Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Stealthy mind control
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Buster
If you were in a meeting with a Mr. Johnson or some other character while in a "nice" setting, how would you go about casting Influence or other Mental Manipulation spell on the person and get away with it?

The rules for noticing spellcasting are kinda weird or maybe just incomplete. The rules say anyone (even a mundane) can notice spellcasting with a Perception (6-Force) chance of success (+2 dice if a spellcaster, +2 if astrally perceiving at the time). The fluff says that you just have a funny look on your face and are making subtle gestures, so this implies to me that mundane methods can be used to hide your spellcasting attempt.

1) Would a Con or Etiquette roll add hits to your opposed hide-spellcasting attempt?

2) A spirit's Concealment power affects Perception rolls, would that power also affect the Perception roll to notice spellcasting?

3) An Invisibility spell would obviously hide your spellcasting attempt since it makes you completely invisible, but would a Mask spell hide your spellcasting too? If your Mask hides your facial features and body type, can it be used to hide your facial expressions and gestures?

Are there other methods that work?
deek
Many of the manipulation spells are automatically detected by the recipient. They may not know "who" cast it, but they certainly know they are under the effects of such a spell...

Just something to think about.
Buster
QUOTE (deek @ Oct 16 2007, 09:13 AM)
Many of the manipulation spells are automatically detected by the recipient.  They may not know "who" cast it, but they certainly know they are under the effects of such a spell...

Just something to think about.

Influence doesn't, in fact it says they think the command was their idea. Alter Memory takes care of the "after-effects" of other mind control spells.
Blade
1) I'd accept it with a -2 to -4 modifier (depending on what the mage is supposed to be doing at that time) but not with Con nor Etiquette... Maybe a Cha+Wil (I don't remember the name) roll.

2) In a 'nice' setting, the Concealment power will make the character less likely to attract attention. It means that Mr. Johnson (and his friends) will be less likely too look his way. But if Mr. Johnson (or one of his friends) really examine's the character the concealment power won't conceal anything.

3) Isn't the Mask spell the one that gives you the appearance of someone else? If that's the case, you'll just look like someone else casting a spell.
Orient
Con seems like a viable skill to roll.

Also, you could multicast. If you cast an Influence spell at the same time as, say, a cigarette-lighting spell, then most mundane onlookers will probably assume that whatever spooky glow or shamanic mask they see is from the cigarette lighting.

You could always just cast at a low force too, I guess, but that's not really going to be very effective against high-willpower targets.
Buster
QUOTE (Blade @ Oct 16 2007, 09:31 AM)
1) I'd accept it with a -2 to -4 modifier (depending on what the mage is supposed to be doing at that time) but not with Con nor Etiquette... Maybe a Cha+Wil (I don't remember the name) roll.

2) In a 'nice' setting, the Concealment power will make the character less likely to attract attention. It means that Mr. Johnson (and his friends) will be less likely too look his way. But if Mr. Johnson (or one of his friends) really examine's the character the concealment power won't conceal anything.

3) Isn't the Mask spell the one that gives you the appearance of someone else? If that's the case, you'll just look like someone else casting a spell.

Good point, the Composure roll should definitely help just to hide all the weird looks on your face.

I'm thinking Con would help with disguising your unusual facial expressions with a clever deception like "What beautiful eyes you have!" or "Ugh, I have really bad constipation" biggrin.gif. And of course you can always use the classic "Look over there!" gambit.

I was thinking the same thing you were about the Mask spell, I think it just hides your facial features and body type, not your facial expressions or gestures.
Buster
QUOTE (Orient)
Also, you could multicast. If you cast an Influence spell at the same time as, say, a cigarette-lighting spell, then most mundane onlookers will probably assume that whatever spooky glow or shamanic mask they see is from the cigarette lighting.

That's an awesome idea.
Dashifen
Can you multicast two different spells? I thought you could only multicast one spell at different targets.
Magus
But what if I am a plain Hermetic mage, and I am looking at you with my peripheral vision while it appears I am watching the long legged mini skirted, cleavage displaying server? What then. Line of Sight does not mean what is directly in front of you, it refers to your peripheral vision as well. Plus if I do not have the gesture geasa I do not have to make special handsigns (ala Naruto) or the Spoken word geasa (ala DBZ).
Orient
QUOTE (Magus)
But what if I am a plain Hermetic mage, and I am looking at you with my peripheral vision while it appears I am watching the long legged mini skirted, cleavage displaying server? What then. Line of Sight does not mean what is directly in front of you, it refers to your peripheral vision as well. Plus if I do not have the gesture geasa I do not have to make special handsigns (ala Naruto) or the Spoken word geasa (ala DBZ).

That's absolutely true. However, if you cast a force 4-6 spell, there's gonna be some amount of glow, sparkly looking special effects, or something. Certainly enough of an effect that there's still a risk.
Tarantula
By the book, anything force 6 or more is a threshold 0 test and is automatically noticed by anyone around.
DireRadiant
Noticing Spell casting is not necessarily a visual perception test. Therefore visual distractions may not have any effect whatsoever on noticing spell casting.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Buster)
If you were in a meeting with a Mr. Johnson or some other character while in a "nice" setting, how would you go about casting Influence or other Mental Manipulation spell on the person and get away with it?

Wow. Get caught casting Influence on your Johnson even once and your rep is going to take a serious downturn. You are flirting with disaster.
That said, everyone's already suggested some good stuff.
Magus
QUOTE (DireRadiant)
Noticing Spell casting is not necessarily a visual perception test. Therefore visual distractions may not have any effect whatsoever on noticing spell casting.

Kinda like that spooky hair on the back of the neck, something just aint right feeling.
Tarantula
QUOTE (Buster)
1) Would a Con or Etiquette roll add hits to your opposed hide-spellcasting attempt?

There is no opposed hide spellcasting roll. You can't hide it. Its merely a roll to see if they notice it.
eidolon
Some of you are edging up to the "too detailed" line. Remember, any stuff that you make up to explain what got noticed is strictly to support that they did (or have) notice(d).
Buster
QUOTE (Orient @ Oct 16 2007, 11:08 AM)
However, if you cast a force 4-6 spell, there's gonna be some amount of glow, sparkly looking special effects, or something.  Certainly enough of an effect that there's still a risk.

Well, that would be true in some game systems, but in SR4 it lists several things that can be noticed, but none of them are supernatural effects. I'm not saying what you said doesn't make sense, but either the fluff is incomplete or the rules are incomplete.

I guess it all comes down to game balance.

My thoughts are that if you could only get a handful of extra hits by using Composure, Con, Etiquette, and other mundane methods of hiding spellcasting, then it would be ok to go with the Fluff As Written because it has little effect on game balance. Especially if you have to invest tons of BP/karma on those skills and attributes.

But if you could make it so you're virtually guaranteed to go unnoticed with just a few skill points, then it might be too game unbalancing. Especially without also introducing some new gadgets that let mundanes detect spellcasting (such as glow-FAB sprays or PKE scanners).
Tarantula
QUOTE (Buster)
Well, that would be true in some game systems, but in SR4 it lists several things that can be noticed, but none of them are supernatural effects. I'm not saying what you said doesn't make sense, but either the fluff is incomplete or the rules are incomplete.

No, you're wrong. SR4, 168, "Just how obvious are magical skills? Not very, since most spells and spirits have little, if any, visible effect in the physical world (unless the magician prefers to have flashy effects, or her tradition calls for it)."

Its perfectly supported for spells to glow, sparkle, or otherwise.
Buster
QUOTE (Tarantula)
QUOTE (Buster @ Oct 16 2007, 12:11 PM)
Well, that would be true in some game systems, but in SR4 it lists several things that can be noticed, but none of them are supernatural effects.  I'm not saying what you said doesn't make sense, but either the fluff is incomplete or the rules are incomplete.

No, you're wrong. SR4, 168, "Just how obvious are magical skills? Not very, since most spells and spirits have little, if any, visible effect in the physical world (unless the magician prefers to have flashy effects, or her tradition calls for it)."

Its perfectly supported for spells to glow, sparkle, or otherwise.

Oh my god, Tarantula has been possessed by the ghost of Doctor Funkenstein! biggrin.gif
DireRadiant
Noticing Spell Casting is a Perception test.

If you allow the spell caster additional tests to avoid being noticed, the perceiver should also be allowed additional modifiers or tests.

I personally don't mind what tests or modifiers you end up using as long as it makes for a fun game. Almost any mix of attributes or modifiers probably has some excuse to affect this. It's MAGIC!

Your game your choice.
Fortune
QUOTE (Dashifen)
Can you multicast two different spells? I thought you could only multicast one spell at different targets.

Yes you can. There are no restrictions on which spells a person could multi-cast.
Orient
I've been toying around with that technique you mentioned a bit ago, Fortune - multicasting several low-drain combat spells rather than one big nuke spell. Interesting.
Magus
I used to multicast in 3rd the area effect Laser and Thunder spells. Great effect. bad Drain.
Buster
Do you have to split your drain resistance pool too or do you get your full drain resistance pool on each multicast spell?
Tarantula
+X to the drain for each spell where X is the number of multicast spells.
FriendoftheDork
As far as I can see, the ability to percieve magic is not only governed by the senses of sight or hearing, but also feeling. That's why IMO you can't make the magic less noticable by mundane means as they can feel it even if they don't see it.

The question remains what exactly do they realize?

a: someone cast a spell in my vicinity

b: that guy cast a spell

C: that guy cast a spell on me

d: someone cast a spell on me

e: I feel a tingling sensation (reaction depending on target's familiarity with magic)

A way to answer those could be to see how many net hit the observer/target got. Hitting treshold only reveals magic being performed, while 4 net hits means you know who cast the spell, on whom it was being cast, possibly even what force.

Of course someone using centering, fetishes or just likes flashy magic will make their spells alot easier to detect (if not automatic). The perception check would only be to see if he was faking it or not.

However, since detecting magic is somewhat done by senses, it seems to be some modifiers should come into play for the perception table, such as actively looking for it, distracted, not in the immediate vicinity, far away, interfering sense (sound, sight, spam). I'm loathe to use visibility modifiers and gear modifiers though, as those only work for one type of sense. If you can't see you can't know who cast a spell but you could possibly feel it still.

What do you think? Good rule or bad?
Fortune
In my opinion, spotting Spellcasting takes an actual Perception test. Just casually hanging out or dining in a restaurant shouldn't mean that just any potential observer notices even the highest Force Spell being cast, if he isn't actually paying attention to his surroundings. For example, how often do you pay any attention to the slightly pained look of constipation that briefly crosses the face of the guy sitting two tables away? It takes someone actively taking an interest in the immediate environment to even require a test in the first place in most circumstances. Someone specifically looking for signs of Spellcasting would receive a slight bonus to the test.
FriendoftheDork
QUOTE (Fortune)
In my opinion, spotting Spellcasting takes an actual Perception test. Just casually hanging out or dining in a restaurant shouldn't mean that just any potential observer notices even the highest Force Spell being cast, if he isn't actually paying attention to his surroundings. For example, how often do you pay any attention to the slightly pained look of constipation that briefly crosses the face of the guy sitting two tables away? It takes someone actively taking an interest in the immediate environment to even require a test in the first place in most circumstances. Someone specifically looking for signs of Spellcasting would receive a slight bonus to the test.

Well as I suggested, if you apply circumstantial modifiers a casual guest would be at perhaps -4 to perception for being distracted and there being some interfering sight/sound/smell, which means most people would auto fail even at threshold 0.

A typical shadorunner though, or someone like Jason Bourne would probably notice just this and recognise it for what it is.

With perception 6, and intuition 5 (for example) he would still usually get at least 2 hits, which is enough to detect force 4 and higher, and that's when not actively looking for it (but someone with that high skill is always keeping a sharp look.
laughingowl
I have always seen it to be latent awakenings style.


Seeing 'the mage' isnt necessarily a requirement (though seeing the spot the magic being performed is).


Save for the possible shaman mask, the mage doesnt necessarily need to 'do anything'; however people feel/sense something happening in the area.

Nothing but direct modifers on the observer (wounds, etc), Force of the spell, and (not sure if canon or me) background count factor into this.

Now if they can't see the mage (invisible, etc0, they might not know 'who' did it but they will feel something happening 'over there' if the make their notice magic test.


Magus
QUOTE (Fortune)
In my opinion, spotting Spellcasting takes an actual Perception test. Just casually hanging out or dining in a restaurant shouldn't mean that just any potential observer notices even the highest Force Spell being cast, if he isn't actually paying attention to his surroundings. For example, how often do you pay any attention to the slightly pained look of constipation that briefly crosses the face of the guy sitting two tables away? It takes someone actively taking an interest in the immediate environment to even require a test in the first place in most circumstances. Someone specifically looking for signs of Spellcasting would receive a slight bonus to the test.

"Look Martha that man over there having the fish, is he a mage or is the fish bad"

grinbig.gif grinbig.gif grinbig.gif rotfl.gif rotfl.gif
Moon-Hawk
The rules for casting multiple spells are on page 173 of the core book.
You can cast a number of spells up to your spellcasting skill.
Your Magic+Spellcasting pool is split between the spells however you like, provided each spell gets at least one die. (duh)
Drain is (as previously stated) resisted for each spell normally and with full pool, however each spells DV is increased by +1 per extra spell cast; so if you cast 3 spells they ALL have +2DV. NOT +0,+1,+2.
Spells are resolved in whatever order the caster chooses.
Dashifen
That's awesome. Going to have to share that one with my players. I've only ever allowed a person to split the same spell at multiple targets, not cast two different spells at once. I'm going to remember that one for the opposition, too. I can imagine a fun combo of ice-sheet with glue at the end of the sheet for all of your comedic needs.
Fortune
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
Drain is (as previously stated) resisted for each spell normally and with full pool, however each spells DV is increased by +1 per extra spell cast; so if you cast 3 spells they ALL have +2DV. NOT +0,+1,+2.

No, if you cast 3 Spells, all of their DVs would increase by 3. It is the total Spells multicast that count, not the total extra Spells.
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Oct 18 2007, 01:16 AM)
Drain is (as previously stated) resisted for each spell normally and with full pool, however each spells DV is increased by +1 per extra spell cast; so if you cast 3 spells they ALL have +2DV.  NOT +0,+1,+2.

No, if you cast 3 Spells, all of their DVs would increase by 3. It is the total Spells multicast that count, not the total extra Spells.

Right. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. wink.gif
The text says +1 per additional spell, and the example on page 173 agrees with me.
Or is there an erratum that I'm missing?
Fortune
Just checked and you're right. Bonus for my spellcasters. biggrin.gif
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (Fortune)
Just checked and you're right. Bonus for my spellcasters. biggrin.gif

Holy crap! I was right vs one of the big boys!
indifferent.gif
Weird.

Glad we got it figured out. The civil disagreements are always over so quickly, but the flamewars burn long into the night.

This is a really useful tactic that no one in my group has been using.
Here's a question, though: Would you allow this additional drain value to be applied before or after the drain of a spell was calculated? What I mean is, no spell can have a drain value of less than 1. So take, for example, a Force 3 Stunbolt. Drain on Stunbolt is F/2-1, which would be 0 per the formula in this case, but no spell can have a drain value less than 1, so it becomes 1.
If someone were casting two Force 3 stunbolts, would you calculate the drain as F/2-1+1(for multicasting) for a total of 1DV on each, or would you calculate it as F/2-1=0 which becomes 1+1(for multicasting)=2DV?
I feel like I'm not explaining this well, but hopefully you see my point. Do you add the multicasting modifier to drain before or after you check the drain vs the minimum of 1?
bibliophile20
Wait, so I can make a melee mage that can cast Decrease Willpower and Knockout/Death Touch simultaneously? Oooh man, are my players going to hate that...
Moon-Hawk
QUOTE (bibliophile20)
Wait, so I can make a melee mage that can cast Decrease Willpower and Knockout/Death Touch simultaneously? Oooh man, are my players going to hate that...

Well yes, but those dice used for the Decrease Willpower are coming away from your dice on the Death Touch, and he'll get another Willpower roll to resist the Decrease Willpower, and only your net hits there will subtract dice from his resistance of the Death Touch.
In other words, I don't think that's a very profitable exchange. Now maybe if you had a Decrease Willpower and multiple Death Touches, you might be able to get this scheme to work in your favor, but I sort of doubt it.
bibliophile20
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Oct 17 2007, 01:04 PM)
QUOTE (bibliophile20 @ Oct 17 2007, 11:54 AM)
Wait, so I can make a melee mage that can cast Decrease Willpower and Knockout/Death Touch simultaneously?  Oooh man, are my players going to hate that...

Well yes, but those dice used for the Decrease Willpower are coming away from your dice on the Death Touch, and he'll get another Willpower roll to resist the Decrease Willpower, and only your net hits there will subtract dice from his resistance of the Death Touch.
In other words, I don't think that's a very profitable exchange. Now maybe if you had a Decrease Willpower and multiple Death Touches, you might be able to get this scheme to work in your favor, but I sort of doubt it.

Hmmm... good point...

perhaps a better tactic would be, on the first pass, hit the target with decrease willpower at full power, have a sustaining focus sustain the spell, and then on the second pass, hit him with a pair of Force 5 or 6 Death Touches--since his willpower is down to practically nothing (assuming that the Decrease Willpower hit him hard enough), that's a minimum of 10-12P damage right there--enough to drop anyone short of a beefed-up cybersam or a troll, and that's before the net hits are counted, and no overcasting needed.

EDIT:

Oh, and there's one other nice thing about that strategy: if you manage to get his Willpower down to zero, he can't attack you--he's standing there dumbfounded.
bibliophile20
Made an NPC with this concept: Doublecasting Carey
Fortune
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
Here's a question, though: Would you allow this additional drain value to be applied before or after the drain of a spell was calculated? What I mean is, no spell can have a drain value of less than 1. So take, for example, a Force 3 Stunbolt. Drain on Stunbolt is F/2-1, which would be 0 per the formula in this case, but no spell can have a drain value less than 1, so it becomes 1.
If someone were casting two Force 3 stunbolts, would you calculate the drain as F/2-1+1(for multicasting) for a total of 1DV on each, or would you calculate it as F/2-1=0 which becomes 1+1(for multicasting)=2DV?
I feel like I'm not explaining this well, but hopefully you see my point. Do you add the multicasting modifier to drain before or after you check the drain vs the minimum of 1?

I would rule that the Drain for each Spell is calculated as normal, and then the additional modifiers are stacked on top. In this way, you would always have a minimum of 2 DV for each Spell when multicasting (even with that Force 3 Stunbolt), which seems rather fair to me.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012