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?

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

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?

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).

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 )

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

Invisiblity can only be cast on a willing subject. The target of Invisibility is the bus driver.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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