[Herr Brackhaus]

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.

[Krent]

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 

[Reaver]

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.

[Herr Brackhaus]

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 

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.

[Krent]

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."

[Reaver]

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.

[Senko]

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.

[Reaver]

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. 

[Kincaid]

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.

[Herr Brackhaus]

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

[Senko]

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.

[HobDobson]

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  ), 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!" 

[Senko]

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.

[Herr Brackhaus]

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.

[Senko]

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