Detecting Magic and Intrusion of Mind Probe Options

[gh0st.walk3r]

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

[nezumi]

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).

[jklst14]

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

[WyldKarde]

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. :D

[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).

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

[hyzmarca]

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.

[Kyoto Kid]

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.

[Kanada Ten]

[Kagetenshi]

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

[James McMurray]

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

[Calvin Hobbes]

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.

[eidolon]

[Kagetenshi]

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

[eidolon]

Your game, your ruling.

[James McMurray]

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.

[Kagetenshi]

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

~J

[mfb]

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

[Kremlin KOA]

Only in SR4

[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?

[Kremlin KOA]

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

j/k

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Kagetenshi]

[James McMurray]

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.

[Kagetenshi]

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

[James McMurray]

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.

[Bodak]