Just pinging you... anything from TPTB on this question?

Best,
Chazuli

Yes.. you can miss a scream 10m away in a 'hectic' situation. This is EXACTLY what a rave is. Also did the guy even scream? It's quite possible he never did, not every single person who gets shot screams, if the shot was instantly fatal no scream, the pain could haev also come up somewhat gradually before even he quite realized what had happened and by then he was possibly dead.

Raves are loud. VERY loud, loud enough that I can quite easily see even an unsilenced gunshot being missed. There is a MASSIVE press of bodies at any remotely decent rave. There is booze, there is drug use, there's usually alot of strobe and robolights, and it's otherwise reasonably dark save maybe for some added blacklights etc.

Also even though it probably wasnt but just to make the point abit more obvious about hwo something like this could happen, if there's alot of louse base or other noise you can mask a shot partially with that noise. A trained shooter could easily time their shots with the source of the noise, be it the sound of shelling on a battlefield, or the heavy and very loud thumb of base etc at a rave.

In either case, under the SR system this is automatically a call for a perception test simply because you are in a 'hectic situation'. I'd definately throw in a bunch of added negatives due to the fact that the crowd dancing and screaming alone would be hectic enough, but tehn you've got all the flashing lights, the semi dark, and very loud music etc.

Nope, no reply as of yet.

Hopefully, that means that they are giving it serious thought, and not that it has gotten lost or assigned to someone who is on a long vacation.


Sorry for the delay in responding. New born in the house, so my free time has drastically shrunk.

Ok.. so I treat it as the same as a chameleon suit. I'm still confronted with the same problem: does a modifier to perception tests modify targeting? Logic would indicate that it should, since visibility modifiers which modify Perception tests, do in fact modify targeting (spell and guns, btw). But there's nothing explicitly stated in the rules to indicate either way. So which how should it be handled?

Best,
Charles Millar

He's providing them with complete darkness versus Perception and simultaneously sending up a giant flare on the astral saying "Hey, over here." It's a mixed bag.

Exactly the way Torturi says.

Now, the key phrase there IMO is that it subtracts dice from Perception tests to locate the subject of the power. I see nothing that indicates the power does anything once a target is located. By definition, a target must be located to target it with an attack.

I think that in my game, once located, the power ceases to function, unless the subject somehow manages to hide. My reasoning is this: the power as written can't be defeated by alternate senses, since unlike Invisibility it works on all senses. The only way to defeat it is to make a successful perception test. You can still target an invisible character if you manage to figure roughly where he/she is with an alternate sense, albeit at a -6 penalty. With concealment, there is no recourse, you just have to take the penalty, no recourse, just suck it up. I think applying a targeting penalty with Concealment is unwise, since the power is potent enough as it is, and made more powerful it might break the game.

Thoughts?

~Chazuli[B][U]

The actual wording of this makes it very clear that it only applies to "Perception Tests to locate the concealed subject." I can never understand why people insist on trying to make modifiers continue beyond that point. The only possible combat modifier I can see this power causing to be brought to bear if I pop off a few rounds at someone is "Target Concealed," and I think that's just a semantics issue.

I think some ways it's just the SR4 way of trying to bring back SR3's R12 Twinkinium camo (Afterall it takes 3 successes to fully notice something if I recall for SR3, though only one is noticed to sort of grab your attention)

I think it's this particular line that people get that sort of idea from. Not noticing the fact that is says 'something' not 'someone' who people are actively looking for. Also not taking into account the fact that if you've allready noticed that something/someone and can see them, your no longer searching for them. But even with ruthsuits, once noticed, you were/are noticed.

I'd not say that once the Concealment is defeated, it stays that way. I'd require a Perception check every turn to locate the character until such time that the situation is not "hectic", but once the character is located for the turn, he can be targeted without specific "Concealment" penalties.

I do not see a Target Concealed mod on the Ranged Combat Modifiers Table. May I know where did you get that?

my guess is that he mixed it up with blind fire.

So if any circumstance calls for a second perception test (target taking cover, an explosion, etc.) it applies the concealment penalty to the perception test, which then overwrites the first one in case it fails for the rest of the turn. Did that make sense?

I would require the person trying to see(/perceive) the character who is under Concealment to make the test every time (in an extreme case) he wants to target the Concealed PC as long as he is in combat and remains in combat. It matters not that the PC isn't hiding, the person trying to see him is still in a hectic situation.

Yeah but just cause your in a 'hectic' situation doesnt mean you dont remember where a guy is.

I mean to me you seem to use hectic situation for everything. Including a guy standing 3 feet away infront of you and opening fire as an excuse to force a perception test to even notice that he's firing at you. Which is totally unrealistic to my way of thinking.

If some one is shooting from a fixed position, once you locate said fixed position it's hardly difficult at all to start shooting at said fixed position. So even if the guy has the concealment power 'hiding him' it's NOT invisibility. If he was shooting at you and you notice him, you can shoot him just fine all day long if he's stupid enough to just stand there.

It's not even a matter of blind fire at that point. You know -exactly- where he is. If he ups and moves off well then that's a whole other story since then you have to relocate him. And if your taking fire at that time I'd definatly count that as a hectic situation for sure.

Part of the reason there are penalties to shooting at some one behidn cover is becuase that cover is infact solid in all applicable situations. Thus it will stop your bullets. That doesnt mean however that you dont know where the guy is to shoot him.

Now that right there says it only affects your ability to percieve the target. It does not say it continues to affect your ability to continue to perceive the target once you have successfully noticed the target, or that if allready noticed, it then conceals the target anyway.

It's like saying you can sneak into a facility carrying a potted plant, and if a guard notices you, you can just move that potted plant infront of yourself and suddenly they cant tell where you are. And then their further penalized in noticing you behind that potted plant, because you've started firing at them.

Exactly my point. You remember where he is. You no longer know that he is still there.

Concealment has nothing to do with this. Perception does. Even without Concealment, I will not tell anyone who fails his test where the person shooting at him is. He might have a general notion of where the fire is coming from, but exacly where is beyond them since they failed their tests. Unless you somehow are able to keep your eye only on the target, you do not look away, you do not blink, you do nothing but stare at the Concealed target and you do not get hit(a very distracting situation), then I would say that yes, you do not need to make that Perception test again. But then if you are not flinching, you are not dodging, then you are not in a "hectic" situation.

Yes, it's like saying you can sneak into a facility carrying a potted plant, and if a guard notices you, you can just move that potted plant infront of yourself and suddenly they cant tell where you are because you've started firing at them.

If you did not shoot at them and you were spotted, you are still spotted right until you decide to shoot at them or they shoot at you. Concealment/rutherium/camouflage makes the matter worse. But the crux of the matter is Perception.

I do not need to read those books to know. I already know. I've been in firefights before. And if anything, there is no such thing as immediately obvious in a firefight, you can be doing Rambo in the mdiidle of a parade square for all I care, but Mr Murphy can still screw up your "perfectly obvious" situation.

For your white wallway case, By the book, all you'd get is a +2 dice mod for "stands out in some way" in addition to perhaps "actively looking for it" and a Threshold of 1. I do not want to repeat my preivous example, you already read it and seems to have disregarded it. The situation is "hectic" and therefore even if the "bush" is "immediately noticeable", I'd still call for a Perception test if I was the GM.

That part there though seems to be one thing you throw out the window. I mean by your own words. Even if the immediately noticeable situation of a guy in a clownsuit with a potted plant starts opening fire at you. You'd notice.

But the moment he's under the concealment power. Oh no! You've got to roll perception! THen roll perception every time you dodge, ever time you do anything other than stand tehre staring at him like a slacked jawed iddiot is the way your argument comes across to me.

That's stupidly broken to my way of thinking. So much so the only paralell I can think of is putting a pane of glass in a plastic bag then kicking it down 400 flights of stairs broken.

And as to nothing being 'immediately obvious in a firefight' would not being IN a firefight not be immediately obvious? Would not the fact that some one you just spotted behind that car firing at you count as blatantly obvious?

It's the same thing. He's under cover, he hasnt moved, he's firing at you from that position. You allraedy know where he is. Now I mean if you were trying to tell what kind of gun he was firing, or what he was wearing, or what race what ever. Then It'd totally agree with you on the finer details.

But to claim that you cant actually even notice he's shooting at you from behind that car is crazy. If he stops and moves to a new firing position, again thats differnet. He's relocated and your effectively 'supressed' long enough for him to do that without you necessarily being abl eto follow where he went.

But if he's standing out in a grassy meadow with 1 inch tall grass shooting at you. Again you'd have to be blind not to see him the moment you bother to actually look.

And thats really where this argument is sprining from for starters. The argument was made that a totally mega obvious target suddenly becomes not one, by doing not a thing. You could even being looking right at it but all of a sudden you cant 'percieve' it?

Conceal =/= Invisibilty.

And arguably from the blind fire modifier you cant get any better than invisibily because even if the concealment raiting to hit the guy is over that you just blind fire anyway and your max penalty is reduced to the blind fire penalty in the first place.

I mean it's not like your trying to notice what kind of comlink the guy is wearing on his belt. Your trying to acertain the location of a 2.5m tall monster of a troll firing a panther assault cannon at you.

I mean we've allready all agreed as far as I can tell much earlier in the thread, that if the concealment power is activated and THEN the guy at least does something to remove himself from immediate LOS relocating him is penalized by the concealment power.

The argument centers still around the fact that your still looking at the guy, he's -allready been- percieved. Him shoting at you doesnt turn him invisible. Him making faces at you doesnt make him invisible. HIm suddenly putting on a camo outfit isnt goign to make him invsibile.

It might make it harder for some one -else- looking for him at that point. And I'd seriously (well I suppose I -am- currently arguing if you want to get litteral) against a simple blink being enough to make him suddenly poof as well.

I mean I havent been in any 'real' combat situations, but I've certainly been in plenty of 'simulated' paintball and tagball games. Both outdoors and indoors. Indoors in the mazes it's not that hard to tell where some one is. They stick their gun out around corner thats immediately visible, even if i"m diving for cover, largely because it's not supposed to even be there. It's horribly unnatural for the surroundings. It being painted the same colour as the wall next to it wont help at all in that situation. (Actually and the indoor arena I go to this is infact the case, the walls are painted black and the barrels and most of the gun is black)

I mean a perception test also is -more- than simply visual. It's based on sight, hearing and smell too. I mean if you have a guy walking on the other side of say a thin wall, lets say your typical office cubical wall. And all you see is say... his shadow and the end of his gun sticking around the edge, chances are if you just shoot through the wall youre going to hit him because you've got a damn good idea based uppon noise, visual on the gun/shadow outline etc.

But even in these situations the target hasnt -allready- been noticed. To me it's like saying that becuase your in a shoot out with a guy and yoru both using .22 holdouts to try to kill each other you don tnotice when an entire kilo of C4 blows up the building the block over because you didn tsee it and your buisy popping off .22s at one annother. And lets throw in a window too that gets blown in. You might not know exactly what the hell blew up but youre sure as -hell- going to know -something- blew up big time and have a damn good indication of where to look.

When it comes to stuff like optical camouflage, which in a way is sort of what yoru dealing with with th econcealment power (though not really since it seems to be more an effect on your mind) putting it on a grbage can in a hallway while it may hide it's exact characteristics from me. Isnt going to do a damn lick of good at hiding it's actual location from me if I allready knew about it, was looking at it, am looking at it. My poping around a corner and then popping back around isnt going to change it's location or percieved location at all either really. I'll still have a very good general idea of where it is.

If I pop around the corner, some one -moves- it well thats another story. But unless it's actualy moved I can still hit it just fine.

Trsut me, no matter how many times you've been shot at, you will never get used to the gut wrenching, mouth drying, heart thumping, near panic feeling when some motherfucker wants your life. Person B will never calmly look for the shooter, unless he is high on something fierce(and then he won't be calm anyway). What I was decribing wasn't someone who was panicking, it was someone who has been around the block: me.

You have a good idea of where to look, yes. So I'd give you a +2 dice modifier(stand out in someway) and if you keep your cool, and Observe in Detail, you'd get 3 more dice. That's 5 dice! If you do not get 1 hit on that, you must have hit your head on that doorframe when you peaked out. Guess what, during a firefight there are a gazillion things to remember and take note. Yes, it is easier when you got 1 stationary guy to kep track of and you should get more dice to reflect that. But you'd still need to roll for that, because you'd never know when Mr Murphy will screw with your situational awareness/your senses/your Perception.

or you could be what trhe Australian SAS calls the 2%.. the people whose brains actually improve in those situations. They are the guys who seem to get addicted to it over time and end up saying (and meaning) things like "I live for this shit!"

Totturi you are definately one of the 98%, normal people

but even of the 98% it is unlikely that trained fighters will lose a target if concentrating on them... maybe if suppressive fire forces them down, or if they use active dodge.

but if they are using passive defense then they are still keeping a bead. I would not force a new check then

Wait, hold on, back up. Are you telling me that firing an M-16 into the air and jumping around does not, in fact, grant me invisibility?
Okay, I need some time to wrap my mind around this.

No, not playing Devil's Advocate but I don't usually need to roll a thing either. Why?

Normal PC has Intutiion 3 and Perception 1(or in certain cases Stealth Group may be substituted in). So 4 dice. Hectic situation calls for a check. If guy is being blatantly obvious, you get "stand out in some way" mod +2 dice. I'd go so far as to bend the rules and forgo the -2 distracted penalty if necessary(not not likely). So 4-6 dice. Guess what? You are right, buy the hits! But if you went and made a blur assed PC with no Perception and low Intuition, well, you pays your money and yous rolls them dice.

Yeah but you still seem to miss the fact that the only hectic situation on an open field is that the guy shooting IS the hectic situation. Which effectively, as others have pointed out, makes him -impossible- NOT to notice.

The only way you could some how totally fail to notice is if you either had some sort of serious mental retardation (negative stats) or were high as a kite/drunk as a mule. (I dont know where the hell the latter saying comes from)

See your saying well in situation X you'd just buy the hits anyawy because you'd have X dice. But the problem with concealment is it gives a penalty to your perception rolls. Now some of this seems to be due to a difference of the view of what a 1 in an attribute actually means. But it certainly to me isnt to the level of cripple.

The 'average strength' of a fit human being is 3. Fit meaning they get regular excercise. If they lead a somewhat sedementary lifestyle then I'd knock that down to a 2. ANd if their a total matrix addict that hardly ever leaves their apartment kinda thing i'd lower that to a 1 for strenght. But they can still get up and walk around just fine. Just the moment they need to phsyically exert themselves they wont be doing so hot since their so horribly out of shape.

I mean because if we follow your argument that suddenly it's a hectic situation and its harder to notice the guy is shooting at you because yoru dodging then you'd have to also arguably penalize the dodge rolls. It defies common sense in many cases.

I mean if a guy started walking towards you across an empty football field, pulled out a handgun, and while walking towards you started shooting at you, I'm damn sure no matter how much your running around in that field trying ot avoid his fire your damn well going to know more or less where he is, and should you bother to at least occasionaly look over in his direction you couldnt possibly fail to notice him. I mean by the strict definition of the word (which includes haste and intense activity) you'd be right.

But then doing just about ANYTHING at all would then count as being 'hectic' which I'm damn sure is not the intent of the rule. Running in a straight line then would be hectic, swimming would be, lifting weights, and pretty much any physical activity would then count.

Melee combat is an excellent example of that. Yet I've -never- in all my times sparring an opponent have I ever had any problem percieving their actions. Perceiving the actions of others, well thats a whole different story. WHich is why there's the whole bonus/penalty system for multiple combatants. I may not be fast enough to block the hit, or been simply unable to do so due to circumstances, but I've certainly never once not seen a hit comming at me.

Now obviously bullets are a whoel different story but at that point your focus isnt on the bullets, it's on the guy with the gun. You'd be fully focused on two things, cover and him as a target should you be the type on returning fire. Thats not exactly a whole lot for the brain to process.

The real crux of the argument here though. Is that your 'average professional' who would have 6 dice for a perception test is suddenly rendered totally blind? Just because a spriit used the concealment power.

A force 4 spirit wont do much more than cmouflage, but waht if its say.. a force 6, 8 or even a force 12?

Thats suddnely -12 dice BEFORE your added penalties of 'hectic' situation etc. The argument here is, not against noticing the guy -before- he starts shooting at you. But that it should not apply WHILE he's allready been spotted shooting at you and your allready looking right at him.

So the thing is, the argument is that the concealment power, not being invisibility shouldnt apply a penalty to notice him in this sort of situation. Now in a situation where he goes to find cover, again and again people have said yes, then you'd start applying that penalty to relocate the guy. But thats the thing, it's relocating him. Not a situation where you allready have done so.

For the real sake of this argument it's sort of assuming your both stupidly shooting at each other, not blinking, not looking away, not dodging. Just shooting at each other. One group is saying that in such a situation no, the perception penalty shouldnt apply at all because you've allready found him before the power came into effect, and would only kick in once the guy has actually gone for cover himself or in some other way actually broken your LOS on him.

The other group is saying that yes this suddenly forces you to have to try to percieve the guy even though you havent so much as blinked in the split second between the before and the now. Never mind that you just .00001 seconds ago had a direct LOS on him and infact technically still do.

This is where the Concealment =/= Invisibility argument kicks in. Concealment effectively just makes you harder to notice in the first place is the line of thought for many. Invisibility obviously makes you exactly that. Totally invisible. You could be taking down your pants and shaking your willy at the guy not 1 foot infront of you and he'd never see it.

The argument with concealment is that the guy damn wel would notice that. Because it doesnt render you invisible. Just harder to notice when your actually concealed/trying to conceal your presence.

I see. But in this case you are blowing the "hectic situation" mention out of proportion on one hand, and completely ignoring a clear rule on the other :

So if you are going to require a perception test to spot obvious things, you can't allow the PC to buy hits if he's in combat considering he is both stressed and failure will have bad consequences.

Of course if you don't ask a perception test for something so damn obvious as a guy shooting at you at close range, you avoid the whole mess.

Is there any canon definition of "bad consequence"? Since there is no canon definition of "bad consequence", I always interpretated that the line about bad consequences as that the failure of that action has a bad consequence as a direct result of failing that test - such as failing a Dodge test. But I can accept your argument about the stressful situation. Most of the time however, I simply buy the hits for the PCs, but following strictly by the rules, yes I should roll.

Observe in Detail is a Simple Action. And where did you get the additional -3 from? Distracted imposes a -2, and there is no "hectic" modifier. So max mod in your example is -6. If the guy is standing out in the hall firing as you have been saying, then there is a +2 for "Object/Sound standing out". So total you got a -4 mod for the Concealment with dsitraction and stand-out canceling each other.

Yeah but thats what I dont get. How is it all of a sudden you go from not needing a perception check to see that a guy is giving you a finger, to having to make a check to notice that that same guy is now shooting at you?

Nope - a simple action.

And I notice that most people are neglecting to add the +3 "Perceiver is actively looking/listening for it" modifier.

So a simple action: "observe in detail" would be +3 dice...if the shooter had neglected to take cover, another +2...and if the perceiver remembered to buy vision/sound enhancers for his gear yet another +3.

+8 dice to get an actual idea of "who's attacking me?" That's at least two auto successes (assuming no negative modifiers exceeding intuition+perception)...that'll get you: "Neon sign, running crowd, yelling, gunfire + Street sign, average pedestrian, conversation, silenced gunfire" all automatically. (Thresholds 3 and 4 are reserved for much finer detail than you're going to find in a gunfight.)

What's the complaint again? That an unusual circumstance (a spirit using concealment after a gunfight has started) calls for a simple action to counter? Why is this so horribly bad?

Again, you can't buy success in a combat.

That's your interpretation of the laws of nature in SR. At least don't claim final word on interpretation of the rules.

And your interpreattion calls for a lot more perception test than the average GM does.

You are encouraged to buy successes with large dice pools for example vehicles soaking damage. The core rule book mentions this and normally I'd be happy to quote you the page but at the moment I'm sans core book.

i.e. if you want it to be a non-issue for your players then it is just that.

Since you want it to be a non-issue, why complain when such is proposed?

Only badly designed min-maxed characters (Low intuition, no perception, no sensory enhancers, relying on the GM to spot valid targets for him) would suffer from my proposed ruling.

I do not claim final word on interpretation of the rules. I only claim to follow the letter of the rules exactly, and when I do not, I will try to make sure I state so as a House Rule.

If the literal interpretation of the rules is not the correct one, then I'll gladly accept the correct interpretation from one of the writers/developers.