IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Do people know when they are the target of a spell, Where does it mention this?
Mardegun
post Mar 5 2004, 05:34 PM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Madison, Wi
Member No.: 521



Did I miss this or do the books not mention this at all. There is section where it says the chances of noticing magic, but there isn't anything about noticing magic against a person.

I think you could safely say that any awaken person knows when a spell is cast on them, but what about a mundane? Does it matter if a spell works or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jason Farlander
post Mar 5 2004, 06:58 PM
Post #2


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,049
Joined: 24-March 03
Member No.: 4,323



An awakened person will only know that he or she is the target of a spell if he or she has spell defense allocated - but even in that case the target does not know what sort of spell is being cast.

Mundanes don't know when they are being targeted with spells except in the cast of ritual sorcery, and even then they might simply ignore the warning, not knowing what it means. Mundanes and the Awakened in most cases will realize they are being affected by a spells (it's pretty obvious when you're suddenly writhing on the ground in pain, be it real (manabolt) or illusory (agony), that youve been affected by *something.* Same thing goes for transformation manips (hmm... i didnt think i *used* to be a penguin) and telekinetic manips (why, exactly, am I floating now?)

In some cases (notably most control manips and detection spells) the target probably wont have any indication that he or she has been affected by a spell. Some people rule that spells like control thoughts and mindprobe are obvious to the person affected, but there are no SR3-canon rules to substantiate that.

Resistance to spells is an automatic, subconscious act, and does not require the target's awareness of the spell to work
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rev
post Mar 5 2004, 07:05 PM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 675
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Seattle
Member No.: 2,034



So do you think that indirect illusions are immune to spell defense, or do you think that indirect illusions automatically fail against anyone with spell defense?

If i walk, invisibly, past a person with spell defense up do they get to roll thier spell defense to see me?

If they fail do they know they resisted anything, thus immediately astrally perceiving and defeating the spell?

Really I think that this should be listed for each spell. Sure for a lot of them it is obvious, the target should know about all combat spells, but for others it is not. Is mindprobe undetectable (and thus far far too powerfull) or agonizing (and thus much more balanced)? If I cast invisibility or mask on some random person crossing the street do they know something is wrong before the bus hits them, or thier friend shoots them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spotlite
post Mar 5 2004, 07:17 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 611
Joined: 21-October 03
From: Yorkshire Toxic Zone
Member No.: 5,752



Given that someone has to choose to use their allocated spell defense, or choose not to against a particular spell, I think there has to be an element of knowledge in there to use it. So I'd say if they knew someone was about and couldn't see them and for some reason couldn't astrally perceive, you could choose to use your spell defense to resist it. But if the mage is otherwise oblivious to your presence, I'd say they don't get it. They can't see you. Unless you make a noise, smell, or he spots you in astral space how are they going to know they need to use the spell defense they have up? Shielding, on the other hand, I'd say would count automatically. I'm not sure what ramifications this has to ambush situations and things like manabolt, but with invisibility or other not-apparent illusions, I reckon that's fair.

If they haven't actually used their spell defense for this reason, then they definately don't know they've resisted something. If they did use it though, I'd say they know they've resisted something, though they certainly don't know what (unless they resisted the illusion, in which case they see through it and would obviously know immediately).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sphynx
post Mar 5 2004, 07:24 PM
Post #5


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 11-October 02
From: Netherlands and Belgium
Member No.: 3,437



No, there's no way to know you're a target of a spell unless you're awaken or the spell has an obvious effect on you (like Fireball :P)

I feel Indirect Illusions ARE immune to Spell Defense.

In the Invisible Person scenario, they wouldn't know something was wrong until people started bumping into them (or a bus hit them). This is an opinion though, not necessarily canon as I don't think there is a Canon answer there, more of a, use your own sense of judgement.

Sphynx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jason Farlander
post Mar 5 2004, 07:25 PM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,049
Joined: 24-March 03
Member No.: 4,323



QUOTE (Rev)
If i walk, invisibly, past a person with spell defense up do they get to roll thier spell defense to see me?

If they fail do they know they resisted anything, thus immediately astrally perceiving and defeating the spell?

I would say "yes" on the first account. Furthermore, if someone has shielding up, the original dice roll has to beat out that person's shielding to affect that person at all. Remember, the best counter to magic is magic, and I see no reason to make indirect illusions more powerful than any other class of spell by disallowing the use of spell defense against them.

In the second account, no -- reasonably, they should not know whether the spell defense was successful. They might even assume it was in the case that it wasn't, based on the fact that nothing seemed to happen. Remember, spell defense doesnt give you any ability to determine the nature of the spell being cast.

Whether or not Mindprobe is "balanced" by canon rules is up for individual GMs to decide. I don't have any problems with people houseruling aspects of the game they don't like, but lets be clear on this - making mindprobe obvious is a houserule.

QUOTE
If I cast invisibility or mask on some random person crossing the street do they know something is wrong before the bus hits them, or thier friend shoots them?


If they fail to resist the spell, they will probably notice that they are invisible, as the spell would work against their vision as well. If they successfully resist the spell, they probably wont have a clue whats going on until the bus driver that failed to resist the spell hits them (though they would certainly have a chance to get out of the way of the bus).

As a note, I find that Shadowrunners can pretty easily kill random *normal* people without too much trouble by any number of methods... I don't see any particular reason to disallow a rather creative method such as the one you describe. Hell, you could even allocate spell defense to him to make sure he successfully resists the spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Mar 5 2004, 11:38 PM
Post #7


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



Invisiblity can only be cast on a willing subject. The target of Invisibility is the bus driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Herald of Verjig...
post Mar 5 2004, 11:50 PM
Post #8


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,066
Joined: 5-February 03
Member No.: 4,017



I don't see any line about invisibility requiring a willing subject in the SR3 illusion pages. Do you have any page reference to support that part of your statement?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Mar 5 2004, 11:51 PM
Post #9


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



Yes. It is in there, it may be under invisibility specifically, or under the rules for indirect illusions. I'll search the old forum for a line. If I don't find it, I'll look it up in the books when I get home.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jason Farlander
post Mar 6 2004, 02:11 AM
Post #10


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,049
Joined: 24-March 03
Member No.: 4,323



Having read through the "Illusion Spells" and "Indirect Illusion Spells" sections as well as the Invisibility spell description and the spell design section in MITS, I have not found anything stating that the subject of an Invisibility spell must be voluntary. The only mention of any illusion requiring a voluntary target that I've found is the Entertainment spell.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Xirces
post Mar 6 2004, 09:52 AM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 10-February 03
From: Leeds, UK
Member No.: 4,046



Mindprobe specifically is noticable - the opening story of SR2 (Plus ca Change?) makes that perfectly clear.

With any other I'd apply common sense (tough, I know). If there is an effect on the character that they would notice (pain, damage, slowness whatever) then of course they know they have been targeted by a spell.

From the top of my head I can't think of a spell (apart from mind probe) that would be completely unnoticed by a target. The invisibility question is, I think, a red-herring - the spell does not make a subject invisible it merely causes others not to notice them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mardegun
post Mar 6 2004, 04:28 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Madison, Wi
Member No.: 521



Here is a question:

Why wouldn't invisibility, not improved invisibility fool dual beings too? After all the spell fools the mind of the person, while improved invisibility actaully creates a physical illusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kyuuketsuki
post Mar 6 2004, 05:13 PM
Post #13


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,697



What do people think about mood affecting spells? The person may notice a change in their emotional state, but would they have any clue it is magical in nature or just a random mood swing. Same goes for suggestion. If this spell were noticed the spell itself would be completely ineffectual.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Mar 6 2004, 05:28 PM
Post #14


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



QUOTE
The invisibility question is, I think, a red-herring - the spell does not make a subject invisible it merely causes others not to notice them.
That cannot be true. it can work on cameras and a camera cannot "ignore" someone. Furthermore the spell description you listed is a completely different spell, named "Disregard".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 6 2004, 09:23 PM
Post #15


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (Mardegun)
Here is a question:

Why wouldn't invisibility, not improved invisibility fool dual beings too? After all the spell fools the mind of the person, while improved invisibility actaully creates a physical illusion.

Because astral perception isn't sight. If what you were stating were true, Invisibility would also work against noise and scent coming from the invisible person.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Mar 7 2004, 12:09 AM
Post #16


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



the discussion on how invisibility work in sr is a ongoing one and i guess it can only be solved by the real world haveing an awakening and some wizards and physics professors setting up a lab experiment it find the spells limits...

as for useing spell defence agaisnt indirect illusions, sorry but the very name says why that cant happen. spell defence only happens when someone coverd by it is the direct target of a spell. a indirect illusion by its very definision targets whatever its hideing or masking, not the onlookers.

and detecting a spell being used? use the rules in sr3, page 162. there you will find some nice info on noticing magic :) if your a target and not looking at the person its mutch like not looking at someone pulling a gun. you dont know before you hear the boom and feel the pain...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fortune
post Mar 7 2004, 12:42 AM
Post #17


Immoral Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,247
Joined: 29-March 02
From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat
Member No.: 2,486



QUOTE (hobgoblin)
as for useing spell defence agaisnt indirect illusions, sorry but the very name says why that cant happen. spell defence only happens when someone coverd by it is the direct target of a spell. a indirect illusion by its very definision targets whatever its hideing or masking, not the onlookers.

Actually, I believe the Subject is the person who is made invisible. The Target(s) are anyone viewing the subject of the spell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Mar 7 2004, 12:57 AM
Post #18


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



grr, did i get the terms wrong again? i hate that!if that is true then maybe you can use spell defence and higher against indirect illusions. hell even if you elect not to you still get a indication that there is magic at work in your area...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BitBasher
post Mar 7 2004, 07:11 AM
Post #19


Traumatizing players since 1992
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,282
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Las Vegas, NV
Member No.: 220



QUOTE
and detecting a spell being used? use the rules in sr3, page 162. there you will find some nice info on noticing magic  if your a target and not looking at the person its mutch like not looking at someone pulling a gun. you dont know before you hear the boom and feel the pain...
That's pretty much contradicted by the fact you can choose to use spell pool to defend against said spell, even if you dont visually notice the person casting it.

Furthermore, pg 162 deals with seeing someone cast a spell, not detecting if a spell is cast on you. Two entirely different things for the purpose of this conversation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
L.D
post Mar 7 2004, 02:01 PM
Post #20


Harlequin
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 331
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 861



In SR2 mindprobe was VERY obvious to the target.

Edit: If I had read all the posts I would have seen that Xirces already brought this up. :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 7 2004, 02:07 PM
Post #21


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



With the exception of the rules for noticing magic already in place, I play any magic that isn't innately detectable as completely undetectable. This can even go as far as Stunbolts or even Manabolts, in some cases. I allow spell defense by allowing people to "actively resist the gathering of magical energies" around a protected target, but the protecting mage would not get to know the nature of the spell.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheScamp
post Mar 7 2004, 03:30 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 400
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 825



QUOTE
I allow spell defense by allowing people to "actively resist the gathering of magical energies" around a protected target, but the protecting mage would not get to know the nature of the spell.

Which is exactly how it's described in the "Spell Defense" section of the rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkest Angel
post Mar 7 2004, 03:49 PM
Post #23


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Manchester, England
Member No.: 1,062



QUOTE (L.D)
In SR2 mindprobe was VERY obvious to the target.

In SR2 you could ground spells through foci and dual natured critters...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
L.D
post Mar 7 2004, 04:16 PM
Post #24


Harlequin
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 331
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 861



QUOTE (Darkest Angel)
QUOTE (L.D @ Mar 7 2004, 03:01 PM)
In SR2 mindprobe was VERY obvious to the target.

In SR2 you could ground spells through foci and dual natured critters...

And you couldn't move astrally through earth, I know.

But the thing is that in SR2 it never was stated in the rules that the target knew he was being mindprobed. That knowledge came from the introduction story in BBB2. If you look at the current BBB there is nothing in the rules stating that the target knows/doesn't know. Since nothing has been said in the book that changes how things where in SR2, then it should still be the same.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th April 2024 - 07:21 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.