According to the spell's description, all you know is their number and relative location. Nothing more. 

Also, you detect ALL living beings. This could be interpreted to be anything from metahuman to little animals to bugs and insects. 

The spell also specifically states that the spell is useless in a crowded area.

If your gm give you all the information that can be picked up by the spell, then this spell will not be very useful in most cases as it overwhelms you with needless details. If your gm allow it to be used only on metahuman and that you can easily filter out irrelevant details, then yes, it will be quite powerful. If you are allowed to filter out life forms that are not metahuman, you might as well filter out lifeforms that do not have hostile intentions toward you. In which case the spell becomes detect enemies, but better.




As for the example of detect life, it allow the spell to do a lot more than what the spell description says.




1 hit you know what general life forms they are, but not position. That is in accordance with the description.

2 hits you know their race, and relative position, including their direction. Also how the spell works, direction you can figure out as you sustain the spell.

3 hits you know they are running, this might possibly be information you draw based on their positions in time. Somehow you also know they have weapon, which the spell should not allow.

4 hits you know that one of the life forms is someone you know, possibly because you recognize the person's life force or whatever. However, this should not be allowed by the spell. You also know the status of the lifeforms (wounded), possibly because her life force is weak or whatever. Also not something the spell shouldallow. Lastly, somehow you know the others are gangers, which the spell should not allow.

In any case. If your group decides to follow the spell example and allow filtering of information, then yes, the spell is very powerful. With information from race, position, equipment, identity at your hand, combined with ability to filter information out. You can basically replace many detection spell with it. If that's how your group plays, that's fine. But I don't think it really justifies the claim that detect life is too powerful and the only detection spell worth taking.




No real comments on the opportunities cost. There are too many factors going into whether a spell suit a PC mage.

The example makes no mention of rogue bacteria clouding up the view, so it is safe to assume that the problem you are making isn't a problem in the opinion of the designer.

After all, considering that there are 500 trillion micro-organisms being carried around in just the guts of the people in the example, if they showed up in any relevant way, maybe it might be mentioned.

Bacterium Aside, you still detect all LIVING beings within the area... you are relying upon the terminology for beings... and even still, in a crowded space, the utility of Detect Life is minimal, as per the description of the spell...

For those who interpret beings to account for living creatures in general, you will also detect animals and critters along with your metahumanity, which will tend to make things even more confused...

And for a comparison... Detect Enemies WILL ONLY detect Living Targets (note targets, which could include spirits) that have hostile intentions towards you... SO MUCH MORE USEFUL than a generic detection of all living beings (remember, not spirits) in the area surrounding you... it is also capable of determining ambush or surprise attack, unlike Detect Life, as you get no Intention from the Life Detection... as a matter of fact, Detect Life in INCAPABLE of determining Intent from the lifeforms detected... which I see as another drawback of that particular spell...

Anyway, My 2

Dude, did you look at the example of detect life? It even says that the caster knows why the girl is running.

Dude, did you look at the description of the Spell... The example gives out way too much information...

It depends how you interpret the number of successes chart, but given the example showing exactly how you are supposed to interpret it, I am not sure how you arrive at another conclusion. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Using the descriptives of the Detection Spell Results Table Should result in appropriate descriptive examples, depending upon the spell in question... Keep in mind, however, that the examples never give any examples of INTENT... the most descriptive only says that the Troll Woman is your Contact (you could conceivably know this by her aura) and that she is wounded, also knowable through Detect Life (her Lifeforce is dwindling)... what is excessive is the two additional pieces of information (at 3 and 4 successes) that provide data that the spell is INCAPABLE of delivering in any way, shape or form... Detect Life does NOT detect equipment (so no description of weapons drawn), nor does it discriminate social class (so no descriptive of "Gangers," Orks would suffice)...

That is the crux of my argument... Detect Life ONLY detects Life... Not Inanimate Objects nor Intentions... How you can reach any other interpreation would reside in Houseruling...

And, in the end, I can agree to Disagree on this point...

Only spell that occurs to me off the top of my head is Detect Enemies. It expressley doesn't detect bad guys, only people intent on harming YOU. So, wandering patrol? Nope. Ambush? Hell yes. General alert, all people responding? Guards show up red because even if they don't know where you are, you're what they're looking for you. Magic's like that.

Also; as an addendum, I find it disturbing that Running Wild, a book that I was fully braced to try and define AIs as matrix "wildlife" actually did more to explain them then Unwired and Emergence put together. Peh.

The example of how to resolve magic violates the rules and everyone involved seems to feel that the example is right and the rules on how thresholds work are ignored by magic, despite how they are seemingly clearly explained on the previous page.. . So it's pretty reasonable to think that this is another case where the example overrides the incorrectly written rules.

True, but I think Tymeaus Jalynsfein has an excellant point, per the spell description Detect Life shouldn't be able to give the caster the information that it does.

The problem is you're ignoring the second half of the rules. Seriously, the detect spells are structured in two parts

A) Under the spell heading - this is what the spell gives infomation about

B) In the table, which is clearly rules it says the depth of infomation you get.

So if you have 4 net hits, you get completely detailed infomation.. and then the example explains what completely detailed infomation is. You guys are reading the spell description, saying 'well the other table of rules infomation doesn't apply' and then reaching a conculsion.

All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead.


SK's first showed up in SR1, may I add.

No, what we are saying is that the second half is wrong and should largely be ignored, just like many of the table listings.

No, we're just pointing out that the example does thinks that the spell isn't capable of doing.
It's completdly ridiculous to have an example of a spell that detects life, telling that a lifeform you detected is armed.

No we are not, and here is why...

You should only receive information based upon the parameters of the spell... Detect Enemies ONLY provides information on Enemies intent on harming the caster... Notice how it would completely ignore intent directed towards someone else... By your definition, at 4 successes I should receive intent directed towards anyone within the area of affect... Obviously not how the spell works at all...

Detect Life is very Explicit in its definition... "Detect all living beings (except spirits) within range, and know the number and relative location"... Now... The success Chart Example clearly are wrong when compared to this definition of effect... Here is a better example set (assuming also that the definition of "being" excludes such things as the living plants and insects and animals present):

1 - A Group of Metahumans
2 - Three Male Orks and a Femal Troll
3 - All of them are Moving rapidly, the Troll is leading
4 - Troll is your Contact (You recognize her Astral Signature, even if you cannot actively see it it feels familiar) and she is wounded (Diminishing Life Force) and is apparently being chased by the Orks...

Notice that this set of examples is completely in line with the descriptive of the Spell, and it did not give out any other "extraneous" information that the spell was incapable of providing... No descriptives of weapons, armor, cultural profiling, etc... this is information that the spell cannot provide...


If it worked like you said, all you would need would be a single Detection Spell... Because you could then rely upon the Success Chart and hope for a critical success... according to the logioc you provided you would then get "All Information"... Clearly this is a false premise......

In the End... Our contention is that the individual who wrote the Example (see, the word is "Example" not Truth) di so in an inappropriate way, providing information that was NOT discernible by the Magic... thus the Example is Wrong...

Prettty Simple...

Keep the Faith

Just a tiny nitpick, I would disagree that the spell would be able to tell you that the troll was beung chased, but woudl instead pick up that everyone was excited.

Sorry...

My detail for chased included the idea that upon observation, and a critical success, it appeared that she was trying to avoid the orks, and that as she juked and ducked, they were attempting to cut her off... something that might be allowable due to the level of success of the detection, as you are able to keep track of movement with this spell as long as it is sustained... however, you are right in that upon a quick observation, the excitability would probably be picked up on, and maybe not the fact that she was bing chased...

Keep the Faith...

Strange, I had used the "select all" and "copy" commands, what can have gone wrong?

Were we talking about The Matrix? We were talking talking about the matrix.

Wait, so you ARE disregarding the table as 'wrong' (for no reason - there is no errata or FAQ) and then saying the spell doesn't do what the table says it does? Like I said?

First up - your 'detect life has no limitations if you follow the table, and all the other detect spells have no use' is straight up wrong. Detect life has been an acknowledged 'great spell' for ages, and it does have limitations - it cannot pick an assassin out of a crowd unlike detect enemies, and unless you are sure of getting 3 (and preferably 4) net hits on every cast it is a clearly suboptimal. Without 4 net hits, it cannot find your friend like the other detect spell.

Picking an assassin out of a crowd, or find your friend in an insect magician's hive with a high background count are clearly use cases for the spells. The other detect spells are worse because they are bad in the general case, but in the specific they can be better. This is the same situation are a large number of spells (fashion, the combat bolts, etc) are in.

The other option is that arbitary parts of the rules are 'wrong' but at that point it is impossible to have a rational discussion about the rulebook if we're just going to ignore what is written down in it, or decide is 'wrong.' We can say it is stupid, or that the statements in A & B are mathematically contradictory, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion about the written down rules being wrong without developer clarification or other FAQ. We cannot 'discuss' because we are not even talking about the same book anymore.

You have also claimed an inconsistency is present here, but given that the stated intention of the section table is to define the information you get about what you detect given certain numbers of net hits, it's not clear what the inconsistency is - there is no contradictory statement.

Anyway, I feel that rebuts your points. I figure at this point it would have been errated if it was actually wrong, or changed in the SR4A reprint (which it hasn't), so I think its a pretty safe bet. Write to the dev team if you think its wrong, or you don't like it or whatever.



Your position is wildly inconsistent. If only the spell description applies, then it doesn't tell you any of this stuff. If the table applies then my interpretation is correct. You need to pick a position and stick to it, trying to say 'expanded information as per the table is available, but is not available if I don't like it' leads to madness.

Heck under the basic spell description only (because remember, the table is wrong), how can you even have a critical success?

Without the table, the spell just says "there are lifeforms and they are here, here and here" and that is it. Detect enemies says "there are 6 bad guys here, here and here"

There are two parts of the book that deal with the spell detect life. One is a description, one is an example. They give contradicting information.

Based on the example and your interpretations, you said that detect life is the superior spell.

Some of us disagree, based on the description and our own interpretations.




So could we all agree do disagree that there are different interpretations based on the rules and go back to the original topic?

That ended 5 pages ago

Back to the new topic. What I do get is what do you think the table is supposed to be for?

Working on your premise that only content referenced directly in the spell description applies, what is the purpose of the table? It is not referenced in the spell description for any of the detect spells, so it is not relevant to them. To me this leaves the purpose very unclear.

It would seriously help my understanding of the argument if you could explain how you see the two rules elements interacting under your rules of interpretation.

My current understanding is thus

A) Only elements directly referenced in the spell descriptions thus apply

B) The table is an aberrant misprint that does nothing at all.

Therefore C) The only information that can be gained from detect life is the number and position of life signs.

to me the issue with your argument, and the mistake one of the dvocates of the position (the table is wrong" is making, is that the table can introduce no news rules elements. To me, the table clearly does introduce an additional rules element - that the detection spells can provide additional infomation about the subjects if net hits are achieved.

Tymeaus Jalynsfe... is logically inconsistent because he posits that the example is wrong, because it introduces new rules elements not mentioned in the spell description in the infomation about the subject, but permits the table to introduce a new rules element not mentioned in the spell description.

With the higher amount of success you can cleam more informatio from the info the spell gives you just like the table says, i can evan agree with most of the stuff in the examples, the biggests problems are the part about guns as detect life can't logically detect those guns and the part about the chacers being gangers, as again not something the spell should be able to detect.
The way i see detection spells is that the spell gives the charatter a set of information and the number successes you get tells how well the character can interreb that information.

But none of that is the spell description? Wasn't that the arguement that was just used against me? The spell mentions NOTHING about additional infomation. If you're just using the spell description to determine the parameters of what can be detected, then you are wrong.

If the spell description does not limit what can be detected, then additional information can be detected beyond the spell description, which enables the example.

Incidentally the examples being trotted out in this thread fall over as well under your 'rule' Detect enemies wouldn't tell you about their guns either. The gun has no intent what so ever - like a trap it isn't a conscious being - and thus cannot be detected by the spell.

So I'm still very muddled on what the position of the spell description vs table is. You didn't make it any clearer - all I got from that is that the spell description does not fully describe the spell, but I am choosing to disregard the example when defining what addition rules elements exist beyond the spell description - which to me seems to defeat the purpose of the example.

Simple, the description wins over the table hands down every time, just like it does with the rest of the incorrect tables, which to my knowledge also has yet to be corrected, in the case of detect life we are explictly told what the spell can and cannot do, but the table adds elements that aren't in the description and thus is wrong. And yes, detect enemies wouldn't be able to tell you what if any weapons someone someone had either.

I think the problem is here that the people I am arguing against all have different positions.

Ravor is hard line but has no rational explaination for the existance of the table but his point is logically consistent.

Max and Tynaeous are arguing stuff between the example is correct and the spell description is only correct which is logically inconsistent

I'm saying the example is correct.

My example posits 4 very straightforward cases... I have yet to see an argument that refutes these premises...

With incrementing successes comes incrementing information, none of which relies upon information that the spell can not provide... some of it may be extrapolation, but is consistent with what I see as the intent of the examples, though not in the same light....

Detect life CANNOT determine any information about non-living material... thus the description in the table is erroneous.. you cannot determine the presence of weapons or cultural bias based upon LIFE DETECTION... that is cut and dried... the only inference that seems to be of contention with my example is whether you could identify the Troll (I say you can, it is a funtion of the life essence of the character) and whether or not you can tell if she is being chased (I say you can tell that by observation of the effects of the "chase" through the lense of the sustained spell (Observational on where everyone os located)... Both of which are allowed by the Description of the spell...

Please tell my why these example are WRONG in your opinion... I do not agree with you that the table is useless, I think that you must use the table in light of the spell that is being cast...

Ravor just argued against them. He just said that the detect spells only function exactly as described in the spell description.



Is not mentioned in the spell description. Therefore according to ravor the spell does no do that.

This position is consistent, because he is refuting all rules outside the spell description text.

Your position is inconsistent, because you are letting the table add new rules element (spells can detect additional infomation - the point about which ravor disagrees), but (and this is the inconsistency) you are arbitrarily defining the additional information that can be detected. The table does not make any reference to what information can be discovered, and uses the example to.. promulgate an example.

If you admit the table text *at all* the example is the only guideline in the rules as to what can be discovered as additional information.

But you and ravor quite explictly disagree about the function of the detect spells.

Actually, from what I have read, Ravor and I Agree far more about this than you and I do...
And I agree with Ravor Here as well, I guess it is time to Agree to Disagree...

Keep the Faith...

What the hell?



Ravor explicitly disagrees with that interpretation of the spell, but that is your statement.

Does the spell do that or not?

*dry voice* Thanks Cthulhudreams but I can pick my own arguements quite nicely.

It was a nitpick of his that he does not agre with the interpretation that the Troll is obviously being chased...

I would tend to disagree over time based upon the description of the spell allowing you to determine location of the lifeforce of those being detected... if it looks like she is being chased, she probably is; remember, the spell is sustained, so you would have time for observational analysis... that is what the 4 hits would seem to indicate based upon the table (more information available due to success, but nothing more than is beyond the spell's capabilities)

I'm trying to work out what the hell the argument is. You guys are advancing 3 seemingly different arguments all at once, then all claiming to agree with each other - but your arguments are mutually contradictory!


Lets focus on the wounded troll bit

A) Can detect life tell if a lifeform is a troll

B) Can detect life tell if they are wounded?

A: Yes, with more than 1 hit...
b: Yes, With more than 1 Hit...

1 Success: General Knowlegdge: There are 4 Metahumans
2 Successes: Major Details, No Minro Details: Troll, Ork, Human, Etc...
3 Successes: Major and Minor Details: Troll is a Female and Orks are Male...
4 Successes: Complete Detailed Information: Troll is Female and Wounded, and appears pregnant, Orks are Male and one is Sterile...

This is an example of incrementing information based upon the successes and is Supported by the Table given in the Books for Detection Spell Results...

What we have benn contradicting abouth the table examples is that the examples provide information that the spell is incapable of providing... Detect Life cannot provide information on non-living onjects... Period...

That has been the crux of the argument, not that the table was inherently flawed, just the examples given...

Right. None of that is mentioned in the spell description. So why do you think it applies?

Life is life... you can tell the various types of life apart from each other with an observation... that is what the Spell table is for... You receive information based upon the successes of the spell, but only in what it pertains to the specific spell...

For Detect Life, you get Dog, Cat, Deer, Human, Metahuman, Shifter, Elf, Dwarf, Wounded, etc... all are various forms of life (or stages thereof) and as such are subject to the table description, as long as you remember the limits of the spell itself and the levels of success described in the table descriptions... You just refuse to see it...

Remember, teh effect of the spell is a combination of the Spell in Question and the Level of Success as based on the Detection Spell Result Table...

I would be interested in your opinion of the various levels of success... How do you see them working?

1 Success: General Knowlegdge
2 Successes: Major Details, No Minor Details
3 Successes: Major and Minor Details
4 Successes: Complete Detailed Information

Keep the Faith

I'd agrue that unlike the curveball out of left field like discovering a spell whose description simply states that it detects lifeforms can in fact also detect weapons and other bullshit it stays true to the spirit of the spell's description, although I'm personally not sure that it could tell you everything in Tymeaus Jalynsfein's table but it doesn't offend my sensibilities like completely making shit up.

lol, so it's okay for stuff that isn't in the spell description to apply, just as long as you personally approve? Hilairty aside, that is inconsistent with your previous position, so can I seek clarification.

To me it's clear that the spells detect targets and then the amount of information you get about the targets is determined in accordance with the hit chart. This aligns with the description, the table and the example.

So in addition to deciding who I'm arguing against you know also think you you get to decide what I said as well?

No, hence me saying, and I quote "Hilairty (sic) aside, that is inconsistent with your previous position, so can I seek clarification. "

Meaning that I need clarification because I do not understand your position. You are seeming to say that stuff not in the spell description is acceptable now, but you said that it was not before. I am confused by these statements, and to resolve this confusion, I would like to seek clarification of your position.

To me that was a reasonable response to a seemingly inconsistent position, and I am sorry if you think that is unreasonable.

Additionally, I'd like to know why that if content not in the spell description is acceptable, why the table cannot separately define rules that enable the example.

Fair enough, I'll try this again then.

The spell description ultimately trumps everything else, that is the baseline that I come from.

The spell description says that the spell detects lifeforms.

There are rules that basically says, the more sucesses you get, the better the result is, and these rules apply to detection spells as well.

Therefore I don't see where allowing a spell that detects lifeforms to give you more details with extra sucesses is in disagreement with the spell discription provided that the extra details are strictly applied to things that the spell can detect.

Hence, I may not agree with everything in Tymeaus Jalynsfein's table, but its a gaint step foward because he has tried to apply the spell's description to the rules we have whereas the table in the book throws in details that are completely missing from the spell description.

And one of the reasons that I don't agree with the idea of interupting "unspoken rules" based off the tables is that quite frankly the tables are simply wrong in alot of places which in my opinion shows that they aren't proofed and fact checked as closely as the rest of the book is, also I believe that it is simply bad form to hide rules like that.



Now, to change tracks for a moment, applying detect life in this fashion makes the spell still useful but no longer a "must have", which in my opinion is a good thing by itself.

*EDIT*

Just a minor correction, there is one thing that the spell descriptions don't get to trump, and that is the Sixth World's Magical Theory, which is why I rail against "Turn to Goo" and it's sibling so much.

I can live with that... as I stated earlier, not everyone will agree with the way I approacehd the explanations, but I think that we are in agreement on the basics at least...

Keep the Faith...

Aye, and as I said earilier, your example doesn't raise my hackles like the one in the book does.

Works for Me...

Keep the Faith...