I did have two ideas muddled up in there, but yes, that's pretty much what the second idea was (it was just spawned due to the fact that under the half-magic formula, it was possible to get negative threshold modifiers very easy).

The only error I see is that Mag 6 F10 should be a +6 mod, as Mag 6 F5 and Mag 6 F4 would both come out to being 1 threshold and +0 mod. You have to account for 0.

I mean, I don't mind, it was just different than I had originally thought out.

However, your normal joe/jane on the streets probably only has intuition 2 and perception 1, if even. Then you figure most people are preoccupied in the matrix via AR. Can a threshold even go below 1? I personally don't believe in auto success. Even at F10, using normal rules, they still need to make at least 1 hit.

sure it can. what's the threshold to perceive a person standing 3 feet away from you with a huge neon sign, music blaring, jumping around and shouting against a completely dark backdrop?

(there isn't one. you don't actually make a perception test in this case. it's simply so obvious you don't actually check if you see it)

Give them 5 bonus dice and they can trade 8 dice for 2 hits and succeed at seeing the Magic 6 mage casting the Force 10 spell.

Following that we can even put the mage inside the protection of Concealment (via spirit power) at Force 4, and the mundane still notices the spell. He might not see the caster, but he looked up when that spell was slung.

I think something is being over looked. The question isn't "how do you notice magic." The question is "how do you notice direct mana spells?"

Obviously it is easy to notice a magician casting any indirect physical spell like flamethrower, you know what with the huge torrent of flame flying out of their hand. Illusion spells are obvious, assuming you notice it is an illusion.

For spells like mind-control and control thought, as soon as the magician stops sustaining the target knows they were being controlled.

So how do you notice if a magician casted a spell like Stunbolt or Manabolt? Well if they casted it on you, you know. You can fill your "soul" burning for manabolt and stunbolt probably feels like you got drugged.

So what it REALLY comes down to, is can you detect a direct mana spell cast on someone else? And the answer is no. You can't tell if a magician is burning your friend's soul.

Whether you notice who cast it is all about the perception test of seeing someone concentrating on spell casting, which is mentioned in the book 6-Force of the spell.

If you want to make house rules that is fine. Maybe high powered stunbolts and manabolts create a ghostly wind as they pass by, or your hairs stand on end. The best way I would do it, is that the mana of the spells disrupts the astral plane, then you could easily just use the rules for mundanes detecting astral forms passing through their aura, and give bonuses or penalties based on the force of the spell.

So you don't agree with the "fairy dust" that 4A describes?

4a says "the gathered mana normally appearing as a disturbance or glowing aura." The glowing aura isn't anything more crazy than the aura mentioned when a powerful spirit possesses someone or thing. Other disturbances, well that could be like I mentioned, otherworldly glow, maybe heat-wave like light distortion around the caster.

I am sorry if I missed the post where the topic changed from "how do you notice magic" to "what is a good house rule for noticing magic," I just see you guys putting a lot of effort into coming up with rules, when the rule is in the book, and the mechanics of it are explained.

Well, first, this is DumpShock; Never expect the thread to stay on-topic for long.

Second, the Rule As Written is about as clear-cut as any in the game, moreso than about 90% of them. There's nothing to discuss. What we're discussing is how this current rule (and the new fluff text that accompanies it in SR4A) differ significantly from previous editions over twenty years. Most of us liked the older systems and the twenty years of fluff that supported them better than this attempt to turn Shadowrun in to a Pen and Paper MMORPG complete with pretty shiny lights that turn a mage into as much a prime target as a T-80 with four antennas (command tank). Mages when singled out that way "can't repel firepower of that magnitude" and wind up as messy stains in the carpet. The old rules gave the other people a chance to notice them, with the magnitude of the chance depending on the relative strength of the spell being cast. That gave mages a chance in a firefight, but didn't make them invulnerable. This new system (and fluff *hurk*) is like pointing a spotlight at the mage with a holo-sign over their head saying "Geek me first!" with a big holographic arrow pointing down.

There are plenty of ways to figure out who the mage is in a firefight; It's usually the joker looking intently at people but not shooting. But that takes a little time to figure out. The best a mage can hope for now in a shoot-out against opponents with half a clue and minimal training in situational awareness (Perception) is to go first in the round against heavily enhanced opponents, get off their spell and duck behind cover.

That's why and how the discussion diverged from the OP.

I wonder if I can get a spell that overwhelms a character's sense of taste. "Your tongue can't repel flavor of this magnitude!"

Yes, but it only works on the taste of Callimari.

i'm pretty sure you're not allowed to post that kind of thing without a link of some sort...

edit: blast... it doesn't like that... hmmm...

ok, that should do it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Of course, any combat mage worth his salt can handle an Ares Predator just fine, and does so rather than risk drain when it's unnecessary. Thus, the perception test can be handled as noticing that he's not aiming the predator between shots, just pointing it at people as they fall down. This would be raw Perception, not visual, since it's interpreting behavior rather than noticing a visual detail.

I would say it's still visual because you're relying on sight more than anything else, and if you're blind you're out of luck. But that was exactly how it used to be interpreted. Essentially the effort involved in slinging your maximum amount of mojo meant you had a harder time bluffing. That's why most of us seem to take extreme exception to the "pixie dust" or "mana shimmer" motif that's crept into the fluff in the most recent book.

As I understand it, there was some internal friction over the whole magic interpretation and conceptualization so we may see some rec-conning coming on that text.