Success or failure with spells, Do you know what happened? Options

[Karoline]

So, fairly simple and straightforward question:
Does a mage know if a spell they've cast is successful or not?

Like, if they cast 'control thoughts' do they know if they actually have control of the person or not before issuing a command?

Or if they cast a combat spell, do they know if the target resisted or not?

And what about if the target can't be affected by the spell, do they realize this? (Like, a jumpy mage tries casting manabolt at a coat rack, do they instantly know that they tried casting at something that isn't alive?)

It seems to be common consensus that a mage knows how many hits they got on a spell (allowing them to recast poor casts of invisibility and similar spells), but do they necessarily know how many hits the opponent got?

[Mooncrow]

So, fairly simple and straightforward question:
Does a mage know if a spell they've cast is successful or not?

Like, if they cast 'control thoughts' do they know if they actually have control of the person or not before issuing a command?

Or if they cast a combat spell, do they know if the target resisted or not?

And what about if the target can't be affected by the spell, do they realize this? (Like, a jumpy mage tries casting manabolt at a coat rack, do they instantly know that they tried casting at something that isn't alive?)

It seems to be common consensus that a mage knows how many hits they got on a spell (allowing them to recast poor casts of invisibility and similar spells), but do they necessarily know how many hits the opponent got?

Well, game mechanically - yes, at least on the combat spells, since after the resistance test, they are allowed to choose how many net hits to apply.

The mental spells are fuzzier, but given the preceding, I would say yes.

[Karoline]

Well, game mechanically - yes, at least on the combat spells, since after the resistance test, they are allowed to choose how many net hits to apply.

That's an optional rule. And even then it could be 'I want to apply up to 3 net hits' with the mage never actually getting to know how many net hits were gotten or actually applied.

[Mooncrow]

That's an optional rule. And even then it could be 'I want to apply up to 3 net hits' with the mage never actually getting to know how many net hits were gotten or actually applied.

No, the choosing the amount of net hits is not optional. The extra drain for them is.

And like I said, I was speaking from a mechanical point of view, but the mechanics do imply a level of knowledge on the mage's part.

[Karoline]

No, the choosing the amount of net hits is not optional. The extra drain for them is.

Is it? I've never seen it mentioned except in conjunction with the optional drain rule. I mean, why would you ever want to use less than your maximum number of net hits? Looked it up in my book, so I don't know about 4a, but 4th says only that you can use less hits than you rolled, not that you can tailor the number of net hits.

Oh, and looking through that part, I finally found the following

Note that a magician can generally tell if her spell was suc-
cessful or not by its results. In some cases, however, the game-
master may determine that the magician has no way to coni rm
the success of her spellcasting. In this case, the gamemaster can
make a secret Intuition + Spellcasting Test for the character
against an appropriate threshold to see how well the character
can gauge the spell’s success.

So, if a spell doesn't have visible results, then the mage can't tell if it was successful or not necessarily. I could see control thoughts allowing the test to see if the target suddenly changes their behavior as the spell overcomes them.

This also seems to mean that a mage wouldn't necessarily know if a spell failed because it was resisted, or because they were targeting a decoy coat rack instead of an actual person.

[Mooncrow]

Heh, I was coming back to quote that exact section^^

On the first part, here is what 4A says in the Combat Spells section:

After the Spellcasting is resisted the caster chooses whether or not to apply any net hits to increase the damage value of the spell as normal.

[jimbo]

It just seems to make sense to me that a mage would know whether their spell works.

As far as mechanics, we play at a table of 8 players and 1 GM. We try to do as much math aboveboard as possible to speed things along and as error free as possible. Typical example:

Player: I got 5 hits on an F6 Stunbolt...I won't be spending Edge.

GM: I rolled 2 hits, so he takes 9 Stun.

Onward and upward.

[Karoline]

It just seems to make sense to me that a mage would know whether their spell works.

As far as mechanics, we play at a table of 8 players and 1 GM. We try to do as much math aboveboard as possible to speed things along and as error free as possible. Typical example:

Player: I got 5 hits on an F6 Stunbolt...I won't be spending Edge.

GM: I rolled 2 hits, so he takes 9 Stun.

Onward and upward.

Oh, I agree, 95%, maybe 99% of the time that's all well and good, but I have something special coming up, and so no getting to be above board like that. Mechanics doesn't necessarily equate to IC knowledge.

[Mooncrow]

Oh, I agree, 95%, maybe 99% of the time that's all well and good, but I have something special coming up, and so no getting to be above board like that. Mechanics doesn't necessarily equate to IC knowledge.

Well, the wording of the text is that the "caster" gets to choose, technically. That would imply that it's the character making the choice. That's not super-solid evidence, but I haven't found anything else that's says one way or the other.

[Neurosis]

I lean towards the "yes, you obviously know if you succeeded or failed, it is obvious" camp.

[Yerameyahu]

Even if it's not, Karoline quoted what's apparently a reflexive caster roll to gauge success. I have no idea what 'an appropriate Threshold' is, but the fact that the test exist implies that the functioning of magic entails some kind of intuitive awareness. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Karoline]

Even if it's not, Karoline quoted what's apparently a reflexive caster roll to gauge success. I have no idea what 'an appropriate Threshold' is, but the fact that the test exist implies that the functioning of magic entails some kind of intuitive awareness. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yeah, appropriate threshold is quite vague. I'm sure that a person dropping to the ground, clutching their head as their blood pours from nose, mouth, and eyes shouting "Oh God! I hurts!" is likely a low threshold. Noticing that someone is now under the effects of 'control thought' is likely rather difficult (until you issue an order of course).

[Yerameyahu]

I just mean that it's magic, so there's a mystic awareness. Perfectly reasonable.

[Karoline]

I just mean that it's magic, so there's a mystic awareness. Perfectly reasonable.

Very true, but the mystic awareness is less needed in the first case, and more needed in the later case. Thus the difference in threshold (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Heh, possibly. I'm not sure if the threshold should change based on how much you *need* it. It depends on what we're talking about: if the Intuition+Spellcasting roll is overall awareness (including noticing the hole in his chest) of success, then it's certainly easier with obvious sensory cues.

If, however, that roll refers only to a mystic awareness of how well you cast the spell (possibly with some equally mystic feedback about their resistance), then the threshold should be based on other factors altogether.

[Karoline]

Heh, possibly. I'm not sure if the threshold should change based on how much you *need* it. It depends on what we're talking about: if the Intuition+Spellcasting roll is overall awareness (including noticing the hole in his chest) of success, then it's certainly easier with obvious sensory cues.

If, however, that roll refers only to a mystic awareness of how well you cast the spell (possibly with some equally mystic feedback about their resistance), then the threshold should be based on other factors altogether.

Very true, but if it was the later, I figure they would be able to give a better idea of the threshold than 'pick a number'. Doesn't meant that they didn't intend it to be the latter one, they just didn't indicate it very well (aside from the fact that it is magic+intuition test)

[Yerameyahu]

Mhm. My reasoning is this: if you make a good shot with a gun (or a soccer ball, or a golf club, or a pole vault), you know it. You have some kind of awareness of your performance, even if this doesn't include what happens after the bullet leaves the gun. I can only assume that magic should be *better* than that, cuz it's magic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) By the fluff, a fleeting mystic connection is made.

Totally opinion, but that's what makes sense to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Karoline]

Mhm. My reasoning is this: if you make a good shot with a gun (or a soccer ball, or a golf club, or a pole vault), you know it. You have some kind of awareness of your performance, even if this doesn't include what happens after the bullet leaves the gun. I can only assume that magic should be *better* than that, cuz it's magic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) By the fluff, a fleeting mystic connection is made.

Totally opinion, but that's what makes sense to me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Oh yeah, I figure that a mage has an IC idea of how many 'hits' s/he got, but not so much how many 'net hits'.

I do agree, the test likely represents the mystical 'feeling' that the mage may get, and I figure that the more they have to rely on that feeling (ie. the less physical evidence they have to go on) the higher the threshold. Otherwise it would just be a set threshold. Well, perhaps modified by BC, but likely not much else.

[jimbo]

I'm sure that a person dropping to the ground, clutching their head as their blood pours from nose, mouth, and eyes shouting "Oh God! It hurts!" .

Faker! Faker!

[Yerameyahu]

Damn FIFA players. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)