules on pg 280-281).  THEN you'd use Assensing to "read" what it is/means.   It's just that most living and magical things are hard to hide in astral, but sometimes you can indeed hide an elephant amid other elephants.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-25-18/0304:25>
Kind of a tangent, but Assensing isn't a duplication of Perception for the Astral.

This part doesn't actually make any sense SSDR, what did you really mean there?

I believe he was argue your use of perception negated the need for assensing. So you don't actually address his point at all.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: mbisber on <04-25-18/0330:59>
Some very good points MB.
And, of course, all one has to do to keep 'Perceiving Magic' on p.280 in context is to look at 'Using Perception' itself on p.135. 'If someone is deliberately trying to hide from you, they'll oppose your test with their own skill (Using Stealth Skills, p.136). So, the F-6 equation may further be compromised by any or all of the Stealth skill group.

So, as I said, one cannot say that one SR equation (that on p.280 here) is etched in stone in its own isolation where words/variables are not present or stated (and may be modified elsewhere).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-25-18/0331:30>
Kind of a tangent, but Assensing isn't a duplication of Perception for the Astral.

This part doesn't actually make any sense SSDR, what did you really mean there?

I believe he was argue your use of perception negated the need for assensing. So you don't actually address his point at all.

No, as I've said in this thread repeatedly the rule never says a successful perception tells you anything about the magic other than the binary condition of it being present.  Therefore there's a quite obvious a role for Assensing in figuring out just what actually caused the shimmer/chill/feeling of dread/etc.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-25-18/0524:31>
So, I've looked through the posts twice on this topic. While the F-6 equation (p.280) was, no doubt, well-intended, it's wording and description is unfortunate.

Like some such equations in SR, it's a generality for flavor. In the first place, what's so sacrosanct about F-6 in a Magic context!? Why not F-5 or F-7? Is it just arbitrary or is there an explanation? If it is arbitrary, then GMs should just house-rule their sentiments in one way or another, up or down. If there is an explanation, then let's have it!

While it may be comforting to have arbitrary rules in RPGs, I am playing Shadowrun rather than D&D, because I like rules to make more sense rather than less.

Then there are words like obvious, noticing, performing, spotting, etc. All of these terms are mostly visual. Please explain to me how smell, hearing, touch, and taste are all related to F-6?

It is not my purpose to go through the posts here, idea by idea, or even limit addressing Perception to visual. If one looks at Concealment, p.395, it subtracts dice for all senses. So, the equation on p.280 is, as I say, unfortunate.

Like many equations in SR, there are words/variables often left out, which may be found elsewhere. Sometimes 'Counterspelling' appears in spell equations and  sometimes it does not; but it is almost always implicit.

I'm sure that there are other words/variables missing in SR equations elsewhere as well. But, in my opinion, if Magic causes shimmer, chills, dread, etc. then why do we have something called Assensing?

HMMM . . .

GM: "You smell the colour green."
Player: "There's magic afoot to the scooby mobile."
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: mbisber on <04-25-18/1004:52>
It might be reasonable that Assensing could account for 'chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations'. But, then, the Rules say that one cannot default with that skill.

But, sensations, as in the five senses, whether they be natural or unnatural, may be environmental, as, for example, ozone, air pressure, or sound waves, from a Lightning Bolt. If active player Perception might be problematical, a threshold may be reached to cause the GM to request a dice roll for passive  Perception.

And, Spells may have different thresholds, as further explained on p. 292 for resisting/overcoming Manipulation, and elsewhere for others. And, of course, it is up to the GM to evaluate and adjudicate the overall situation at hand.



 
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-25-18/1412:56>
HMMM . . .

GM: "You smell the colour green."
Player: "There's magic afoot to the scooby mobile."

LOL I'm crying here LOL.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Overbyte on <04-26-18/0201:36>
I've come to this thread late, but I've read all of it and the opinions are interesting.
Regardless of what you believe the rules actually say I have to side with the peeps that say that allowing all magic to be perceptible is very problematic. The Invisibility spell is really not even the best example as to why.

Think instead about the Mask or Physical Mask spell.
You cast this spell at the highest force possible (let's say 6 for this argument) so that others have the lowest chance to see through it. But now you walk down the hall attempting to fool the guard and as soon as you get near him (I'll assume you must be near for him to "feel" the magic for this example as well) he automatically (because 6 - 6 = 0) gets a feeling magic is in play.  He doesn't know why, but it happened when you got close.

You are done.

This seems highly problematic
And with the 6 - F roll, any spell that is greater than Force 3 can be sensed by the most average of people (6 dice = average 2 hits). That's in direct conflict with any idea that people only notice "strong" magic or it takes some special training.

Just my 2 cents worth.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-26-18/1029:23>
...he automatically (because 6 - 6 = 0)
Unless you are using Astral Perception it will not (never) be so obvious you don't even need to take a test.

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

But, yeah, it will not very hard to get a case of "Bad Vibes" if a magician is casting an influence spell on you at a force that match his spellcasting ability or if you walk through a force 6+ ward.

If you wan't to cast magic without getting detected (twitchy fingers) you might want to cast it at a low force and break the limit with reagents (doesn't work for all spells).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Hobbes on <04-26-18/1514:25>
...he automatically (because 6 - 6 = 0)
Unless you are using Astral Perception it will not (never) be so obvious you don't even need to take a test.

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

But, yeah, it will not very hard to get a case of "Bad Vibes" if a magician is casting an influence spell on you at a force that match his spellcasting ability or if you walk through a force 6+ ward.

If you wan't to cast magic without getting detected (twitchy fingers) you might want to cast it at a low force and break the limit with reagents (doesn't work for all spells).

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

Force 3 is enough to beat most folks spell resistance, they're only throwing 6 dice.  You were never sneaking past anyone with Astral Perception without a huge investment.  Illusion and Manipulation spells are to bypass/beat un-named Mooks and standard security.  Named NPCs will spend edge to resist the spell (or should) and have some kind of magical back up to protect them, otherwise any Mage just wins the encounter.

Mundanes spotting a sustained/quickened spell, sure whatever, but what are they going to do about it?  You're a Mage, they're not, if they don't have Magical back up you win anyway.

I guess I'm not seeing the point.  If whatever objective your runners are hitting doesn't have Magic security, the Mage should be able to dominate the muggles.  If there is Magical Security, the Mage needs to beat that anyway, who cares if the night guard gets the hiebie-jeebies.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-26-18/1533:53>
...he automatically (because 6 - 6 = 0)
Unless you are using Astral Perception it will not (never) be so obvious you don't even need to take a test.

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

But, yeah, it will not very hard to get a case of "Bad Vibes" if a magician is casting an influence spell on you at a force that match his spellcasting ability or if you walk through a force 6+ ward.

It's not that a mage probably couldn't ruffle stomp some muggle security, but how many times do you wanna do that in one session? How many times can you do it before you start attracting attention you really don't want. Stomp enough security guard even if you never actually kill anyone, sooner or later the magic police will catch up with you.

If you wan't to cast magic without getting detected (twitchy fingers) you might want to cast it at a low force and break the limit with reagents (doesn't work for all spells).

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

Force 3 is enough to beat most folks spell resistance, they're only throwing 6 dice.  You were never sneaking past anyone with Astral Perception without a huge investment.  Illusion and Manipulation spells are to bypass/beat un-named Mooks and standard security.  Named NPCs will spend edge to resist the spell (or should) and have some kind of magical back up to protect them, otherwise any Mage just wins the encounter.

Mundanes spotting a sustained/quickened spell, sure whatever, but what are they going to do about it?  You're a Mage, they're not, if they don't have Magical back up you win anyway.

I guess I'm not seeing the point.  If whatever objective your runners are hitting doesn't have Magic security, the Mage should be able to dominate the muggles.  If there is Magical Security, the Mage needs to beat that anyway, who cares if the night guard gets the hiebie-jeebies.

It's dangerous to accept the precedent. I know we have reduced this to the nebulous concept, but the fact is, it's not hiebie-jeebies, or tasting the color purple. Those NPC are seeing some kind of Mana effect bleeding through. If sworn in under oath, in legal sense they can identify that magic was going on. Yes that may only be circumstantial, but countless prosecutors good and bad have gotten people killed on circumstantial evidence. 

Did you read the section on what NPC security is supposed to do if they "detect magic"? It wasn't a problem when that meant you were casting right the hell in front of them. But is HUGE problem if they begin those actions based upon some buff you have active, never mind an actual illusion effect you were using to try and get past them.

This not, oh well who cares, this is low level security npc detecting magic. This is serous, and it will have serious consequences at the table.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-26-18/1534:21>
Or, crazy thought, raise your Spellcasting.  Just sayin. 

Force 3 is enough to beat most folks spell resistance, they're only throwing 6 dice.  You were never sneaking past anyone with Astral Perception without a huge investment.  Illusion and Manipulation spells are to bypass/beat un-named Mooks and standard security.  Named NPCs will spend edge to resist the spell (or should) and have some kind of magical back up to protect them, otherwise any Mage just wins the encounter.

Mundanes spotting a sustained/quickened spell, sure whatever, but what are they going to do about it?  You're a Mage, they're not, if they don't have Magical back up you win anyway.

I guess I'm not seeing the point.  If whatever objective your runners are hitting doesn't have Magic security, the Mage should be able to dominate the muggles.  If there is Magical Security, the Mage needs to beat that anyway, who cares if the night guard gets the hiebie-jeebies.

I think that's because you are approaching this from a D&D mindset "got to beat the encounter" as it were. This isn't D&D, this is Shadowrun, if there is an encounter a good portion of the time you've already lost.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Hobbes on <04-26-18/1612:33>
Did you read the section on what NPC security is supposed to do if they "detect magic"? It wasn't a problem when that meant you were casting right the hell in front of them. But is HUGE problem if the begin those actions based upon some buff you have active, never mind an actual illusion effect you were used to try and get past them.

This not, oh well who cares, this is low level security npc detecting magic. This is serous, and it will have serious consequences at the table.

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.  You don't know there is someone invisible in the room.  If the NPC fails the spell defense test the spell still works. 

Sure the NPC can hit an alarm button.  Now what?  Unless there is some visible consequence of the magic that can be tied back to the Awakened character... what exactly is happening?  Security companies get false alarms all the time.  If there isn't something identifiable happening, there isn't anything for the NPC to do.  Bob shuffling off all Zombie-like "uhh... Fizzygoo....uhh...."  sure, you've got some action items there.  But just hitting the panic button and getting all the Muggles worked up doesn't stop invisible guy from ghosting on through them all, because they don't know there is someone invisible running around.  They know the front desk guy got the chills. 

I can't see a real game situation where someplace without any Magic security can do anything about it.  If there is Magic security, the sustained and/or active use of powers will get spotted. 

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-26-18/1714:58>
The issue is in a lot of secure facilities they won’t care if the guy at the front desk got the Heebie jeebies because they’d rather a thousand false positive over one negative. So the instant that alarm is tripped you can forget about the invisible guy ghosting through them or the face under a physical mask fooling them or whatever you were actually trying. Alarms will be going off, security doors will be sealing, backup will be arriving, computers will save work and shut down. Then if they see nothing the corps mage will start checking for magic (which leaves a trace even if you are gone).

This is a modern world where magic is a known quantity and corporate secrets are bought and sold on a regular basis. If subtle magic isn’t subtle then you cut out a huge chunk of its usefulness.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-26-18/1810:54>

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.  You don't know there is someone invisible in the room.  If the NPC fails the spell defense test the spell still works. 

Sure the NPC can hit an alarm button.  Now what?  Unless there is some visible consequence of the magic that can be tied back to the Awakened character... what exactly is happening?  Security companies get false alarms all the time.  If there isn't something identifiable happening, there isn't anything for the NPC to do.  Bob shuffling off all Zombie-like "uhh... Fizzygoo....uhh...."  sure, you've got some action items there.  But just hitting the panic button and getting all the Muggles worked up doesn't stop invisible guy from ghosting on through them all, because they don't know there is someone invisible running around.  They know the front desk guy got the chills. 

I can't see a real game situation where someplace without any Magic security can do anything about it.  If there is Magic security, the sustained and/or active use of powers will get spotted.

When the guy is right in front of you picking him out of the crowd is unnecessary, or if the crowd is the team it also doesn't matter if they know which one the protocol is still triggered. If this works, then the security is trained in how to handle it. Like I said what they are sensing is a mana effect, that is going specific enough to start the whole thing off.

As to not seeing if you see a guy then walkout and he has sense used invisibility to disappear then they know something is wrong that magic is involved. That's all they need to begin a search. Call the dogs, they can track down the target. Before this all that would have happened is they would checked it out and found nothing, and would moved on.

I'm at loss as to how you can't forsee see such a situation. How many times have people used magic in your game to get passed a check point, or bypass security? I can't count the number at my tables, or how many of my characters have done so. It's a many times many, and most of those situations would have gonna completely differently if perception worked as they want it to.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Overbyte on <04-26-18/1958:49>
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.
Or are we (you) now saying that whenever you roll to notice existing magic you go back to the original spellcasting skill.
This certainly doesn't follow from the examples in the books (although I understand the argument).
But even if you say that the roll is still going to be 2 if your spellcasting is 8.

Force 3 is enough to beat most folks spell resistance, they're only throwing 6 dice.  You were never sneaking past anyone with Astral Perception without a huge investment.  Illusion and Manipulation spells are to bypass/beat un-named Mooks and standard security.  Named NPCs will spend edge to resist the spell (or should) and have some kind of magical back up to protect them, otherwise any Mage just wins the encounter.

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. That's a fine needle to be threading when you are not sure of your target (or targets).

And then back to the roll. If the Force is 3.. 6-F = 3, which is not that hard to get on 6 dice. Or  6 - 3 = 3 dice if you have Spellcasting 6 which presumably is a pretty damn good skill.

Mundanes spotting a sustained/quickened spell, sure whatever, but what are they going to do about it?  You're a Mage, they're not, if they don't have Magical back up you win anyway.

Ruin your plan? Hit the panic button? Call for backup? Put the place into lockdown.
Presumably all things you were trying to avoid by using magic to be subtle.

I guess I'm not seeing the point.  If whatever objective your runners are hitting doesn't have Magic security, the Mage should be able to dominate the muggles.  If there is Magical Security, the Mage needs to beat that anyway, who cares if the night guard gets the hiebie-jeebies.

Point is, IMO, the interpretation where everyone gets a roll to see magic anytime it is present is going to make using magic more of a hindrance than a help in a lot of situations where there are spells specifically to circumvent such problems (illusion).

This is a modern world where magic is a known quantity and corporate secrets are bought and sold on a regular basis. If subtle magic isn’t subtle then you cut out a huge chunk of its usefulness.

I'm with Senko here. If you have trained guards, they will have training on how to deal with what they perceive as a magical threat they can't see. Many of the arguments keep going back to the "you can't do anything about an invisible guy even if you have a feeling there is magic", but that is why I used a different example. And there are many different ones that will screw you if you are using any illusion magic that is not invisible. And as I say above.. there is plenty they can do to make things much harder if they suspect they've been breached.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-27-18/0447:53>
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).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-27-18/0757:45>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-27-18/1117:42>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-27-18/1223:12>
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?

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: ShadowcatX on <04-27-18/1303:48>
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-27-18/1625:01>
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <04-27-18/1733:10>
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...
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: mbisber on <04-27-18/1758:01>
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?


Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-27-18/1806:40>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-27-18/2030:35>
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.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-27-18/2319:35>
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-27-18/2359:20>

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.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-28-18/0003:56>

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. 
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-28-18/0010:04>
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.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Reaver on <04-28-18/0302:40>
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 :P). 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...


Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-28-18/0304:13>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-28-18/0316:57>
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?
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Reaver on <04-28-18/0325:59>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-28-18/0344:07>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-28-18/0458:27>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-28-18/0512:46>
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.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-28-18/0559:31>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Kiirnodel on <04-28-18/0715:44>
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...
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-28-18/0729:08>

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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-28-18/1023:48>
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'.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <04-28-18/1040:54>
There are wards that are created without skills involved: Building a lodge for example.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-28-18/1049:38>

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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote from: 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?  Or that Wards created by Ritual Spellcasting are imperceptible since the act of "performing" is no longer in effect?
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <04-28-18/1104:44>
Quote from: 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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <04-28-18/1119:11>
... 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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <04-28-18/1404:48>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <04-28-18/1753:24>
@Stainlesssteeldevilrat
The issue with all your examples is thay your making assumptions about how things work and going from there there isn't as far as I recall (don't have access to my books) even a "Noticing magic uses normal perception rules" in the books themselves. That said if you were gming a game I was playing in I wouldn't have a problem with most of your interpretations even aside from the usual someone's table their rules basis of a game.

Again I'm not arguing how the rules should be read just pointing out (as evidenced by this thread) there's a huge open area for agreement because as you said they're vague. That may be by design but if so I don't think it should be. Rules should be clear so you can go this is the rule and then decide if you want to houserule differently. As opposed to this might be the rule does anyone have a problem with how I choose to apply it in this campaign? Personally I actually agree as written people get a check for all magic (if you want hyperbole every spell can be potentially felt by everyone connected by the gaiaspehre) which is why I houserule it otherwise clearly.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <04-28-18/2326:52>
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...

This does fit my understanding of RAI.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Overbyte on <05-01-18/1604:48>
Gone for the weekend and back to see another 2-3 pages of this. Not saying that's a bad thing. Just interesting.

I am in agreement with a number of the posters that point out the following:

1) The book has two examples, seeing a spell cast (which we all agree you get a chance to perceive) and passing through a barrier (in which case you are directly interacting with the magic).
2) I think most everyone agrees that the ward case is an example that shows if the spell is already cast skill no longer comes into play with regards to perception.
3) The only case the book gives about noticing already existing magic is at 0 range. Not trying to get too much into the heads of the writers but otherwise they could have written that you roll when you come across (see) an existing ward. Not when you pass through it.

Anything after that IMO becomes very tricky, my first question would be what KIND of perception roll do you actually use?

"Spirits sometimes cause the air to shimmer, even from astral space. People have reported feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is in the area."  SR5 p280

Sight clearly would work but what about blind characters? But more commonly what about characters that have different bonuses to different types of perception. Touch to feel the chill? Or whatever sense you use for "unnatural sensations"? Or always use their best? And then clearly they would get the modifications appropriate to sense used. So you would have to compute all possibilities and then take the best.
Note: This is a rhetorical question since I don't think there is any good answer here.

So for me it comes back to what @Jack_Spade said about how it should be played.

Quote
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.

If you see it (Skill - F) or pass through it (6 - F) you will get a roll, I'll just have to figure out what sense (and mods) you will get.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: KoD on <05-28-18/0420:42>
I'd like to comment on this, because it is an interesting topic of discussion, I would like to stress before I begin that I will be approaching this academically and do not intend to make personal attack on anyone. If you believe that I fail at this and that I do make a personal attack please let me know so I can apologise and alter how I behave in future. Also feel free to disagree, conversations are boring when people don’t.

I'd also like to clarify the following, I also came from older editions where the intent was a far more subtle magic and was written clearly as such, however this is 5th edition and I will be focusing on it as its own entity, so any input from older editions will be superseded by 5th. In fact I wasn’t even aware it may have changed until I read this thread, so I will be having to actively ignore my own previous assumptions on this matter.

To begin, lets examine the first paragraph in perceiving magic. It starts with the statements that 'magic is rarely subtle' and 'any form of magic (examples) changes the world around it', both imply that magic is noticeable but do not implicitly state as such. It then goes on to state 'sometimes its obvious through a magicians gestures or incantations', followed by a fluff bit saying magicians are sometimes called twitchy fingers. This sentence annoys me, it feels like it ends to soon, like someone was about to follow up with some kind of sometimes it not example but got distracted by the twitchy fingers example and forgot to finish their sentence. Regardless of how poor I feel the sentence is, it once again implies that magic is in one way or another, noticeable, I could write a few paragraphs on how much I hate the idea of spotting 'twitchy fingers' but its not needed for this discussion.

The next sentence is 'spirits sometimes cause the air to shimmer, even from astral space', and here we have the first instance of an otherwise invisible effect being noticed, also worth noting is that the spirit is making itself noticed by altering the equivalent material space it would be in and it doesn’t make mention of in requiring effect on the observer to be observed. This is probably the first really usable sentence going forward, it give some solid information without being too vague, not enough to go on by itself, but useful none the less. The final sentence, 'people have reported feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations they can’t quite put their finger on when magic is in the area', is another useful one, it lets us know that perception of magic goes beyond the normal 5 senses, dread can be felt in response to and as an indicator of magic that would be otherwise imperceptible. The second half is also invaluable to us, 'when magic is in the area', this lets us know that effect on observer is not necessarily needed, its not perfect since the term area is about a vague as it gets but its still a solid step towards an answer.

To sum up the first paragraph on its own, the intent feels very clear that magic is potentially noticeable even when it isn’t obvious, it isn’t automatically noticed and details beyond the presence of a magical effect do not exist, but it does make the distinct impression that all magic can be noticed. However, it seems an easy inference that magic that is noticed might not even be noticed as magic, you could feel a chill from magic and adjust the AC in response, see a shimmer in the air and clean your glasses to make it go away, noticing magic and recognising that you have seem to be two different things.

On the the second paragraph and the fun part, rules. Lets focus on magic with a skill involved first, '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' now this is straightforward, and easy, to notice magic you just make a perception test against a threshold, the one hiccup is the term 'performing', but we'll get back to that later. Now for when a skill isn’t involved 'or 6 – Force if there’s no skill involved (minimum 1 in either case).' again, straightforward and easy, and give us the clarifier that there is a minimum in both cases, solidifying that while magic can be noticed it is not automatic.

The paragraph goes on to give some examples and state that a magical skill can give the observer bonuses, and honestly I feel that these examples are terrible. The first example gives us no new information to use as it is just an implementation of the math, it gives us no indication of what was seen or felt or heard or what, just that it was spotted on that roll. The second one does give us some more though, it states that a test is made when you walk through the ward, and it says that two things that could be used as an identifier is either a tingle or seeing some markings. Annoyingly those markings are not explained, if they are just real markings carved in to something then they shouldn’t be detected with a perceiving magic test, that’s just a straight up normal perception test that even a drone could do, and the test would happen before going through the ward. I really don’t like these examples. The part where having a magical skill is interesting though, and complicates the earlier idea that you might not know you're noticing magic, does it mean that you're 'magically attuned' or whatever and as such more sensitive to this kind of thing or does it mean that you are better at separating false alarms from the real deal? The latter definitely debunks the idea that you can notice magic without realizing it.

After that paragraph it seems an easy thing, if skill is involved use x formula, if skill is not involved use y, for x roll perception vs (skill rating of being performing the skill-force), for y roll perception vs (6-force). This however, is not the case, otherwise we wouldn’t all be here, so lets throw an oft used example in to that equation.

Improved invisibility on a mage walking trough a security checkpoint, it is a magical effect that involves a skill, so we use x formula. Here in is the rub as presented by others so far, in that the calculation for the threshold requires the skill of the magician performing the spell, that the mage is no longer 'performing' the spell, and therefore the magic cannot be detected due to the formula not being completed.

Now, a critical problem here is that this is a formula to perceive magic, and there is nothing so far in the perceiving magic section to suggest that there is any magic that can not possibly be perceived, so there must be a solution here somewhere.

The solution as proposed by some other posters, is that it simply uses y formula instead. I do not like this for a few reasons, number one is that the rules clearly state that formula y is for when no skill is involved and in this case there very much so is, a skill was used to cast the spell. Number two is that it allows for no way for a magic user to increase their ability to go undetected outside lower force, which kinda sucks.

So now we are left with the problem, we are feeding this use case in to the rules and not getting a proper result, we are in effect getting an error as up until the calculation of the threshold it is rather straight forward, then we end up expecting a number where there isn’t one. This outcome should not, as the rules are presented to us, result in the magic not being possibly detectable, but to simply throw it in to the other option despite it being the wrong option is also not what the outcome of this rule should be.

If I had to pinpoint where the wording of this rule is wrong, it would be the word 'performing'. I just  did a word search of the SR5 CRB and there was not a definition of what constitutes performing magic entails. Some have assumed that it is the act of casting, which is a fair assumption that I too may have come to had I not been reading the rule with a critical eye, however with this rule in mind I feel that that is not the case. I think that performing magic begins when a spell is cast and ends when the spells effect ends for the purpose of this rule, to my knowledge of the English language this is an appropriate use of the word performing, this use make the above example of improved invisibility flow through the rule properly, and there is nothing in the perceiving magic section that contradicts this interpretation.

Now, you may be thinking, how is the mage 'performing magic' in the case of improved invisibility, its effectually a fire and forget spell, but its not, it is sustained and therefore the mage is still having input on it even if it is passive. Just look at other illusion spells as an example, such as trid phantasm, you create a bunch of illusions that you continue to control past the casting of the spell, in that case I feel it is painfully clear that you are still 'performing magic' with active input. Now admittedly this brings up questions of what happens when you put it in a sustaining focus, since its sustaining it instead of you and whether it still uses the skill formula or the non skill formula, but I'd  rather not get in to that yet as it isn’t really directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

The final paragraph is fairly unnecessary for us, just pointing out the obvious that things like an exploding fireball need not be rolled for in this way.

To conclude my reading of the perceiving magic section, I would say that the rules for detecting magic can most definitely be applied to things such as sustained or quickened spells, and that they use the first formula as opposed to the second. They can be detected without the need for the observer to be affected by the thing to be detected, and that even when they are detected they aren’t necessarily understood as the detection of magic, let alone pinpointed in their detection. That said, the rule remains vague on things such as range and what modifiers would apply to the test.

I hope you found my ramblings useful, and invite any critique or comment you may have, especially on the point of how this approach will interact with sustaining foci and any houserules you would apply, I for example would probably let a spec in magic reduce the chances of magic being detected for that type, though I am unsure as to how much it would change it. Also sorry for the length, believe it or not this is the cut down version.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Redwulfe on <05-28-18/1015:49>
I would have to agree on KoD's interpretations and conclusion. RAW it is obvious, to me at least, that magic is not ever Undetectable. When RAW does not work we have no choice but to try and deduce RAI until a point that RAI are clarified with an FAQ.  RAI however will vary based on the GM and that is fine though in Missions it can be problematic as players expect consistent rulings. I do feel that a consensus is necessary in that regard but not in home games as long as the GM is constant in his rulings. The one thing that bothers me is the vagueness of the use of area for detection with no definition of what the area entails. Currently I am using the force of the spell in meters which makes the use of regents very important with spell casting as you can reduce the force without reducing its effect but does make it harder to detect because the threshold for detection is much higher now.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <05-28-18/1127:33>
then they shouldn’t be detected with a perceiving magic test, that’s just a straight up normal perception test
Noticing magic is a regular perception test. Perception (no matter if it is "regular" perception or "noticing magic") is resolved as a Simple Perception + Intuition [Mental] Test with a threshold.

Specializations for perception are: Hearing, Scent, Searching, Taste, Touch, Visual and Numinous.

The visual specialization apply when there is something visual for you to notice; such as "twitchy fingers" when a magician cast a manabolt or "markings of a ward" as you walk through a ward.

Numinous apply when there is something "6th sense"-ish you can sense; such as "the feeling of slightly breathless" and/or "chill or tingling sensation" when an astral form pass through your aura but also "feeling chills, dread, or other unnatural sensations" that you might feel as you for example walk through a ward or if you are being the subject of a mental manipulation spell.

As for the threshold....

You don't need to take the test at all to notice things that are obvious. For example you don't need to pick up dice to notice the electricity sparkling from the fingertips of a magician casting an indirect lightning bolt spell or if you are the conscious victim of a control actions mental manipulation spell.

The threshold is 1 for noticing something obvious/large/loud such as a neon sign, running crowd, yelling or gunfire... or noticing "twitchy fingers" when a magician with magic 6 cast a force 5 (or stronger) manabolt or feel the "tingling sensation" when you walk through a force 5 (or stronger) ward.

2 for noticing something normal such as a street sign, pedestrian, conversation or silenced gunfire... or getting a "feeling of dread" when a magician with magic 6 successfully cast a force 4 Influence spell on you or to feel the "chills" as you walk through a force 4 ward.


3 for noticing something obscured/small/muffled such as item dropped under table, contact lenses or whispering... or a feeling of "magic in the air" when a magician with magic 8 successfully cast a force 5 Mob Mind spell on you and your team or to spot the magic markings when you walk through a force 3 ward.

4 for noticing something hidden/micro/silent such as a secret door, needle in a haystack or subvocal speech... or to notice "twichy fingers" when a magician with magic 5 cast a force 1 increase reflexes spell or to notice "slight breathless" when an astral entity pass through your aura.



a skill was used to cast the spell
A skill was used to cast the ward (and the act of casting the ward can be noticed), but when a subject step through it they still use 6-F to notice it.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-28-18/1131:29>
Thanks for your contribution to the thread, KoD.  Your kind of analysis is exactly what I was hoping to see from other people's perspectives as opposed to opinion/emotion-fueled responses that I sometimes got.

My position should be well established by this point upthread, so there's no point in repeating it.  I would like to provide the solicited feedback to your argument, however.

Using Force to define the undefined "area" concept:  An ingenious and elegant idea.  Easy to administer, and incentivizes the use of reagents (for sustained magic).  I think I'm adopting it for my own use :)

Assigning a definition of "performing" to extend from beginning to end of magical effect:  Interesting, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.  First of all, if that were the case then the Ward example would be confused as if it were cast via Ritual Magic as opposed to naturally occurring encountering that ward would require the Skill formula and in the case of the example it doesn't.  Secondly, the definition gets complicated by quickened/anchored spells.  Your skill really has nothing to do any more with the ongoing effect of a spell sustained by karma or alchemy.  And if you use a bound spirit to sustain a spell, if anyone's qualities at all should be in play it'd be the spirit's.  Thirdly, the idea really doesn't translate at all beyond spells.  The first paragraph used the example of a spirit lurking passively in astral space being potentially detectable.. so should your Conjuring skill really still be making it less detectable some hours later after you conjured it? So at risk of going back to harp on my arguments... I'm not seeing the idea of exending "performance" to the point the magic ends as being a viable alternative to saying "Use Y when encountering the magic at any point after the initial creation of the magical effect".
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <05-28-18/1146:26>
It is clear that you don't need to take a perception test to spot obvious magic (like the flames from an indirect combat spell originating from the magician).

It is clear that you don't need to take a perception test to sense that you are the victim of an obvious mental manipulation spell (such as control actions).

It is clear that you may take a perception test to spot a magician as he is casting a spell.

It is clear that you may take a perception test to sense that you are under magic effects from a subtle manipulation spell.

It is clear that you may take a perception test to either sense or spot a ward as you pass through it (plausible that it also apply to magical lodges etc).

It is clear that you may take a perception test to sense an astral form passing through your aura.


I'd say that without clarification anything beyond the above point is speculation and open for debate.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-28-18/1215:11>
It is clear that you don't need to take a perception test to spot obvious magic (like the flames from an indirect combat spell originating from the magician).

It is clear that you don't need to take a perception test to sense that you are the victim of an obvious mental manipulation spell (such as control actions).

It is clear that you may take a perception test to spot a magician as he is casting a spell.

It is clear that you may take a perception test to sense that you are under magic effects from a subtle manipulation spell.

It is clear that you may take a perception test to either sense or spot a ward as you pass through it (plausible that it also apply to magical lodges etc).

It is clear that you may take a perception test to sense an astral form passing through your aura.


I'd say that without clarification anything beyond the above point is speculation and open for debate.

I'd quibble to say that there are a handful of other "knowns" that are beyond debate:

The list of phenomenae in the 1st paragraph (conjuring, spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, and the astral presence of spirits) are all perceptible.  Either automatically so without a perception roll (third paragraph), or perceptible via a test (second paragraph).

We know that if the observer has an Active or Knowledge Magic-related skill, s/he gets +2 dice for this perception test (second paragraph).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <05-28-18/1258:55>
...and from p. 314 that you can specialize in Perception Numinous, that Numinous apply both for "bad vibes" from noticing magic and astral forms passing through your aura, that the threshold for noticing an astral form passing through your aura is fixed at 4 and that if you are awakened you get a positive dice pool modifier of 2 dice to sense it.

First paragraph on p. 280 Noticing Magic is fluff. There is no rule in this paragraph. Rules to explain the fluff will (must) follow (but sometimes it is scattered over the book).

"Skill Rating of the being performing it" is not limited to the act of casting a spell. It is plausible that it also include summoning, banishing, binding, disenchanting, artificing, making an alchemical preparation, performing ritual spellcasting, casting a spell as a complex action, recklessly casting a spell as a simple action and maybe even counterspelling.

And it is plausible that you may also take a test to notice magic or spot markings as you pass through a magical lodge (and not just wards).

It is clear that you may take a test to notice a spirit in astral when an astral form passes through their aura (according to p. 314 it have a fixed threshold of 4), but can you also spot a spirit that is not passing through you aura... and if so does it mean that a force 5+ spirit will be as obvious to spot by a mundane subject as a neon sign or a running crowd (threshold of 6-F)?? (I don't think this is clear at all)

It is clear that you may take a test to notice magic in the area if you are the victim of the effects from a subtle mental AoE manipulation spell (according to p. 292), but can you also sense an improved invisibility spell in the area... and if so how big is this area?? (I don't think this is clear at all)
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-28-18/1336:19>
Indeed, the knots are "just how big is 'the area' in which you can perceive magic?" and apparently "are ongoing magical effects encountered post-skill use perceptible?".
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: easl on <05-28-18/1520:56>
I have no idea what the intent of the authors was, but it seems to me that an automatic perception test for sustained spells really hurts most illusion and detection spells.  All invisibility spells sets people's thumbs pricking (illustrative example of a 'sixth sense' response)?  And sustaining a 'detect enemies' spell now probably alerts those enemies that you're coming?   What's even the point of the Stealth spell now? Casting it a high level is supposed to make it *harder* for the person to be detected, but according to the auto-roll interpretation, it actually makes it *easier* to detect them!  And this is not just bad for PC mages, it's bad for the GMs npcs too; now a mage monitoring an area for thieves or what have you gives away his/her presence merely by doing the monitoring.

IOW whatever the intent, some consequences of the auto-roll interpretation seem problematic.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Rosa on <05-28-18/1823:34>
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? I honestly don't care what RAW or RAI exactly is here, because that's just plain wrong.

And please don't use the "just cast at force 1 and use reagents " argument. Don't get me wrong I really like the idea of reagents but that specific use of them is potentially the worst mechanic introduced in 5th edition. It has essentially made magic a pay-to-win and how-many-can-you-carry game, which is just stupid and almost totally makes the force concept useless.

Now this discussion has gone back and forth but there is one question that still has not been answered by the proponents of the "you always get to try and sense magic".

Why? Do they feel the need to actually point out that victims of mental manipulation spells gets to roll to notice magic ( SR5 pg 292 ) ?
No other spell category gets this mention.
This rule is actually new to 5th edition, it does not exist in 4th edition.

To me this seems a clear indication of the specific rules trumps general rules. Meaning that the inclusion of this rule indicates that you would not get to notice any other sustained spells,  but you do actually get to notice it if you're the target of a mental manipulation spell even if you didn't perceive the spell being cast in the first place.

If they really intended for that rule to count with every type of sustained spell, then the whole passage about specifically mental manipulation spells is meaningless repetition that oddly enough is only mentioned in one place and in one specific sub category of spells.

Lastly I think that these rules are unfortunately a classic example of 5th edition sloppy writing and lack of proper editing.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-28-18/1848:48>
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? I honestly don't care what RAW or RAI exactly is here, because that's just plain wrong.

The bolded part is what I want to respond to.

No, that is not at all what I've been saying.  Nor is it what the rulebook says happens should a spell be "perceived".

If a sustained spell (as opposed to a spell in the moment of being cast) is indeed perceptible, it doesn't mean the spell stops working.  It doesn't mean the spell is located.  It doesn't mean the successfully perceived magic is even identified as a spell at all.

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. 

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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: easl on <05-28-18/2050:35>
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?

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.

Quote
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.

IMO there's nothing sadistic or even abnormal in having npcs respond to their perception rolls with the same intelligence as the pcs do. 

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-28-18/2128:21>
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...

Quote
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.


Quote
Quote
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).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <05-28-18/2200:05>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <05-28-18/2204:55>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-28-18/2252:15>
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".
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Reaver on <05-29-18/0051:21>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Redwulfe on <05-29-18/0239:05>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <05-29-18/0252:36>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jayde Moon on <05-29-18/0335:34>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Overbyte on <05-29-18/0352:24>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-29-18/0436:39>
@ 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.

Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Senko on <05-29-18/0608:32>
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).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: easl on <05-29-18/0911:14>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <05-29-18/0946:34>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <05-29-18/1139:12>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Overbyte on <05-29-18/1403:51>
@ 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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Redwulfe on <05-29-18/1454:11>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <05-29-18/1527:59>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Overbyte on <05-29-18/1713:43>
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).
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Redwulfe on <05-29-18/1810:19>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: mbisber on <05-29-18/2328:22>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Michael Chandra on <05-30-18/0052:46>
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 (http://www.shadowrun.com/forums/discussion/comment/95831/#Comment_95831) regarding Power Foci as source on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Shadowrun/comments/3es3tg/does_a_bonded_rating_1_power_foci_prevent/cti2tk3) before, while mentioning I'm still fallible. That is kinda awesome.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Reaver on <05-30-18/0205:10>
Oh god, please not the 'it raises Magic itself' debate -.-

How's that song go again??


"The more times change...."
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Michael Chandra on <05-30-18/0215:58>
♫ 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 ♫
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: mbisber on <05-30-18/0523:24>
'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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Xenon on <05-30-18/1505:40>
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)
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jayde Moon on <06-06-18/1815:11>
At the risk of shining the spotlight back om this thread, I was directly asked a few questions and would like to respond:

Quote from: Stainless Steel Devil Rat
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'.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <06-06-18/1826:36>
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 :)
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Marcus on <06-06-18/2334:35>
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.


Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Redwulfe on <06-07-18/0018:53>
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.
Title: Re: Can mundanes see Sustained Spells?
Post by: Jayde Moon on <06-14-18/2249:34>
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.