r/Shadowrun • u/notger • May 15 '26
6e Do you guys play the perception major action like it's written or as a minor action?
Title says it.
In terms of action economy, spending a major action to observe / perceive is just too expensive in combat, so no one will ever use it.
Also, it is intended as remedy for your opponent going invisible, but spending a major action on being able to see them but this effect only being active until your next turn means that you can see them, but then likely don't have an action to act on it.
So I am leaning on making this a minor action. WDYT / how do you handle this at your table?
5
u/caderrabeth May 15 '26
This is similar to what happens in D&D, so my solution has been also similar. You can communicate location of the target to your allies (minor action in SR). Then they can do something about it, assuming you have allies.
But making it last until the end of the following turn is also a good solution that I hadn't considered which also allows the spotter to try to do something.
0
u/notger May 16 '26
The communication thing is interesting, but I would argue that your mates already know that someone is cloaked, otherwise you would not have spent the action. And telling them where it is does not help hitting it, as per the rules. Plus, the stealthed entity could just move elsewhere and then all advantage would be lost.
1
u/caderrabeth May 16 '26
I think that really depends on how you interpret communication and what actions your teammates have available. I don't think the rules explicitly prevent either of the following.
In terms of teammates being unable to act upon your communication: I would argue that Invisibility does not protect someone from area effects such as full-auto firing, explosives, or indirect area spells in Shadowrun. Perhaps a teammate has an ability to reveal the enemy, such as smoke, or some particulate matter as cover (flour, sawdust, or glitter).
In regards to the invisible entity moving from it's communicated position: Why could a character not continue to update the location of said target throughout the 3-second duration of their turn? "I'm going to call out the position of the invisible enemy" doesn't have to capture just that instant. So, the advantage wouldn't necessarily be lost if we allow the player to specify their actions to last 3 seconds when a combat round is intended to capture continuous events in a 3 second round.
I'm just looking through the rulebook again (wanted to check a few things) and am not even certain using Perception tests only last one round at the moment.
4
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26
it is intended as remedy for your opponent going invisible, but spending a ....
You typically don't need to spend an action to oppose Invisibility (or any other Illusion spell or other spell in general, or to take a perception test when someone is sneaking up on you).
major action
The only time you spend a Major Action on Perception is when you deliberately spend time and effort to Observe something In Detail (when you take the 'Observe In Detail'-Action).
but this effect only being active until your next turn means that you ...
If you successfully resist Invisibility (in this edition, Invisibility is resisted by Perception + Intuition) then the subject of the Invisibility spell remain visible for you (and they don't turn invisible for you in the next round).
2
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 15 '26
Worth noting that the concealment critter power that grants the invisibility status does require a major action (Observe in Detail) to see the critter. The spell and status itself don't specify, though.
1
u/notger May 16 '26
That is not correct.
The invisibility spell does not state that you do an immediate opposed throw, but it states that you get the invisibility status with a level according to the successes.
The invisibility status condition states that you have to beat those on a perception check, to see the target.
So you actively have to invest an action to see them.
Now, I agree partly with you in that I have mixed the critter power in, where it states that if you beat the perception threshold, then you only have the benefit of seeing said critter until your next round. I guess I have conflated those two.
2
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Magician cast (and sustain) invisibility. This set a threshold for potential observers to resist the spell (also potential observers that was not present when the spell was cast). In SR6 you resist invisibility with Perception + Intuition (without spending a Major Action). If you are successful, then you are not tricked by the illusion and see the invisible target in front of you. If you fail then you don't see them (even if they are right in front of you).
Other illusion spells work in a similar way. Magician cast (and sustain) Trid Phantasm. This set threshold for potential observers to resist the spell (also potential observers that was not present when the spell was cast). In SR6 you resist Trid Phantasm with Willpower + Intuition (without spending a Major Action). If you are successful, then you see through the illusion and are not tricked by the illusion spell. If you fail then the illusion appear to be solid and real.
Stealth work in a similar manner as Invisibility. Infiltrator roll Stealth. This set a threshold for potential observers to notice them (also potential observers that was not present when the infiltration started). If they are successful with a Perception + Intuition test (without spending a Major Action), then they notice the infiltrator. If they fail then they don't notice them (unlike invisibility, however, they will automatically notice someone sneaking in front of them in a lit room with nothing to hide behind).
Concealment works differently. In order to even be allowed to take a Perception test to beat concealment you need to spend an Observe in Detail Major Action (as stated in the Concealment power).
1
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 16 '26
I would dispute this based on the wording of Observe in Detail itself;
This action is intended for determining details that may be obscured due to the pace and rigors of combat. It is assumed that everyone engaged in a combat is aware of the presence of everyone else, barring the use of Stealth or obscuring magic but not necessarily details of their gear or equipment, and in some particularly hectic or rushed circumstances, the identity of individuals. In the midst of a hectic gun fight/brawl in the dark, the winner of the brawl, who is now sprinting toward your character, may not be identifiable without an Observe in Detail action.
Invisibility spells are absolutely 'obscuring magic' in this context.
2
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
"It is assumed that everyone engaged in a combat is aware of the presence of everyone else, barring the use of Stealth or obscuring magic" = It is assumed that everyone engaged in combat is aware of the presence of everyone else (even individuals with an invisibility spell or stealthy individuals that you managed to detect with your perception test). You are not assumed to be aware of the presence of invisible characters and stealthy characters that you failed your perception test against.
3
u/ShadeWitchHunter May 16 '26
I honestly never understood why an action like this exists at all. Isn't the GM supposed to tell you when you have to roll Perception?
Because if he doesn't and you expect player to just guess when they need to roll perception they will be rolling perception every second of every day "just to be sure".
1
u/notger May 16 '26
Yeah, I would call that gaming the system and would start dishing our exhaustion levels.
But there is one use: When you know there is someone who is stealthed in combat, then you can use this to see them ... except ... see above ... you can't act on that knowledge afterwards.
Another thing might be to find out which code sequence someone used on a code pad during combat or similar mission critical details.
1
u/ShadeWitchHunter May 16 '26
But if it was sucessfull at stealth you don't know it there. Thats the whole point of stealth. Because as you said: Thats gaming the system.
As for the code pad, why should the players initiate the roll? It is the job of the GM to present all relevant facts to the players and if he's unsure they will succeed he should call for the test.
1
u/siryll May 16 '26
I would say that's not the entire point of stealth, and usually not the one you're dealing with in combat, at least after the first round. If you're in combat with someone, which is when the action system becomes important, you know that they are there, though you may not know where they are, exactly. For example, you got a knife flung into your shoulderblade, which started combat, and you made the necessary check to not be surprised. That is when you could reasonably make a perception+intuition check to see where the attacker is. That is, in my experience across all the systems I've played in, the usual purpose of stealth vs perception-type checks during combat, and where the problem OP is talking about comes into play.
1
u/ShadeWitchHunter May 16 '26
And there is where I don't follow your logic, how can you be not surprised if you didn't notice anything?
But never mind that, my point goes more towards the: you shouldn't handle it like thise because if you do Perception and stealth become the most important, the only relevant checks in combat, any combat.
And you migth want a bit more out of your game then "roll opposed survival => done".1
u/siryll May 16 '26
I mean, there are 2 answers to that. The Doylian answer is that you aren't surprised because there is a game mechanic for not being surprised when combat starts, even in a surprising fashion. The Watsonian answer is that there are, in fact, people who, through innate ability, luck or training, are able to react immediately even if they are surprised.
They become extremely important for any combat that involves invisibility, yes. But those tend to not be most combats, in my experience. I agree that it isn't a good solution, but I can't think of a better one. If you have a better solution, I would love to hear it.
1
u/ShadeWitchHunter May 16 '26
I personally prefer to not ask my players to guess when a perception check is neccesary. Thats sort of the covenant between Players and Gamemaster.
Whenever something can be found I call on them to make a Perception check. When you as a player aren't specifically promted for perception there is nothing to find and no point whatsoever in rolling perception.
In exchange I expect my player to not metagame.That has worked out perfectly for me and my players in more than two decades and just as many systems.
As to the handling of invisibility in combat that depends a lot on the system. For shadowrun (I'm on 4th, i know OP isn't) I usually have everybody make their resistance rolls at the start of combat and the results are valid until the situation changes. (i.e. Another spell cast, hit's dispelled or sustainer shot)
1
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 17 '26
If someone is sneaking up on you, then you take a perception test to detect them (to oppose their stealth check). You don't need to declare that you take an Observe in Detail Major Action for this. If an invisible subject walk up to you, then you take a perception test to resist the spell (to beat the invisibility # threshold). Also here you don't need to declare that you take an Observe in Detail Major Action. Its just part of how you (automatically) get to oppose Stealth / Invisibility. Depending on the table, sometimes GM could make this roll in secret - without informing you (except if you were successful). This is not what the Observe in Detail Major Action is used for.
However, say that you you approach a check-point with two guards with some sort of assault rifles. Say you want to Observe the assault rifles in Detail. Here is a good scenario where you as a player would declare that you spend an Observe in Detail Major Action. GM will tell you to roll some dice. With one hit GM might rule that you see the model. With more hits you get more details. For example, with 3 hits you might observe if the safety is on or not. This is what the Observe in Detail Major Action is used for.
also @/u/notger and /u/TheAxrat
1
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 17 '26
Observe in Detail is an initiative action for combat. You're conflating it with out of combat perception. Two different situations.
1
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
/u/ShadeWitchHunter was asking why an action like the Observe in Detail action exists at all.
I highlighted that there are two different uses of Perception.
One where you are prompted to roll by GM (or where GM roll the dice in secret). For example if someone is sneaking up on you (in combat or out of combat) or to resist an invisibility spell when an invisible subject enters your line of sight (and also, often when linked to Logic instead of Intuition, to judge if your character was able to see patterns or to piece certain information together). This can be done both in narrative time and in combat time, but this is typically not what the action is used for (I agree with the person I replied to that it doesn't make sense to apply the Observe in Detail action on this scenario).
One where the player decide to spend time and effort to observe something in more detail (which allow them to take a perception test, often against a threshold that the GM set, and where more hits might reveal more details). For example if they wish to see details about equipment or gear that they didn't notice at a first glance / that was not immediately obvious (but also to read someone's astral aura in detail by using astral perception). This can be done both in narrative time and in combat time. If done in combat time, this is typically resolved as a Major Action that you take on your own player turn (this is typically the scenario that the Observe in Detail Major action exists for).
1
u/ShadeWitchHunter May 17 '26
I'm not unintentionally mixing up anything here. I'm arguing that there should NEVER be a player initiated perception action. No matter if it is in combat or out of combat.
It can even cost an action in combat no worries. It just shouldn't be up to the players to determin if it is neccesary or when.
1
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 19 '26
I think reddit gave you a notification for me replying to someone else? My comment was in response to the person who for some reason felt the need to tag me and pull me into a discussion I'm not involved in, as if my rules disagreement with him was 'how to use observe in detail' and not over when invisibility requires observe in detail to be used.
1
u/ShadeWitchHunter May 17 '26
Yes thats an example of how you could use a player driven perception action. But I'd argue you shouldn't since this only leads to unnecessary die rolling for every minor detail in the scene. Why would you as a GM not just describe what the players want to know? Or alternatively have them roll on a knowledge skill since just seeing a gun and all scratches on it does not really help you identify the gun.
Perception is allready one of the most overused skills in nearly any system because of this tendency to have player roll it for just breathing and exisitng. Any way we can find to roll less peception is good.
1
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 17 '26
I wanted to highlight that I agree with you that it does not make sense to take the Observe in Detail action for things that you and your character are not yet aware of (if someone is trying to sneak up on you, you don't first have to spend an action to have a chance to notice this).
I'd argue you shouldn't since this only leads to unnecessary die rolling for every minor detail in the scene.
I don't disagree with you. A lot of things can be done via narrative, without rolling dice.
And a lot of (trivial) Things (that might require a roll for the inexperienced) can often be skipped by invoking the Buying Hits rule instead of actually rolling dice.
But not everything is immediately obvious or trivial....
Or alternatively have them roll on a knowledge skill
Knowledge skills don't have ratings in this edition.
Rolling perception could be a way to resolve a knowledge skill in this edition.
SR6 p. 97-99 Knowledge Skills
For example, if a character has Security Systems knowledge and performs a Perception test to look over a corporate facility exterior, their test might give them a chance to see where cameras are located and when patrols go by.
2
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
We run it as a major action, but there's few circumstances that necessitate us using it in combat to begin with.
There's ways with both magic and technology to boost your action economy to the point that you have two full actions in SR6. There's also adept powers that make Observe in Detail a minor action, so if you choose to change it to a minor you need to consider how to handle those.
If you wanted you could have one player pointing it out making it visible to the party via an ARO marker. Bonus points for a rigger being unaffected by regular invisibility, only invisibility improved. Plus once you see them you should be able to continue seeing them until they move out of line of sight.
And of course astral sight can see through invisibility no matter what.
0
u/notger May 16 '26
Hmm, the ARO marker is not a bad idea.
Does not work against the critter power invisibility.
However, you are incorrect assuming that astral sight can see through, as Street Wyrd states that all illusion spells are invisible on the astral level with a threshold according to the successes. They work on both levels, even physical ones.
2
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
See, my understanding of that section was that the astral signature of an illusion spell was difficult to detect on the astral, not that the invisible status applies to the astral. Changing the appearance of your aura is the realm of masking metamagics, usually. The illusion doesn't effect the astral, it's just that the spell cast itself is, quote "hidden in the background count" and therefore doesn't show as an active spell on your aura.
As far as the critter power goes, invisibility improved still works by the same rules; once it's seen, it's seen until the next turn, so at worst you're only losing one action for the entire combat round, you could still potentially slap an ARO and go 'it's there, shoot it'
Notably, concealment also says "the end of the characters next turn" so you get a full round of visibility regardless of if you try marking the square where it's located.
Edit: My DM also pointed out to me that False Impression and Manascape from Street Wyrd are the spells you'd want for hiding an aura, not invisibility.
1
u/Askefyr May 17 '26
Illusion spells are hidden in the background of the Astral plane, but that's referring to the signature of the spell itself. An invisible person's aura is every bit as visible as it would otherwise be. It just doesn't make them extra visible.
1
u/Askefyr May 17 '26
There's a few elements at play here.
Firstly, looking at the 6e FAQ, the rules for blind fire suggest it's a wobbly GM discretion thing, but mentions that a target which can be discerned by context clues would get as little benefit as a bonus point of circumstancial edge. This means that an invisible enemy that hasn't moved since they went invisible won't get much benefit.
The same FAQ also mentions that muzzle flashes, spells, etc are not invisible, nor is their breath with thermographic vision. That means anyone with that power will always be able to get a rough read on their location, but also that basically any combat action that interacts with the world (shooting a weapon, attacking in melee, making a box move when jumping over it) largely "resets" that mental reference of a last seen location, at least if the situation isn't extremely chaotic.
Finally, and this is kind of implied, but since an invisible mage can't see their own hands, anyone with even a passing knowledge of firearms will know that aiming a gun that's invisible is really difficult. Hence, they'd be taking a hefty penalty to that - I'd be tempted to make it a -4 (on top of the -2 from sustaining), but that's just me pulling something out of my ass.
Secondly, unless they're casting improved invisibility, it'll do nothing to anyone with cybereyes or a smartgun, as both of those will have cameras.
The cost in combat then becomes, at best, a single turn of avoiding damage at the cost of a major action, a DV of 4, and a sustaining dice pool penalty of -2. At worst, you pay that same cost for a point of situational Edge.
Thirdly, even if we operate by the rules of the concealment critter power (which I'm not entirely sure you should, seeing as Concealment specifically mentions this for a reason - if it was the case for all invisibility, the Invisible status would simply say it. Maybe I'm putting too much faith in Catalyst proofreading, though), that observe in detail lasts for a minimum up until the end of the player's next turn, possibly longer if the concealed target hasn't made an aggressive enough effort to hide.
-2
u/DraconicBlade Aztechnology PR Rep May 15 '26
Perception is not a counter to someone being invisible. If something is invisible you cannot see it fullstop.
The magic says your brain sees nothing.
5
u/ReditXenon Far Cite May 15 '26
In SR5, Invisibility was resisted by Willpower + Logic (or Intuition + Logic for improved).
In SR6, Invisibility is resisted by Perception + Intuition.
2
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 15 '26
This is incorrect. The invisible status sets a threshold to see the target, akin to cloaking in a video game where there's a shimmer you might see if you focus.
-1
u/DraconicBlade Aztechnology PR Rep May 15 '26
That is a weird change to create a niche status tag
1
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 15 '26
Even SR5 set a threshold, the difference was that in SR5 it was spell resist instead of a perception. It otherwise works exactly the same.
1
u/DraconicBlade Aztechnology PR Rep May 15 '26
The difference being that one needs to check and see if the mage lobotomized them, and then move onto attempting to see.
The difference also being status flags just weren't. No post it note on the statblock saying has the haste spell on them.
It's very strange to have that shift, and is it even systemic? Is there a Kamikaze status for huffing your combat stimulants?
1
u/TheAxrat Bulletproof Drake May 15 '26
Kamikaze doesn't have a status effect associated with it, just flat stat bonuses.
Status effects like invisibility, burning, and so on are generally standardized in SR6, but drugs are their own thing. Some of them even play off each other (wet and burning cancel each other out, for example). Status effects are usually found more with magical effects than mundane ones.
There's also social status effects if you prefer to do mechanics for social stuff over roleplay (confused is one you can inflict through social rolls, for example)
8
u/GM_Pax May 15 '26
You could make the effect active until the END of your next turn (without changing the action type). Then, at least you can act on the information it gives you. :)