Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Detecting Magic and Intrusion of Mind Probe

Posted by: gh0st.walk3r May 3 2006, 02:59 PM

So, last sunday my group went mental and started attacking each other with magic for one reason or another.

First scenario: One of the team was doing a bit of a back-hander with his contact for a copy of the data we got from a data-steal (rival corp). Another member of the group decided that he was being "a bit shifty" and, knowing how notorious the character is, wanted to know what was going on... So he used mind probe on him.

Second Scenario: During a run, our adept ascensed a massive dual-natured object which filled him with rage, made him believe one of the other runners was a hostile and sparked off his combat monster. He attacked the "hostile". In order to save each other from the fight (that's what he said anyway) and cast control actions on the angry dude. Now, the subject of the spell passed a perception test to notice the spell at work.

My questions are this:

Is mind probe intrusive? in that does the subject of the spell know that its happening? (I read it happening somewhere, but it was a story so i'm not so clued up on the rules)

When successfully detecting magic that is being cast on you, are you aware of who is casting it on you? Kind of like following the mana trail back to the caster?

Cheers Peeps

Posted by: nezumi May 3 2006, 03:11 PM

Yes, Mind Probe is very invasive. I *BELIEVE* this was listed in one of the older edition books (1 or 2), and it appeared in one of the novels (Tails, You Lose, I believe). But just from a game balance standpoint, there is no way you can really run a game WITHOUT it being invasive. As a general rule, that sort of spell will be invasive. Control actions should also be invasive, unless the spell is cast but not used (and even then...) No perception roll would be necessary to realize your body is standing stock still.

No, realizing you're being cast upon does not help you determine where the caster is (unless you have astral vision, of course). However, if you have astral vision, you can recognize the signature of the spell and match it up to the caster relatively easily (I don't recollect them listing a specific time, but in less than an hour, no question, and likely within minutes or less).

Posted by: jklst14 May 3 2006, 03:11 PM

In SR4, the spell description says a Mind Probe is obvious although the source of hte probing may not be.

The SR3 spell description doesn't say either way.

If I recall correctly (don't have my SR2 book on hand), Neddy uses a Mind Probe on Sidewinder in the story at the front of the SR2 main rulebook and she describes it as not only obvious but traumatic. I believe her exact words were "mind rape."

Hope that helps.

JKL

Posted by: WyldKarde May 3 2006, 04:49 PM

The GM for my SR3 shaman has a very firm ruling in place that the Mind Probe spell is physically extremely painful for the subject. No lasting damage, but they'll definitely know something's going on at the time. It's proven a very effective balancing mechanism, so far I've only used the spell on voluntary subjects to help recover missing portions of their memories. I would've used it to interrogate some street rat who was tailing our Johnson in our last session, but the poor little slot was so terrified at having been caught that he spilled his guts in order to avoid having them spilled for him.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 07:40 PM

Mindprobe is not remotely obvious, no more than any other spell is (which I guess is pretty obvious, but it isn't painful or distinctly obvious or whatever).

However, it is touch-range. See MitS, page 53. For this reason I believe it reasonable to consider direct physical contact a shooting offense in the Shadows.

~J

Posted by: hyzmarca May 3 2006, 08:33 PM

It is touch range to the subject. Like many other detection speels, Mindprobe creates a sense in a subject rather than being directly cast at the target. The wording in MitS suggets that the magician must choose a specific target at the time of casting and may be required to have LOS to the target at the time of casting but there is no need to touch the target, only the subject.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid May 3 2006, 08:49 PM

This spell creates havoc when used by a munchkin mage.

One ploy that was used in the end of my last campaign was to render the target unconscious first & then mush around in his or her mind. I have as issue with this considering that the target is unconscious and therefore not in a state to have much of anything on the mind at the time except "duh?".

I have also been considering a house rule that the mage must be in direct physical contact (like the old Vulcan Mind Meld) with the target in order to cast mind probe. Oh and yes, the target (if they aren't offed afterwards) will most definitely remember the experience. The term "Mind Rape" is very apt.

Posted by: Kanada Ten May 3 2006, 08:57 PM

QUOTE

When successfully detecting magic that is being cast on you, are you aware of who is casting it on you? Kind of like following the mana trail back to the caster?

Considering that the Shamanic Mask makes it easier to notice spellcasting, I would say that it is likely you notice the source of the casting - providing that it is possible for you to do so. Only in rare or cleverly contrived situations will you notice on the spell and not the caster, IMO (blindfolded, asleep, and so on).

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 3 2006, 09:18 PM

I say, why not use the rules as written? Specifically, the whole rolling mechanic is intended to indicate one success as a base, while more successes indicate a higher quality of success—I see no reason why a single success should reveal the caster, nor why five should not. Where on that spectrum you place the tipping point is your judgement. If I was going to do it it would probably be:

1 success: "Something happened."
2: "A spell was just cast.
3: "A spell was cast. It came from that general area."
4: "A spell was cast. That person probably cast it, or one of the people standing right next to him or her"
5+: "That person cast a spell."

Hyzmarca: you're absolutely right, I hadn't read it like that previously. I submit then the touch-range modification as my contribution to the houserules

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 3 2006, 09:28 PM

There's already rules in place for knowing whether the people around you notice spellcasting.

Posted by: Calvin Hobbes May 3 2006, 09:59 PM

First Run states that the Johnson in Supernova is *aware* of what Mindprobe looks like, and can detect it being used if it's cast, as per the normal SR rules of detecting magic being cast. This implies that the average joe on the street could tell you're casting magic, but without the magic background knowledge skill in some form or another, you can't tell it's specifically mindprobe.

Posted by: eidolon May 4 2006, 07:07 AM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

Mindprobe is not remotely obvious, no more than any other spell is (which I guess is pretty obvious, but it isn't painful or distinctly obvious or whatever).

Brainscan directly contradicts this. "(guy's name) will be instantly aware...will tell them to stop". Also, there are tens of shadowland posts throughout the books that talk about it being a "rape", and not all of them can be taken to mean "if you find out it was done". I also have a hard time squaring the fluff regarding the personality and mental degradation of mages that abuse the spell, with the idea that it's some kind of harmless "let's see what we have here". There's plenty of evidence that Mind Probe is obvious if you aren't looking to deliberately not see it.

Not to mention that (to me) ignoring the possible effects (mental, psychological, etc) of having a direct mental connection to another human being just so that players can use Mind Probe as a crutch takes some of the fun out of the game.

I don't mean to sound "nyah nyah". It's just that I had this very argument with one of my players recently. Of course, do what you will, it's your game.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 4 2006, 02:11 PM

You're absolutely right, the writers do frequently have no idea what they're talking about. That said, the rules offer no way other than the standard Perception test to identify a mindprobe occurring.

~J

Posted by: eidolon May 5 2006, 03:47 AM

Your game, your ruling.

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 03:53 AM

I tend to go with the writers when I have a question. If there is lots of fluff, especially fluff in the main book and a module designed to teach the game, I tend to side with it. That's just me though, you're obviously free to do whatever feels right for you.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 5 2006, 05:25 AM

I tend to side with the rules. It's what they're there for, after all.

~J

Posted by: mfb May 5 2006, 05:28 AM

whoah! using the rules with no interpretation? that's illegal, isn't it?

Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 5 2006, 06:41 AM

Only in SR4

Posted by: eidolon May 5 2006, 07:52 AM

Kage: What do you do when something either flat out isn't addressed in the rules, or when the rules are extremely vague on something? Draw straws?

Posted by: Kremlin KOA May 5 2006, 08:27 AM

We go with the decision of the guy who bought the GM's lunch

j/k

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 5 2006, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (eidolon)

Kage: What do you do when something either flat out isn't addressed in the rules, or when the rules are extremely vague on something? Draw straws?

Interpret according to rules, fluff, and balance. That said, neither of the cases you mention are present with regard to Mindprobe.

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 06:27 PM

Right, that situation doesn't exist because the fluff is very explicit about whethere mind probe is noticable or not. You're free of course to ignore it if it works for you.

Posted by: Kagetenshi May 5 2006, 06:38 PM

See, you've demonstrated your ability to string two words together, so I'm not going to buy it when you try to convince me that you don't know the difference between "fluff" and "rules".

~J

Posted by: James McMurray May 5 2006, 06:54 PM

Yep, I do know the difference between fluff and rules. Rules tell you the mechanics for how the world works. Fluff tells you how the world works without regard to which dice are rolled when.

Posted by: Bodak May 6 2006, 05:06 AM

QUOTE (Kyoto Kid)

One ploy that was used in the end of my last campaign was to render the target unconscious first & then mush around in his or her mind. I have as issue with this considering that the target is unconscious and therefore not in a state to have much of anything on the mind at the time except "duh?".

Their solution to this will likely be to beat him unconscious with stun; then cast Reduce Attribute Willpower on him (MitS p56 says unconscious targets are considered Voluntary for Health spells so he won't resist any of their successes). If they have a stimpatch and are in a hurry they might whack it on him or otherwise they'll wait for him to come round. Then they can cast MindProbe against his Willpower 1 (or whatever he has left) and probe all they like. He has huge penalties to anything he wants to try.

To protect the NPC/information from players doing this, I'd make the target semimundo. He has all his Sorcery set to Spell Defence on himself. Maybe he manages to quench the MindProbe and their spell fails, but more importantly, as soon as he tries he has to resist Drain... with 9 boxes of stun and 1 Willpower... and so falls unconscious immediately.

If they are a team of sicko's their next tactic will be to mummify him in stimpatches so he gets magical burnout (cheaper and faster than installing headware radios). But at that point I'd say he dies from an overdose heart attack and that would be that.