[Typhus]

This one took me a little off guard, but I think I am reading it right.  I'm used to detection spells like Combat Sense and Clairvoyance being unopposed rolls against a Threshold, but that doesn't seem to be a thing anymore.  Am I reading it correctly that such a spell is now an Opposed test against the target's Body + Willpower?  Its the only rule I see for casting these spells, and the spell effects say 'net hits', so I guess that's the case, but it's just odd to see a voluntary subject spell being an opposed roll.  Doesn't make sense to roll to resist your own beneficial spells.  At least not to me. 

Do I have the right read? 

Can you spend edge to try to reroll to get a /worse/ result?  Reroll your successful dice, since technically those "failed you"?

[Typhus]

Also, for a spell like Detect Enemies, am I also casting that on myself, or should that be opposed by the target(s)? 

[Noble Drake]

Explanation A: a writing error forgot to mention that the text which is present and works for spells like analyze device and analyze magic doesn't apply to the majority of detect spells because they are beneficial touch-range "buffs" that give special senses to the target.

Explanation B: a decision was made to make the potency of detection spells less predictable, and that was delivered in a way that makes the system a little more consistent-seeming mechanically because all detection spells roll against the same dice pool and that happens to resemble dice pools that are rolled against other sorts of spells.

I have no idea which explanation is correct, if either, or even which is more likely - but I know that both work to make the spells in question work, though B will tend to result in significantly shorter range of detection effects than A will.

And you cast Detect Enemies on you (or a friend). Like most detection spells, rolling better on casting the spell just expands the distance at which you detect the thing in question - there's nothing for the enemies to resist because all this spell does is say "someone nearby has hostile intent toward you," and it doesn't even tell you who.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Explanation C: There's a mechanical distinction between Subjects and Targets.  Of note, Combat Sense has a subject, but no explicit target.  And only targets roll Body + Willpower to resist the spell. 

Applying this rationale to all the Detection spells in the CRB:

Analyze Device: has its own resistance called out, so the specific trumps the general rule on Detection spells anyway.
Analyze Magic: Ditto.
Analyze Truth: the Subject is the one getting benefit of the magical lie detector sense (who doesn't have to be the same person as the spellcaster). The targets are the ones speaking potential lies in the vicinity of the Subject.
Clairaudience: the person gaining the extra sensory perception is the subject rather than the target
Clairvoyance: Ditto
Combat Sense: Ditto
Detect Enemies: As Analyze Truth
Detect Life: Ditto (implicitly)
Detect Magic: Ditto (to include the implicit nature of the connection)
Mindlink: has no opposed test (and therefore specific trumps general)
Mind probe: The interrogator is the subject, the mind-rape-ee is the target

[Noble Drake]

Explanation C would be cool... hope some errata makes it so the text in the book supports it.

[Typhus]

I like the idea of C as well.  It may not be official but it works well enough for me to use with a houserule.  I'll probably set a threshold for the Subject, but resist for a Target.  Thanks SSDR!

[Leith]

Explanation C would be cool... hope some errata makes it so the text in the book supports it.

The distinction between subject and target seems pretty clear to me without any additional text.

[Noble Drake]

Explanation C would be cool... hope some errata makes it so the text in the book supports it.

The distinction between subject and target seems pretty clear to me without any additional text.

It's true that the distinction between subject and target is clear - but it's not clear how to resolve one of the spells that has a subject, unless the subject is a target of the spellcasting even though it's not a target of the effect of the spell.

[Xenon]

...but it's not clear how to resolve one of the spells that has a subject, unless the subject is a target of the spellcasting even though it's not a target of the effect of the spell.

Take Analyze Truth for example.
You cast the ability to Analyze Truth on yourself or a subject that you touch (Sorcery + Magic, count the hits).

Targets trying to lie to the subject will oppose the Analyze Truth spell by rolling Body + Willpower.
As long as the spell generated at least 1 net hit the subject of the spell will know it it was a lie or not.


Another example, Detect Enemy.
You cast the ability to Detect Enemy on yourself or a subject that you touch (Sorcery + Magic, count the hits).

Targets having clear hostile intention towards the subject will oppose the Detect Enemy spell by rolling Body + Willpower.
As long as the spell generated at least 1 net hit the subject of the spell will know that there is someone with hostile intentions in the vicinity (but not exactly who, exactly how many or exactly where the threat originates from). With more net hits the subject would get more exact knowledge (see table on SR6 p. 134 for reference).


Seems clear to me...?

[Leith]

Explanation C would be cool... hope some errata makes it so the text in the book supports it.

The distinction between subject and target seems pretty clear to me without any additional text.

It's true that the distinction between subject and target is clear - but it's not clear how to resolve one of the spells that has a subject, unless the subject is a target of the spellcasting even though it's not a target of the effect of the spell.

Yes...ish. I think I see your point. But they all have a subject. You cast a spell on a person, the person gains super perception (that's in the book). How super perception relates to target is covered in each spell but the resistance does not always seem to come into play which makes the blanket rule seem confusing. How the spellcasting roll relates to the subject could also be confusing because the rules don't mention it, but since the rules don't mention it and a relationship between the two isn't necessary it best to assume that there isn't one.

The spell gathers information on a target, the subject receives that information. They could have made things more explicit, I suppose, but it makes perfect sense the way it is written.

[Noble Drake]

Seems clear to me...?

You're assuming things not actually stated by the text though.

First, that when you cast the spell on yourself there is no threshold or opposed dice pool - that is implied by the text not actually mentioning one, but that isn't clearly the thing to do because there are other implications involved (see next point).

Second, that where the text does clearly say "For detection spells, the Sorcery + Magic test is opposed by Body + Willpower..." it isn't meaning the one made to determine if the spell actually happens or not like is normal for spells.

Third, the range of the detection granted by a spell like detect enemies is determined by net hits on the spellcasting test so your interpretation that the target rolls Body + Willpower once they enter the area is definitely wrong because (see next point).

Fourth, that there is any roll at all once the spell is in effect - that's not actually stated. What is stated is that if a detect enemies spell is successfully cast on you, you know if anyone within the sense's range (Magic + Net hits on the spellcasting test in meters) has hostile intentions toward you. Not who, not how many, just a yes/no answer to "is someone nearby hostile towards specifically me."

[Leith]

Seems clear to me...?

You're assuming things not actually stated by the text though.

First, that when you cast the spell on yourself there is no threshold or opposed dice pool - that is implied by the text not actually mentioning one, but that isn't clearly the thing to do because there are other implications involved (see next point).

Second, that where the text does clearly say "For detection spells, the Sorcery + Magic test is opposed by Body + Willpower..." it isn't meaning the one made to determine if the spell actually happens or not like is normal for spells.

Third, the range of the detection granted by a spell like detect enemies is determined by net hits on the spellcasting test so your interpretation that the target rolls Body + Willpower once they enter the area is definitely wrong because (see next point).

Fourth, that there is any roll at all once the spell is in effect - that's not actually stated. What is stated is that if a detect enemies spell is successfully cast on you, you know if anyone within the sense's range (Magic + Net hits on the spellcasting test in meters) has hostile intentions toward you. Not who, not how many, just a yes/no answer to "is someone nearby hostile towards specifically me."

The only problem I see here is "net hits" for range of the sensory buff and that the rules don't bother to tell you how to use any of them.

First problem; the test is actually opposed not simple, there is no threshold.

Second; the use of the definite article would imply that this is the test to see if the spell works or not. But what if there is no target (yet or at all)? Then you roll unopposed. What if a target comes along? Then roll opposition and compare hits to what you already got.

The third and fourth are just true. I don't think it's unclear, mind. Just that the spellcasting net hits getting added to range is straight up wrong. A goof if you will. Cause the rest of it makes sense and this bit don't.
I suppose I would be using the total hits for range rather than net hits until a correction is issued.

[Xenon]

You're assuming things not actually stated by the text though...

If you think I am wrong, then please tell me how you think it should be resolved and we can take the discussion from there ;-)

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Saying net hits, rather than hits, is imo just a bit of future proofing.  Saying net hits means the GM, or future rules, can impose a threshold and the spell still works as intended.

Of course, if there is no threshold then net hits does equate to hits.

This is how I read the rules as is, without need for errata. If the spell has a subject but no target, then there's no opposed roll.

[Michael Chandra]

Same. Future-proofing can feel weird, but it's a perfectly reasonable explanation.