Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Senko on <04-05-16/0321:14>
-
I'm just curious after some recent threads what are the best way's people have found to get around the geek the mage first trope. I'm not talking about convincing the GM to show a little compassion and not auto-target the mage player every game but way's in game for mage's/parties to divert fire away from the mage. Things like the mage having armour and a gun while relying on less obvious/pre-combat spells, casting armour on a phys adept to draw fire towards the combat monkey and away from the mage, relying on smoke grenades and the like to keep enemies from being able to clearly see just where those spells are coming from, summoning a spirit with the optional rule allowing it to swap a power out for spellcasting and having it pretend to be the parties mage. That sort of concept not relying on out of game actions but ingame choices and tactics to ensure when the gunfire starts the mage is not immediately obvious as a first priority target.
-
Indirect Combat spells are flat out the best way of getting yourself pegged as a mage... cast at your own risk.
Rather than casting Armor, which is a highly obvious spell that only enhances your soak rolls. Try Deflection, sure it only works against ranged attacks, but it's a lot more subtle and adds to the defense test to avoid getting hit in the first place.
I've no idea what this alternate ruling is regarding spirits and spells. But a Spirit of Man by default has the Spellcasting skill and can be given access to one spell per optional power.
-
Well you cannot shoot what you can't see, so invisibility is always good. I've also had alot of success with using Trid Phantasm to create illusions to give the enemies more pressing dangers to think about, i've found a huge axe wielding charging troll to be a good distraction, but there are also several other illusion spells that can severely distract people from shooting at you, Things like agony, swarm and hot potato ...etc.
But really the best way is to forget about avoiding it and focus on surviving it. Wear the same kind of armor as the others in your team, stack up on armor, deflection and combat sense+ maybe increase Body and then annihilate any opposition before they know what hit them, and even if you do take a hit or two, you should be able to survive that and thats not even talking about the edge spirits can give you.
-
+ also mental manipulations to make them start shooting at each other = Chaos on their side
-
have another member of your team be bigger scarier and more in the face of the enemy.
No matter how many times you are told geek the mage first. When there is a near cyber zombie elf chick, wielding a medium machine gun as a side arm; charging at you screaming that she intends "to use your entrails as a belt!"
you are going to forget about the mage git in the corner.
-
First things first. Don't walk around with fancy robes and not carrying any kind of weapon. That screams magic. If you're on the job (or at least in certain parts of town), carry a weapon. In fact, carry more than one. Wear armor when you're working that actually looks like armor. The less you look like a stereotypical mage, the more likely the other side is to switch priorities to the heavy weapons troll on your team.
Second, hit hard and fast. Area of Effect is your friend. A fireball spell looks a lot like a grenade going off, if you're busy dodging bullets. Direct combat spells are stealthy, but not that damaging, and people are going to clue on you looking out from cover and very much not using a weapon.
Third, Debuff. Opium den, Shadow, Mob Mind, Trid Phantasm, and more. If the other side is having major troubles, they're not going to be able to hit you.
Fourth, Battlefield control. Ice Sheet, Physical Barrier, and more. Make getting to you more difficult, and funnel them to your team.
-
It depends on the party, but in my PbP game I play the mage and I'm almost never targeted first (even though I'm an Ork mage). Most of the time the borderline psychotic phys adept is targeted first, not the mage sitting in a corner doing apparently nothing. And the next turn it's mostly the three orks in full battle armour firing assault rifles that came around the corner (trid phantasm is my go-to spell).
-
Improved Invisibility and the Concealment power are your friends. A mage really should be undetected by the "muggles" until you open up. And you should open with something that essentially ends the combat. Large AoE debuff if my favorite, but Mob Control or Ball Lightning have their places. For smaller fights that the sami can likely handle just fine, take a pot shot from hiding and let the combat monsters do their thing.
-
In direct combat, I tend to agree with the current proposals. Don't be flashy, let someone else draw the attention, drop all sorts of chaos into them to keep them form thinking, and end the fight before they get a chance to pause, breathe, and figure it out. Or just don't wander in to the line of fire in the first place, since your spirits are generally better than the rest of your team at whatever it is you need done.
Operationally - don't flaunt it. If you run the stats, there's about 3 "natural magic 6" mages per 1M of the population. The number of them who elect to be disposable criminal mercenaries as opposed to those take 6 or 7 figure salaries, careers of academic prestige, etc. is probably not terribly large. Every time you flash high level magic around, you are slashing the available suspect pool while at the same time driving up the case priority due to the extreme threat a loose cannon high end mage represents. And that level of threat is the type of thing you take to your superiors and say "yep, we need permission to go lethal on this one" and then splash their brains over a wall without warning rather than arrest them or try to storm their building.
So, short term, yeah, tactics count. long term, every time you use magic, be aware that the stronger it is, you are calling on not just security guards but the very immutable gods of law and corporate profit themselves to mercilessly target you.
-
that's why you have to scrub your signatures as much as possible. The least information you can give them, the better it is. And also don't always cast a spell at it's full force just becuase you can. If you have for instance a force 3 sustaining focus, the maximum force spell you can put in there is 3, so there's no need to cast it any higher. Then people will not necessarily know your full potential. It also makes the perception roll to find out who's been casting more difficult, so it also has tactical advantages.
-
My mage is rarely targeted first, might have something to do with sporting a Full chrome cyberarm. Most people don't think mage when they see that. For those less inclined to get the actual ware, the Physical Mask spell is a great way to look like any other wannabe sam, if you have a real sam on your team, odds are they will draw the fire first.
The key is to look like less of a threat without looking like no threat (No threat screams mage)... I say this because there was one time where my cybermage looked like the biggest threat...
-
For me, its simple: "Don't be a target"
Improved invisibility for hiding from sensors, drones, and eyeballs.
Levitate for situational advantage.
Keep combat spells small, unnoticable and direct. Keep the AoE for mop up.... as you'll generally only get one shot before everything lights you up....
Keep spirits AWAY from combat! As counter intuative as that sounds..... A spirit is a dead give away there is a mage close by, so that spirit COULD be the deciding factor between lots of lead or lots of grenades, cause chunky salsa hurts spirits too (and any runners caught in it too).
And some times, its best to just let the Gun Bunnies do their job while you sit back and do nothing. (Not every combat needs magic....)
-
And some times, its best to just let the Gun Bunnies do their job while you sit back and do nothing. (Not every combat needs magic....)
But don't forget buffing said gun-bunny. If you can give them, for example, three or four points of intuition to buff their initiative, dodge, and perception, they are going to be that much more effective.
The shaman in my game has Cat mentor spirit so generally can't jump into combat right away anyway, and has become quite the fan of holding actions to deal with surprises or to intervene at just the right moment (and meanwhile providing counterspelling). As for spirits, he often has them come in astral form only, to deal with any opposing spirits and/or drive off astral mages. They can manifest in a pinch, but generally amongst opponents (barring wards), so that grenades won't provide much help (although shock batons can be frightfully effective on spirits at melee range).
-
If we go by the rules, noticing magic is a Perception + Inutition [Mental] test vs Caster Skill Rating - Force or 6 - Force if no skill is involved (pg 280 CRB). It's also a simple action to observe in detail. I have heard arguments from players that use direct combat spells, illusions and mental manipulation spells that they could be sitting down drinking soy cafe while casting spells and no one would think otherwise. The rule on Perceiving Magic disagrees.
How I prevent "Geek the Mage" depends on the concept of my character.
In a home campaign, I played a mage that didn't give a drek and laughs manically killing everyone in his way. He was a possession mage with Channeling, Quickening and both Masking Metamagics. Spirit of Man cast and sustains Deflection on him combined with bonus to stats from Possession/Channeling and Combat Sense, he had 25 dice on average (depending on Deflection roll) for dodging. It's very pink mohawk for combat, even though he is legitimate University Professor at one of the main schools for magic in the UK making him an occult investigator based on skills alone.
In Shadowrun Missions, since you don't know who will be on your team unless you have a group, you need to be versatile. Wearing heavier armor and using the Analyze Device sustained on a weapon will make you highly proficient with it and seen more as a shooter than spell slinger. There is also sitting back and getting into a position that would prevent you from being in danger. Summon a Spirit, pick up a gun and suppress. If you have high charisma, buff you team before hand and use leadership to increase their initiative. Pick up a pistol and shoot.
-
I'm aware of that perception rule, I'm also aware a lot of people disagree with it.
Thanks for the suggestions.
-
I'm aware of that perception rule, I'm also aware a lot of people disagree with it.
Thanks for the suggestions.
I haven't see disagreement so much as just...not remembering (or caring) to implement it.
Wear armor when you're working that actually looks like armor.
Do people...not? There's no value in not wearing real armor in this game. It's not like there's spell failure percentages!
-
Also, always try to have cover. Even if the opposition knows you are the mage and they want to shoot you in the face, it's going to be a lot more difficult if they can hardly see said face. Being in cover can mean the difference between being hit or not. This obviously counts for every character who is mainly ranged combat based. :)
-
I also have not seen disagreement with it, just folks that try to fluff spell casting to be what it's not.
Keep in mind that spellcasting, whether it is direct or indirect combat spells, illusions, healing, manipulation, or even counter-spelling, it's fairly clear that you're doing some weird crap that less than 10% of the world population can do. It's obvious because it stands out and effects the world around you, especially when you're slinging spells Force 6 or higher.
-
Wear armor when you're working that actually looks like armor.
Do people...not? There's no value in not wearing real armor in this game. It's not like there's spell failure percentages!
OK, that's a holdover from 3.5, where you had limits based on Body to how much Armor you could have. But basically, it ties in with the point I made about weapons. Think of it as camouflage. If you're carrying similar arms and wearing similar armor to the gunbunny, then they're not going to pick you out as a mage until you throw spells, unless they have a mage of their own.
Which leads into my whole deal of having multiple sets of armor, for different occasions. Lined coat for casual/legwork, something fancy for night out/society, chameleon suit for stealth, heaviest stuff that won't draw too much attention for 'let slip the dogs of war'.
-
I have seen threads debating it usually along the lines of fireballs being balatantly obvious ranging down to something like enhance aim or the phsyical buff spells should be subtle and barely noticeable and if that only in a that 5'2 slender girl looks like she's carrying a 90 klio crate . . .. not in a there is magic in the air and that doesn't even touch on ones like mob mood or the like that are purely mental. By the rules someoone under a force 6 control thoughts spell walks into a room and everyone there will probably know they're under a spell before a word is said . . .
Perception + Inutition [Mental] test vs Caster Skill Rating - Force or 6 - Force
3 + 3 (average stats for argument) vs caster skill rating (starting runner at 8 say 6 + skill mod) - 6 (force) = 6 dice vs two. Even if you assume perception 0 they're rolling 3 dice vs two.
Even though there's no glow, no chanting, no outside sign at all and the person noticing it has no magical talent at all. Still that's another thread and another debate so I'll say no more on that subject unless someone creates a new thread on it.
As for the armour thing I assumed they merely meant go in with the equivilent of SWAT armour as opposed to dermal plating or the like designed to not look like armour so you can meet with the important people without offending.
-
Senko
The test to notice magic is not an opposed test, it's a success test with the threshold being Magic of the Spellcaster - Force; so your average peon with Intuition 3 and no ranks in Perception just needs a single hit on 2 dice to spot a Magic 6 Magician casting a Force 6 spell, as the shaping of Mana can be visible to even the most mundane metahuman.
This only applies when the spell is cast, however, and not to the sustained spell effect. So the observer must have a clear line of sight to the spellcaster for the test to even be necessary.
-
I agree with Senko that the rules for noticing magic are too simple as they are, not denying what the rules say, but they are way too simple.
First of all reading the section on noticing magic, the reasoning seems to be that.......1) Magicians often use gestures or chants, 2) Magic is often accompanied by feelings of chills, dread..etc. and people are very familiar with these feelings and their association with magic and 3) Spirits present in astral Space can sometimes cause a shimmer.
1) By their own desciption a magician casting a spell need to do nothing else but concentrate. No gestures or chanting is necessary, in fact magicians mostly use those kinds of Things in connection with centering.
2) By their own descriptions magicians and real magic is very very rare and most people are unlikely to have any personal experience wih them/ it, in fact most people hold wildly inaccurate opinions and expectations regarding magic based on trid shows.
3) sometimes cause a shimmer ...... well what exactly is sometimes? what if it's dark? or it's raining.
There should be a list of circumstances under which the test to notice should be allowed, barring that there should at least be a list of modifiers to the test but there's no such thing.
The fact is that all those Things that they mention could and commonly is caused by a Whole host of other reasons and unless the person experiencing these effects are intimately familiar with magic, most people would associate them with other Things.
Ofc there are sometimes when magic is obvious, such as any use of indirect combat spells ( except maybe blast ), levitation and those kinds of Things, but there are times as well where circumstances and so on should make it damn hard to notice.
Now, i know why the rule exists, and it should exist, but not in the current form in my opinion. They simply contradict their own explanations way too much. the rule as it is would make sense in D&D, not in Shadowrun.
-
Rosa
At my table, we apply both the regular perception modifiers (i.e. not looking, specifically looking, etc) as well as environmental modifiers (light/glare, visibility, etc) to the perception test to notice magic. Remember, the rules are guidelines, nothing more. If you want to make it harder or easier to spot magic being cast, that's entirely up to you (or the GM, if you're not it).
(http://paleoworks.co.uk/files/simples2(1)(1).jpg)
-
That sounds like a good start.
-
People always seem so confused when I apply the -2 dice (Distracted) modifier to Perception tests in combat. Getting sprayed with fully automatic fire can be a little distracting.
-
The reason the noticing magic test is so easy its tied to the amount of mana you are pulling....
A magic 6 mage casting a force 6 spell is surrounded by a nimbus of visible mana around them as they literally pull in all the mana they can safely hold to shape into a spell.
(Threshold 0)
That same mage casting a force 1 spell wouldn't be very noticable. As the amount of mana he pulls in is very small...
(Threshold 5)
-
As Reaver said. If you want to go unnoticed casting spells, there's really only two ways to go about it:
1) Be somewhere that people can't see you, but you can see your target. Darkened alleyways, rooftops, peaking from behind a curtain, whatever.
2) Cast low force spells to slip in effects without people noticing. This works best on uncontested spells, where you only need a hit or two to get the desired effect.
-
I know I said I wasn't going to comment on this but again I've missed something where does it say channeling mana makes you glow like a lightbulb and what if your someone like Harlequinn who can probably safely change a force 20 spell is he the equivilent of a flash bang going off lighting up the entire room and potentially blinding oponents? For that matter what about inately magical creatures or physical adepts with permanently active powers are they constantly surrounded by a dull glow as they channel that mana? This would mean you'd be less likely to be noticed if you were in a brihghtly lit space where it gets drowned out by other light sources but in a darkened alley or similar you'd stand out like a sore thumb. For that matter why do you only glow when casting if your sustaining a spell and chaneling all that mana into it shouldn't you continue to glow as your constantly directing all that force 6 power into X effect?
Personally I don't recall ever reading anything fluff or mechanics wise to explain that perception check except the perception check itself and there is a lot that as Rosa said that makes it make no sense in the system except as a mechanical check to keep spellcasters from running wild. This isn't like DND where you speak, gesture and have to use material components to power a spell you merely focus and bam magical effect unless your centerriing or using reagents to overpower a spell and that's a different matter.
-
<znip> where does it say channeling mana makes you glow like a lightbulb <znip>
You're looking (hah!) for the Perceiving Magic section on page 280 and 281, specifically this:
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). <znip> You get a + 2 dice pool modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active or Knowledge Skill.
Note that it doesn't say you "glow like a lightbulb", but that the spellcasting itself or the effects thereof are noticable. Big difference. Also, consider the following from the first paragraph of that section:
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.
Only if you initiate into the arts and gain access to certain metamagics and/or work with mana that is safely below your own ability (i.e. Force is 5 or more levels less than your Magic Attribute) is the casting attempt or effects sufficiently subtle for most people to avoid noticing.
<znip> what if your someone like Harlequinn who can probably safely change a force 20 spell <znip>
As the perception test is variable based on the Magic attribute of the spellcaster, it depends. Let's take Harlequin and compare him to a relatively strong magician going by Shadowrun fiction (Magic attribute of 6). As of Street Legends, Harlequin has a Magic Attribute of 30; effectively, he is stronger than your beginning Shadowrunner by a factor of 5, and could easily cast a Force 20 spell without being seen as it would take a Perception test with a threshold of of (30-20=10) for anyone to notice the effects. So yeah, Harlequin is a bit of a special case, obviously ;)
For that matter what about inately magical creatures or physical adepts with permanently active powers are they constantly surrounded by a dull glow as they channel that mana?
Good question; innate powers are usually treated differently than shaping mana, and is not mentioned in the "any form of magic" examples above (conjuring, spellcasting, enchanting, and spirits are specifically called out, but they do cover themselves with an "etc" at the end), and like adept powers it's more of an inward magic than an outward one. Also keep in mind that this is purely when magic is shaped; a sustained spell has an aura in the Astral plane, but unless specifically called out like the Armor spell isn't inherently noticable. Only when the spell is cast do you get a chance to notice the spell, at least as I read it.
This would mean you'd be less likely to be noticed if you were in a brihghtly lit space where it gets drowned out by other light sources but in a darkened alley or similar you'd stand out like a sore thumb. For that matter why do you only glow when casting if your sustaining a spell and chaneling all that mana into it shouldn't you continue to glow as your constantly directing all that force 6 power into X effect?
Again, it's not like a lightbulb, that's only the Armor spell. For the rest, see above from page 280.
Personally I don't recall ever reading anything fluff or mechanics wise to explain that perception check except the perception check itself and there is a lot that as Rosa said that makes it make no sense in the system except as a mechanical check to keep spellcasters from running wild. This isn't like DND where you speak, gesture and have to use material components to power a spell you merely focus and bam magical effect unless your centerriing or using reagents to overpower a spell and that's a different matter.
Again, see above :D
Shadowrun isn't the opposite of D&D; there are plenty of magicians who choose to learn Centering when they initiate to better handle drain, and one of the key requirements for Centering is that it cannot be subtle. Besides that, even if the magician is entirely immobile when casting a spell there's still a chance of noticing the effects of said casting, as per page 280.
-
Obviously but what if he does cast a force 30 spell going for his maximum power?
I'd like to point out the following specific points in that bit you quoted . . .
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.
3 of the situations have exceptions magic is rarely subtle not never, somtimes its obvious through a magicians actions not always, somtimes the air shimmers not always. People have is sort of up to interpretation it could be read as them always feeling those things although I personally don't see it that way but if you do read it as always having that effect you again come back to my question about what of those who are always channeling some magic via their very nature? Still its probably going to come to the GM in each individual case but really considering most people expect movie "You shall not pass" effects a chill that could be attributed to the AC seems a pretty poor justification for this spot check.
If Joe Schlub can feel magic being done by any except the most powerful mages why bother paying for magical security on any but the most important facilities it just wouldn't be cost effective. Why would a casino pay a mage to watch for magical tampering when everyone else at the table starts screaming "I feel chills/dread/unnatural feelings the guy who just rolled the dice is cheating magically!"
-
Centering is a great metamagic, may not be the very first mages take, but in the top 3 metamagics.
The act of spellcasting or its immediate effects are what is noticeable. High force spells (8+) are generally either noticeable or there effects are so major that they last long enough for some muggle to see it.
Majority of the spells don't have a glow, otherwise improved invisibility would be worthless, much less physical mask.
-
Senko
Now you're just being pedantic, and you know it ;)
And yes, Harlequin could cast a Force 30 spell and the Perception test to notice him casting it would be 1. That kind of spell would probably be felt quite strongly by magicians in the immediate vicinity, by the way, given that his signature would be imprinted for 30 hours or whatever his Metamagics reduce it to.
But to address your point; you're emphasizing three words out of a long paragraph; the fact that the writers felt the need to call out that magic is rarely subtle is kind of my point. You may not play it like that, and that's fine; your table, your rules. If you want magic to be subtle, do it. But the writers here are saying that magic is rarely subtle, and that it's sometimes A, sometimes B, and sometimes something else. Those uses of "sometimes" does not preclude the use of "rarely" as you seem to think it does, instead it emphasizes that point.
Again, the only time Magic in Shadowrun is subtle, at least according to the book, is when the spellcaster, conjurer, or what have you, is working with Magic that is of a Force significantly lower than his ability to handle (i.e. Magic Rating X - Force Rating Y = Perception Threshold of 1/2/3 or higher as dependent upon your table's use of the Perception skill amongst NPCs).
That being said, let's also keep in mind the following: most NPCs are about as observant as your average storm trooper. No Perception skill and an average Intuition of 3 means you're rolling 2 dice; that's an average 1 hit 55% of the time, but also an average critical glitch 27% of the time 2% of rolls, because of that sillyness where glitches now require more than half", and not just "half". And that's before you figure in modifiers like the -3 for not specifically looking for something, and/or the -2 for being distracted. So yeah, things are not quite as black and white as you seem to think the rules indicate. Again, the rules are a framework; use it to make the world come alive as you like. If the Perception test as written doesn't work for you, then change it. This is the general discussion forum, not the rules forum; RAW doesn't matter quite as much here as it does there if you ask me, but the rule is there if you want to use it or not.
-
The "Nimbus" effect is something that is part of SR lore.
Originally, when a Shaman cast a spell or summoned a spirit, they would have a noticeable effect of a "Totem Mask", which was, a glowing visage of their Totem spirit (akin to a mentor now). And a Mage would get the "Nimbus" effect. Which was a glowing aura of dim blue-white light.
As the editions go on, more and less has been said of these effects, and with the new Unified Magic Theory, there is no longer a separation between Shamanic magic and Hermetic magic. (Or academically, the difference is more personal then mechanical).
AND.....
All this comes from edition changes and rules changes to simplify the game (you think SR is complex now :P), and it's living history, so unless you know all the history you do miss things.
-
The "Nimbus" effect is something that is part of SR lore.
Originally, when a Shaman cast a spell or summoned a spirit, they would have a noticeable effect of a "Totem Mask", which was, a glowing visage of their Totem spirit (akin to a mentor now). And a Mage would get the "Nimbus" effect. Which was a glowing aura of dim blue-white light.
As the editions go on, more and less has been said of these effects, and with the new Unified Magic Theory, there is no longer a separation between Shamanic magic and Hermetic magic. (Or academically, the difference is more personal then mechanical).
AND.....
All this comes from edition changes and rules changes to simplify the game (you think SR is complex now :P), and it's living history, so unless you know all the history you do miss things.
I will say one thing I have enjoyed is the explaination that magic is more about beliefs than actual mechanics of mana flow, mana goes where the magic user (go 1st ed/AD&D) wants the mana to go. Hence the loss of spells for only one type of "mage" or the other.
-
@topic
The best way to not be shot at is to have done your work beforehand, namely having buffed all the other fighters into top condition and only sending a spirit with them.
If that's to boring for you, invest in Increase Reflexes and rock a Ini in the high 30ies so you can afford to go full defense all the time
@visible magic
As the editions go the timeline advances and so do mana levels. Just as you now can't ground spells anymore spells become more natural to the world and are harder to notice.
-
I just wanted to point one thing out, since I really don't have a problem with the noticing magic thing.
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). <znip> You get a + 2 dice pool modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active or Knowledge Skill.
As the perception test is variable based on the Magic attribute of the spellcaster, it depends. Let's take Harlequin and compare him to a relatively strong magician going by Shadowrun fiction (Magic attribute of 6). As of Street Legends, Harlequin has a Magic Attribute of 30; effectively, he is stronger than your beginning Shadowrunner by a factor of 5, and could easily cast a Force 20 spell without being seen as it would take a Perception test with a threshold of of (30-20=10) for anyone to notice the effects. So yeah, Harlequin is a bit of a special case, obviously ;)
Harlequin is not going to be throwing force 20 spells without being noticed.
As pointed out on p.280, the threshold is based on the Skill Rating being used, not their Magic rating, not their dice pool. And currently the highest rating in a skill is 13. That means that even for Harlequin (Assuming that he has a rating of 13 in spellcasting, and I assume so) will have a threshold of 1 to have his force 12 or greater spells spotted.
Now I absolutely agree that this is a perception test and as per the perception skill, perception test modifiers will be involved.
-
Good catch, SichoPhiend. Spot on; the current statline for Harlequin, which is from 4th Edition, gives him Spellcasting (Illusion) 6 (+2), so 12 or even 13 is probably appropriate for him. To be fair, it also gives the GM pretty much carte blanche to have Harlequin do whatever the heck he wants. The stat line straight out states that "The initiate grade and Magic attribute given here do not necessarily represent the upper limits of Harlequin’s magical capacity, merely the upper limits of what the Sixth World is likely to require of him."
-
Yeah, honestly I wouldn't want to be around to try my luck perceiving him slinging a spell. If he starts casting, it's historically bad to be on the other end of it, or not. When he's in town, the work flows and flows and flows, usually down hill for anyone stupid enough to say yes to him. And lets face it, not many people have the cojones to tell him no.
-
I just wanted to point one thing out, since I really don't have a problem with the noticing magic thing.
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). <znip> You get a + 2 dice pool modifier on this test if you have any magic-related Active or Knowledge Skill.
As the perception test is variable based on the Magic attribute of the spellcaster, it depends. Let's take Harlequin and compare him to a relatively strong magician going by Shadowrun fiction (Magic attribute of 6). As of Street Legends, Harlequin has a Magic Attribute of 30; effectively, he is stronger than your beginning Shadowrunner by a factor of 5, and could easily cast a Force 20 spell without being seen as it would take a Perception test with a threshold of of (30-20=10) for anyone to notice the effects. So yeah, Harlequin is a bit of a special case, obviously ;)
Harlequin is not going to be throwing force 20 spells without being noticed.
As pointed out on p.280, the threshold is based on the Skill Rating being used, not their Magic rating, not their dice pool. And currently the highest rating in a skill is 13. That means that even for Harlequin (Assuming that he has a rating of 13 in spellcasting, and I assume so) will have a threshold of 1 to have his force 12 or greater spells spotted.
Now I absolutely agree that this is a perception test and as per the perception skill, perception test modifiers will be involved.
That was actually why I said he lit up like a flash bomb when casting at maximum power I'd just gotten up after about 3 hours sleep so I bungled it thank you. I'm also a little concerned about that skill - force or 6 -force part but haven't had time to check my books to see it properly in context yet.
I'm not being pedantic or at least I'm not trying to be, I'm not even arguing most magic's going to be unnoticed indirect combat spells aren't subtle, healing magic isn't subtle, levitation isn't subtle. What concerns me is that there is a world of difference between magic is rarely subtle and sometimes accompanied by tells vs magic is never subtle and always (or even if powerful enough) accompanied by spells.
To give an example a mage is being followed by someone and know it. They board a crowded train, wait a few stops then use a high force control thoughts to make the person not follow them off and wait say 3 stations before doing anything. That to me should be one of those subtle cases no chanting, no flashy effects, no sign to the general passengers that anything happened at all. With the perception check however and all these tells you guarantee at least one person probably several on that carriage will notice magic has happened and knowing people will pitch s fit about it. That's what worries me. There's a lot of situations where the difference between subtle and unnoticed spells can affect the entire course of a game. Now I do agree a lot of spells aren't going to be subtle but there are also plenty that are.
As for the glowing mask/nimbus I really do wish the developers would make a off available listing "legacy elements from earlier editions not mentioned" and "thematic elements from earlier editions that are no longer valid" because this isn't the first time I've been involved in a debate based on something that was spelled out in an earlier edition and either not mentioned or changed in this one.
-
Yeah, honestly I wouldn't want to be around to try my luck perceiving him slinging a spell. If he starts casting, it's historically bad to be on the other end of it, or not. When he's in town, the work flows and flows and flows, usually down hill for anyone stupid enough to say yes to him. And lets face it, not many people have the cojones to tell him no.
It isn't always bad! Sometimes it is 'merely' a Mass Destroy Pants spell!
-
As for the glowing mask/nimbus I really do wish the developers would make a off available listing "legacy elements from earlier editions not mentioned" and "thematic elements from earlier editions that are no longer valid" because this isn't the first time I've been involved in a debate based on something that was spelled out in an earlier edition and either not mentioned or changed in this one.
Preaching to the choir, and given the many posts I've read with this in it somewhere, it's a rather large choir.
To give an example a mage is being followed by someone and know it. They board a crowded train, wait a few stops then use a high force control thoughts to make the person not follow them off and wait say 3 stations before doing anything. That to me should be one of those subtle cases no chanting, no flashy effects, no sign to the general passengers that anything happened at all. With the perception check however and all these tells you guarantee at least one person probably several on that carriage will notice magic has happened and knowing people will pitch s fit about it. That's what worries me. There's a lot of situations where the difference between subtle and unnoticed spells can affect the entire course of a game. Now I do agree a lot of spells aren't going to be subtle but there are also plenty that are.
This all comes down to the GM, truth is you would have a pretty good chance of getting away with this.
Yes there are a lot of people, but lets be honest, most will have Intuition of 3, and very few will have any perception skill, most people really don't spend time learning how to observe their environment. So most of these commuters will have a die pool of 2 (Intuition -1) and being a crowded subway train are distracted -2 (they just want to get where they are going, some to the point of being willingly oblivious to things around them), so right out of the gate most people won't even get a roll. Those few that still have a positive pool may have further issues such as the lovely interfering sights, smells and sounds of the Subway (Crowd of people that you have to try to see thru, the sound of the little old lady that chose the observer to be the recipient of her life story, and the smell of the puke that the gangers left in the car from the night before) for an additional -2. Then there are the proximity penalties, people at the other end of the car will probably be at another -2.
These add up, in truth very few people would be able to roll a perception check in this scenario, and if you do your check first to see who has an interest in you, you can try to maneuver yourself in such a way to maximize their penalties before casting.
Option 2, cast at very low force and pre-edge to blow your limit, this sets the threshold much higher on the perception, but may not effect the target as long. This really depends on if you think someone has a legitimate chance to notice you, like the Lone Star cop you noticed getting on that seems to already be looking for someone.
-
What SichoPhiend said ;)
Senko
Low Force + Edge or Reagents = very hard to spot magic. Overcasting or casting spells at Force (Spellcasting skill -1) = relatively easily perceivable Magic to people who are not distracted and/or have Active or Knowledge skills that relate to Magic. The average NPC on the train isn't going to notice, but the Horizon wagemage on his way home just might; and that's where you GM might decide to roll for it.
I for one am absolutely not suggestion your roll for every NPC around you, in your example everyone on the train. And like SichoPhiend, I'm also saying that most of those NPCs would never get a roll even if you did decide to do so, simply because of perception modifiers.
-
If you apply the modifiers which is a GM call since as mentioned earlier the perception check to notice magic doesn't actually mention any penalties it's just a straight opposed check. If it did mention all those penalties your applying I'd have less of an issue with it.
-
Not quite; it's a success test, not an opposed one.
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).
And technically, everything is a GM call ;)
-
Which is great till you get a Gm who applies the rules as written and feels mages are too powerful anyway I've had them in fact I know one who'd apply that check to the entire train as there's no mention of range or LOS and the chills/dread/unnatural feelings says you just need to be nearby to sense it
I'd rather avoid reagents because pulling out a handful of X moves it away from subtle casting and low force +edge it just better be the right time/have a high edge is all I've to say on that.
Like I said most magic isn't subtle I just don't personally agree with that check for the spells that are because channeling mana alerts everyone automatically because they feel it even if they're so cybered up they only have 0.01 essence left and are more unnatural than what your doing.
I also kind of choke on the whole cast a force 4 spell and people notice the magical channeling but sustain a force 15 one and its completely undetectable even if logically there should be a lot more mana being thrown about. Which doesn't even touch on the fact I feel letting non magic people notice when magic that isn't causing an obvious effect is being used treads on an area that should be either mage only or a specific magic sensitive quality. If mana can only be used by certain individuals (as in this system) then it's manipulation should only be sensed BY those individuals with ordinary people being able to see obvious effects fireballs, illusions, transformation into an animal but not the actual manipulation of mana or effects that aren't immediately obvious such as a mage enhancing their reaction time for something in the future.
-
If you apply the modifiers which is a GM call since as mentioned earlier the perception check to notice magic doesn't actually mention any penalties it's just a straight opposed check. If it did mention all those penalties your applying I'd have less of an issue with it.
This part is kinda up for debate, but p. 135 has a section for Using Perception which has a blanket rule for any time you use the perception skill, I am personally inclined to think that because the noticing magic doesn't say "modifiers don't apply" that the rules for using the perception skill do apply. Your mileage (and your GM's mileage) may vary.
-
Senko
For what it's worth, the rules are less black and white than you seem to think, at least judging by your posts.
Example; a Magician casting a Force 4 spell would incur a Threshold 2 Perception test, which according to the book (page 45) is an Average difficulty test. Again, even rank and file cops (PR 3) only get 6 dice, and I'd strongly disagree that RAW precludes Perception test modifiers from being applied. RAW it's a Simple Perception + Intuition test, thus by RAW Perception test modifiers apply. If the cop isn't specifically looking, is distracted by something else, and/or the spellcasting is obscured somehow, the dice pool is reduced by anywhere from 2 to 5.
And sustaining a Force 15 Spell will definitely get you noticed by the same magical security you want to make a difference. Average Joe Schmuck isn't going to notice you walking by him with a Force 15 spell sustained, but anyone perceiving you in the Astral has a decent chance of spotting you instantly since SR5 doesn't have astral visibility modifiers.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree; I think the Perception test works fine, and I personally don't care about GMs who adhere to RAW like some people do to the letter of their [insert religious book here]; I don't play the rules lawyer game at my table. Your mileage may vary, but I'd rather not cater to the lowest common denominator (not you, GMs and players who are dicks) than just figure out what works and move on.
Have a good one.
-
In my games things are a lot less black and white I just like to be 100% clear on rules as written so I don't get a situation like what happened once where a GM insisted based on perception rules I not only wouldn't notice a 15 foot tall statue before it grabbed me when I walked by it but I wouldn't even get to make a check. While if I know the why as well as the what I know what I can safely modify. In this case for my games I'm satisfied that check is a holdover from when mages glowed so I feel happy to remove it from non-mages leaving magic in the realm of those who can use it.
-
I also like to carry a gun for the times suppressive fire with an SMG/AR is a better idea than casting spells.
-
If you apply the modifiers which is a GM call since as mentioned earlier the perception check to notice magic doesn't actually mention any penalties it's just a straight opposed check. If it did mention all those penalties your applying I'd have less of an issue with it.
This part is kinda up for debate, but p. 135 has a section for Using Perception which has a blanket rule for any time you use the perception skill, I am personally inclined to think that because the noticing magic doesn't say "modifiers don't apply" that the rules for using the perception skill do apply. Your mileage (and your GM's mileage) may vary.
Standard modifiers for Perception tests apply otherwise every person in the world would get a perception test to sense every magical activation on the planet at all times. Distance, LOS, and such all should apply to the Perception tests to spot Magic being activated otherwise you get to a very silly place very quickly.
-
Hobbes, Hobbes, Hobbes...
I thought you had been here long enough to know that for some, Reason and Common Sense are totally absent.
Hell, there have ACTUALLY been people coming here to argue that gravity doesn't apply because its not mentioned directly in the rulebook. <smashes head into keyboard. Repeatedly.>
Some people have honest questions, some people have honest confusion over things. Some people the community can help. And some there is no help :P
But honestly, at the end of it all, that's what makes table top gaming great.... All the little variances that happen between tables, the slightly different rules interpretations.... They make for interesting games when you find a table that is compatible with your game style.
-
Hobbes, Hobbes, Hobbes...
I thought you had been here long enough to know that for some, Reason and Common Sense are totally absent.
Hell, there have ACTUALLY been people coming here to argue that gravity doesn't apply because its not mentioned directly in the rulebook. <smashes head into keyboard. Repeatedly.>
Some people have honest questions, some people have honest confusion over things. Some people the community can help. And some there is no help :P
But honestly, at the end of it all, that's what makes table top gaming great.... All the little variances that happen between tables, the slightly different rules interpretations.... They make for interesting games when you find a table that is compatible with your game style.
I think there was a dev post saying Gravity was RAI, but it didn't make it into the Errata.
-
(http://strihs.com/images/shirts/large/obey-gravity-its-the-law.jpg)
-
Hobbes, Hobbes, Hobbes...
I thought you had been here long enough to know that for some, Reason and Common Sense are totally absent.
Hell, there have ACTUALLY been people coming here to argue that gravity doesn't apply because its not mentioned directly in the rulebook. <smashes head into keyboard. Repeatedly.>
Some people have honest questions, some people have honest confusion over things. Some people the community can help. And some there is no help :P
But honestly, at the end of it all, that's what makes table top gaming great.... All the little variances that happen between tables, the slightly different rules interpretations.... They make for interesting games when you find a table that is compatible with your game style.
I think there was a dev post saying Gravity was RAI, but it didn't make it into the Errata.
Have you SEEN the wireless bonus Gravity was going to get???
And don't ask what happens when your Decker bricks Gravity. :P
-
And don't ask what happens when your Decker bricks Gravity. :P
Obviously bricks would be able to fly then... 8)
-
And don't ask what happens when your Decker bricks Gravity. :P
Obviously bricks would be able to fly then... 8)
As would pigs, so everybody who said something like 'when pigs fly...' will be in for a big surprise :P
-
There is the 'Pink Mohawk' way as well....
Roll a dwarf mage.
Make friends with a Troll 'tank' (the dumber the better).
Invest a few SP in armorer...
Make troll sized harness with dwarf sized saddle.
Place harness on Troll, ride into battle like Master on Blaster
:P
<check out 'Bodies as cover', CRB>.
(If you don't get the cultural reference...... GIT OFFA MY LAWN <waves shotgun feebly from rocking chair>)
-
There is the 'Pink Mohawk' way as well....
Roll a dwarf mage.
Make friends with a Troll 'tank' (the dumber the better).
Invest a few SP in armorer...
Make troll sized harness with dwarf sized saddle.
Place harness on Troll, ride into battle like Master on Blaster
:P
<check out 'Bodies as cover', CRB>.
(If you don't get the cultural reference...... GIT OFFA MY LAWN <waves shotgun feebly from rocking chair>)
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/61861281.jpg)
-
OK, I didn't read all of it, but in my groups we tend to work together:
I've had two Groups with similar principles:
in one the mage had an obvious cyberarm and cybereyes with protevtive covers, along with, usually, a bomber jacket and combat boots and used an Uzi. He looked like a cybered Skinhead. Except he was black. The tank-sam of the group was a Voodoo-practitioning ork, wearing all kind of fake-magic-looking shit and -fetishes on his black longcoat and the top hat.
Guess who people tried to geek first.
In the other group the mage wore chrome shades and a silver longcoat (when not on stealth mode), and had clipped all kind of fake-cyberdeck-looking gizmos onto his clothes. The tank was a troll, who carved magic sigils into his horns, wore a robe over his armor, and threatened people with his "magic (LED-)glowing sword", shouting nonsense-spells. He even painted his grenades in a glowing color, so they more resembled fireballs, when he threw them.
;D
-
Improved Invisibility and the Concealment power are your friends. A mage really should be undetected by the "muggles" until you open up.
I finally got to try that last session 8)
Seconding the idea of not tipping your hand too soon. Backing up the stealthy spellwork (including noise suppression) with actual stealth skills doesn't hurt. It really doesn't hurt to have a good codeslinger around to back up the boltlobber, as technomancers are even better targets for "recruitment". It's in everyone's best interest to suborn the opposing force's sensors, anyway.
With regard to perception rules, if I'm over-casting an area debuff like Chaotic World or Orgy, I really, really want the combatants Over There to be paying all their attention to that magic in the air around them ... and not to me or any other threats on my team. If I read the description right, CW should be getting their targeting system's attention too.
On the other hand, no one pays attention to the kid on a skateboard rolling by (light armor behind the pleather jacket, high agility, and a pistol and switchblade just because) or the drunk slumped against a wall (if you don't plan on moving around, why not wear more armor?) or the sniper nest ... that their drones maybe would have seen if they hadn't been hacked already.
As a 'teachable moment', take the time to show your team's mage how his friends "handle" an opposing spell-jockey in combat. After the composure check, :'( the value of camouflage, concealment, cover, disguise, deception, and holdouts should become self-evident matters of self-preservation.
-
With regard to perception rules, if I'm over-casting an area debuff like Chaotic World or Orgy, I really, really want the combatants Over There to be paying all their attention to that magic in the air around them ... and not to me or any other threats on my team. If I read the description right, CW should be getting their targeting system's attention too.
Except the shimmer effect and/or gesticulation is centered on you, not the effect of your spell. Chaotic World would apply to subsequent perception tests, but for the initial one they'll be looking right at you my friend :)
Of course, if you're casting in combat there are plenty of other modifiers to make that test hard.
-
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.
above is quoted from the main rulebook pg. 280.
My question is what do you get from 1 success from your perception check? do you just have a general feeling of dread, or do you get a hey I just felt that guy cast a force 10 control thoughts even though I'm totally mundane and magic is really rare. (remembering that per the Perception threshold table on pg. 136 1 success is akin to a gunshot)
In the quote above it only mentions shimmer for spirits sometimes. Are you sure that applies to spellcasting?
Also how much shimmer, dread, chills, whatever is there? Let's say the mage is hiding right on the corner of a building out of LOS, can you perceive the shimmer (or whatever) extending from the mage without seeing the mage?
I understand these are some nit-picky scenarios, but it has come up at our mission's games. And it would help if the 3 of us who GM the mission's games in our area could get on the same page :D
-
If you can see the mage, you get a perception check. End of story.
Just what you see/feel is up to your GM.
The threshold of the perception check is based off of how powerful a spell he casts VS his skill at casting.
1 success would only tell you something if the mage casts at force 5+ (assuming a skill of 6). If cast at less the force 5, a single hit would tell you nothing.
-
In the quote above it only mentions shimmer for spirits sometimes. Are you sure that applies to spellcasting?
You left out the first part of that paragraph:
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.
Also how much shimmer, dread, chills, whatever is there? Let's say the mage is hiding right on the corner of a building out of LOS, can you perceive the shimmer (or whatever) extending from the mage without seeing the mage?
I understand these are some nit-picky scenarios, but it has come up at our mission's games. And it would help if the 3 of us who GM the mission's games in our area could get on the same page :D
Up to the GM, really. But Reaver has the gist of it; anytime anyone has LOS on someone or something actively using magic, there's a chance of a Perception test being needed. Now, as it is a Perception test perception modifiers apply as usual, so most mundanes would never get a test anyway with their Perception 0 and average intuition of 2 or 3, along with modifiers like "Perceiver is distracted", "Object/sound not in immediate vicinity", or "Interfering sight/odor/sound" or even visibility or light.
-
If you can see the mage, you get a perception check. End of story.
That statement doesn't exclude getting a perception check without seeing the mage.
Is it assumed to be a visual perception check? So blind people, pitch black rooms, and Improved invis are the mage's best friends? If a mage was sneaking would a NPC have to make a perception check to notice the mage before the NPC can make a perception test to notice the magic the mage is casting?
I've read all the previous posts and understand that it would be rather difficult for the average guy on the street to notice magic, but it's more if a skilled security guard catches the mage casting and tries to "geek the mage."
Magic is rarely subtle. Any form of magic (conjuring, spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, spirits, etc.) changes the world around it.
I think we can all agree that "rarely subtle" could mean completely different things to different people?
I guess I'm looking for a better understanding of how much or how far magic changes the world around it in SR5 specifically. Granted the answer to that may always be "GM interpretation." :-\
-
If you can see the mage, you get a perception check. End of story.
That statement doesn't exclude getting a perception check without seeing the mage.
Is it assumed to be a visual perception check? So blind people, pitch black rooms, and Improved invis are the mage's best friends? If a mage was sneaking would a NPC have to make a perception check to notice the mage before the NPC can make a perception test to notice the magic the mage is casting?
I've read all the previous posts and understand that it would be rather difficult for the average guy on the street to notice magic, but it's more if a skilled security guard catches the mage casting and tries to "geek the mage."
Magic is rarely subtle. Any form of magic (conjuring, spellcasting, enchanting, magical lodges, spirits, etc.) changes the world around it.
I think we can all agree that "rarely subtle" could mean completely different things to different people?
I guess I'm looking for a better understanding of how much or how far magic changes the world around it in SR5 specifically. Granted the answer to that may always be "GM interpretation." :-\
Care to think a little more? Such as how a BLIND person is going to identify a mage - HE'S BLIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <rolleyes>
Generally speaking, a mage can affect anything he can see with his 'natural' vision (or paid essence paid visual enhancements).
If a mage can see the Space Needle from Tacoma, he can hit it with a spell. (A distance of kilometers!)
The area effect of said spell is generally (magic rating) meters radius. Thus a mage with Magic 6 effects everything within a 6m radius of spell detonation. (Or about 40 feet across).
Now, do the 2 million people between the mage in Tacoma and the Space needle get a perception check to notice magic? Don't be stupid.
Only those that can directly see the mage get a check. (And if they are fucking blind, yes they STILL get a check. With a -6 on top of everthing else.)
Do those on the other end get a check? Not exactly (other then a resistance test) because they can't see the mage either. However the spell may make that moot. (Fireballs tend to NOT randomly appear).
If if I seem hostile, it could be because of the overly pandentic nature of the question. Yet again.
-
Just wanted to point out that there WILL be people who ask about/insist on that very scenario to use your own words . . .
>The area effect of said spell is generally (magic rating) meters radius. Thus a mage with Magic 6 effects everything within a 6m radius of spell detonation. (Or about 40 feet across).
So if the spell is only affecting things 40 feet across does that mean there's no actual indication with the mage themselves as the effect (shimmer, feelings of dread, etc) is occuring somewhere else (for those spells that dont' affect the mage directly)? Does that mean you have the feelings of X emanating from the mage and the visual effect somewhere else? If so why is there magical ooglelyboogelies coming from the mage channeling magic and not the great big mob mind spell hitting all the people at their target? If not then why don't those in between get a check? Leading us to . . .
> Only those that can directly see the mage get a check. (And if they are fucking blind, yes they STILL get a check. With a -6 on top of everthing else.)
How does the blind person get a check because they can directly see the mage when they are blind? Because they're nearby in "normal" sighting distance or have LOS to the mage? Do they need both or just one of these? If you have LOS to the person casting do you need to see them (dark room, rainy, sunlight in your eyes, invisibility), if you can see them do you need LOS (reflection in glass, security cameras)? What about someone with vision enhancements? The mage can see the space needle from Tacoma and the security guard with cyber eyes on the observation deck is looking right back at them because he's bored and they're hot (high charisma) when the spell is cast. He has both LOS and can directly see them even though he's kilomters away does he get a check? Do you need LOS + actually see them + be within magic rating * metres distance to feel this emanation of unnaturalness?
Not to mention several of those warning signs aren't visually based at all chills and feelings of dread don't require you to be looking at a source of magic. If a blind person gets a check at -6 does someone looking in the opposite direction? If the person who is looking away from the mage doesn't get a check why does the person who can't see anything? If they do get one then what's the difference between being blind/looking in the opposite direction and having vision obstructed by other objects e.g. crowds/statues/walls/the mage being invisible in preventing it?
The questions may seem pedantic but they do come up in games and when person A has one idea and person B has another it causes the debate seen here. If person A say's its X, person B say's its Y and person C is the GM and has no idea which it actually is and finds both cases equally convincing you get a serious problem when the rules don't spell it out clearly.
-
And.... my ignore list grows again.
More and more I think too many want a video game and NOT a tabletop game.
per·cep·tion
/pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: perception; plural noun: perceptions
the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
"the normal limits to human perception"
•the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
"the perception of pain"
synonyms: recognition, awareness, consciousness, appreciation, realization, knowledge, grasp, understanding, comprehension, apprehension; formalcognizance
"our perception of our own limitations"
•a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.
"Hollywood's perception of the tastes of the American public"
synonyms: impression, idea, conception, notion, thought, belief, judgment, estimation
"popular perceptions of old age"
•intuitive understanding and insight.
"“He wouldn't have accepted,” said my mother with unusual perception"
synonyms: insight, perceptiveness, percipience, perspicacity, understanding, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, intelligence, intuition, cleverness, incisiveness, trenchancy, astuteness, shrewdness, acuteness, acuity, discernment, sensitivity, penetration, thoughtfulness, profundity; formalperspicuity
"he talks with great perception"
THAT is the textbook definition of perception.
Take it, and make of it what you will. But make no mistake, we as humans are visual creatures by nature, so yes sight is the primary lead in to ALL perception checks. Noise is an other. So is taste. Also touch. Then there is the psychological sides. (Hey! look at that! lines up with the definition!).
That makes it as simple or complex as the depth of YOUR understanding of your awareness, which no one here can help you with. Now apply that.
THAT is the only answer you are going to get.
Why?
Reasons. This is not a study into the limitations of the human mind, nor is a doctorate in Human Anatomy needed to play (or write for it for that matter). IT IS A GAME!
Yes, the rules do not cover every thing and nor could they (so don't be more of an ass and say "why not?"..... If you can't comprehend why with being hand-held to the answer, gaming is not for you!)
What matters is the scene that the action takes place, not the whole wide world around them..... and if you insist on thinking that way. Come back next year after the GM is done rolling for the security checkpoint to get anywhere for the 25,000 NPCs in front of you. Or the GM just uses Fiat.
And the same with a scene. If the GM finds it reasonable that you get a perception check for a mage casting a spell in a dark room, so be it. IF he also says you don't So be it too. (as long as the rulings are consistently followed for all sides). That means some people in a scene will get a check for various things, others won't, all depending on how the GM feels about it and the situation.
end of story.
Now, you can come up with as many cute little situations as you want, The answer will always be the same: "As the GM commands". And it will always be the same.
Why?
Reasons.
The chief being. "That's his job". It is the GM's job to arbitrate the rules VS what the players are trying to do. This is done through the use of modifiers, fiat, logic, plot and gut reaction. No the books don't cover everything, nor could they. Go to the library, go to the Law section and look at the HUNDREDS of volumes of books just to contractual law! THAT is what you would be looking at if the books DID cover everything (or attempted to). Hundreds of volumes to buy at hundreds of dollars each. Who is going to buy that? Who is going to WRITE that?? WHO Is going to read 200 books just to play a game - let alone buy that many just to play a game???? Starting to see why I find these "yea But" arguments in general to be Pedantic.
Will the GM get it wrong from time to time? Yep. But he will get it right too.
Isn't this wrong, shouldn't he follow all the rules to the exact letter? Sure, But I bet you dollars to donuts you still won't agree with his judgements all the time even if he does. welcome to Human Interaction 101. Even simple laws like "DON'T KILL PEOPLE!!!" require lawyers (players) and Judges (GM) to determine who is right and wrong. and that's a 3 word real law! The GM's other job is to tell a story - you know, provide the action so you player are having fun? Sometimes, a rule gets in the way, so he changes it. Or he just doesn't like a rule, so he ignores it.
That's his job... Keeping the game moving forward, arbitrating rules, telling a story. Let him do it.
And if you ARE the GM, then be the GM. Make a judgement call. Move forward. Don't like a rule, change it to fit what your table needs. Just apply your changes across the board, no 1 set of rules for the players, 1 for the NPCs.
And if all you are looking for is a set number.
43.
Why?
Reasons.
-
And.... my ignore list grows again.
More and more I think too many want a video game and NOT a tabletop game.
There's a great study waiting to be written on the impact of MMOs on the expectations of RPG players.
-
Krent, Senko
I'm cutting your quotes for brevity, just FYI :)
I think we can all agree that "rarely subtle" could mean completely different things to different people?
I guess I'm looking for a better understanding of how much or how far magic changes the world around it in SR5 specifically. Granted the answer to that may always be "GM interpretation." :-\
The questions may seem pedantic but they do come up in games and when person A has one idea and person B has another it causes the debate seen here. If person A say's its X, person B say's its Y and person C is the GM and has no idea which it actually is and finds both cases equally convincing you get a serious problem when the rules don't spell it out clearly.
Different people do have different opinions or views of the setting. For example; I like my dystopian cyberpunk with a touch of realism and low magic levels, so at my table magic is going to be something out of the ordinary that most people have absolutely zero experience with (kind of like armed conflict in the real world; most people have seen Hollywood portrayals of it, but only a few percent have actually experienced it first hand). Thus, at my table I set the expectation that manipulating mana at sufficient force compared to your own mastery level of magic may well result in visual effects (the shimmering mentioned in the core rule book) that even mundanes can see; that doesn't mean they know you just cast a Force 10 Mob Mind spell, but if they succeed on their perception test they know that you're probably a magician and you definitely manipulated mana, and at my table that's functionally the equivalent of pulling out a gun and opening fire (i.e. even if you didn't throw a fireball, people may disperse in fear and call for help, unless it's obvious that you're using your magic for good by healing someone).
But, and this is the problem, that's just my view of the setting and you can freely disagree with that opinion. But when you play at my table, you abide by my rules and interpretations, of which I have many (like how the Matrix is more technological than mystery, drones are more durable and less expensive and therefore more prolific, murder is murder and can and likely will get the cops on your hoop pronto and it's better to stay in the shadows than bring out the assault cannon unless you're going on a bug hunt).
The issue is that you cannot ask a broad question like "How noticable is magic" and expect a concise answer; the answer you get will depend on the person being asked, as evidenced by this thread. Some, like myself, feel it should be very noticable, others feel like magic should be more subtle.
In the end, you can get hung up on the minutia of the definitions (like focusing on the word "rarely" and it's two possible meanings in the opening sentence), or you can develop a consensus for yourself and your table, and for your group of players if there's more of you.
Because in the end, I very much doubt you're going to be able to form any kind of consensus on here other than that yes, "Magic is rarely subtle", whatever that may mean to you.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's a pedantic question, but I do think it's not a good question, necessarily. Where pure game mechanics are concerned (i.e. "if I take 5DV I have to fill in 5 boxes on my condition monitor unless I have equipment X") the rules can be relatively straight forward but edited in such a way that answers can be difficult to find, and those are often more likely to yield good results when asked on here. But questions that are related to the setting (such as "how mystical is the matrix really" or "what happens if I open carry my assault rifle in city X") will almost always yield wildly different responses, so your mileage is going to vary dramatically.
And don't even try to apply RAW to any of this; you'll melt your brain in the attempt :)
-
Which is why I'd pretty much decided it had to be a GM decision call for the game. I just felt Reavers "it's perception" was too simplistic especially in the shadowrun world with cyberware as someone with cybernetic eyes and amplification can see or hear (perceive) things at a far greater distance" than someone who doesn't. Especially as that can lead to situations where person A near the mage gets a check, person B several blocks down the street and round the corner doesn't because they're out of sight/hearing and person C having lunch with person B does get a check because they have cybernetic ears and are in hearing range. Similarly does it have to be direct perception I e. A mages spells or via a video link that provides sight/sound.
As said they may be pedantic but they do come up especially when players have different ideas subtle vs obvious magic and again as said the rules just provide a little fluff but no guidelines on how they should apply. It's a perception check great wonderful do you apply +2 for visual specialisation, hearing specialisation? If you have one when does it apply and when doesn't it? Are we talking about spotting a mage making gestures, a shimmer in the air you can "See" when facing away from the mage, do neither apply because it's a feeling of unnaturalness so you only get base perception? All judgement calls, all potential argument sources, I've been in DnD I've played games with huge debates about facing because you wouldn't be able to "See an attack" and thus lose bonuses, I've had gms who say players don't spot a 15 foot statue because their lowlight vision is ruined by a lightning storm.
My point was really just that in situations like this its not as cut and dried as they were saying not that you would/wouldn't get a check in certain circumstances. For example a blind person getting a check for magic round a corner because they're in "hearing range" ( with penalties) or someone well outside normal perception range viewing via cybereeys. Both situations could cause an argument. Even a mage standing in plain sight of an unaugmented individual and casting calm animal on a yappy dog could cause it if you have someone in the magic is obvious and someone in the it's subtle camps in your game.
If I were playing in your game I'd play by your rules, in his by his, in mine well that's why I make these threads to see what people think if a single clear this is how it works shows up great, if not still great because at least I can see what people think. However I'm now on their ignore list for pointing out that potential for disagreement so one less viewpoint in future threads
For me I just object to the whole non magical beings can sense a mage channeling magic but not other things like a high background count not to the perception check itself. So for me games perception checks are limited to mages, magical beings (shifters for instance) and those who take a 3 karma magic sensitive quality that also covers a chance to notice high background counts with similar rules. However a person with no magical ability or sensitivity won't notice the mage channeling just obvious effects e.g. a fireball. I personally I.e. Not a rule from the books liken it to the matrix without a way to use it (comlink, deck, etc) someone could be standing right next to someone desperately engaged in cyberwarfare and not know it so why does someone with no way to access magic know a mage is doing anything. In both cases the other person can see results e.g. all traffic lights going green and traffic being diverted out of the way or a fireball but not causes.
I'm quite aware this isn't rules as written and maybe not even as intended but I am happy it won't break anything to use as a houserule in my games. On top of which I've gotten some ideas for the magic sensitive metamagic descriptive wise form the information on how spells DID use to carry very visible effects when casting.
-
If Joe SecurityMook can feel an astral entity walk through his aura, it's not unreasonable for a blind character to perceive magic cast close by. They may not be Awakened enough to effectively use assensing (which isn't a visual phenomenon), but they still have a living aura with which to sense magical effects with. One way to think of it mechanically would be as an exception to the "no defaulting" restriction on the Assensing skill. RAW, it would still be Perception but with modifiers.
A GM could reasonably rule that Improved Invisibility wouldn't benefit the caster (Blind Guy can't physically see the light it bends to start with 8)), while Invisibility (mana-based mental illusion) might. Or not. Either way, the casting that blew past Blind Guy's head could register as Something Bad, and if no one reacts appropriately the only thing that could be the cause might be magic (perception being based off Intuition).
However, casting anything right in front of paranoid and/or heavily-armed people looking in your direction could well be hazardous to your health. Try pitting "But it was only a harmless illusion!" vs breaking news: "Dangerous Unlicensed Mage Hexes Motorists, 6 Dead , Many Hurt!"
-
Like I said rules as written you get a check no argument on that point. However when you get to what modifies that check, when it applies and how people are likely to react that goes into judgement call and either you go by what the GM says applies in their game or if they don't have an idea you get potential for an argument.
-
I'm quite aware this isn't rules as written and maybe not even as intended but I am happy it won't break anything to use as a houserule in my games.
That's not even a maybe ;)
It's a valid house rule, though.
-
Thanks like I said I may not have worded it well posting during work while waiting for them to trace wires to me so I can confirm if they match so I was typing a bit then putting the phone down then typing a bit more.
I never intended to argue against the perception check just wanted to point out that just saying that still left a lot of vagueness of when/how it applied.
To use the blind guy again I can see a very valid argument they should not have a penalty at all because it's not a visual perception check but him sensing it with his aura as HobDobson said which isn't restricted by his blindness. So very much a GM call for their game on how the check would work or even if you get it should be playing a houseruled game
-
And I think that's the key; the rules provide a framework, but the GM and players have to cooperate to make that framework into something more. You would be hard pressed to play the game without making GM calls, and I dare say I've made more GM calls than there are rules at least where the setting is concerned.
It's a fair point asking what others think, but some people get a little attached to their opinion and think it should be treated as fact, so that's always a challenge when asking setting-related rules questions.