Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Apathy Aug 22 2007, 08:18 PM

Does 'Line of Sight' (LOS) range for spells include 'Touch'? In other words, if I have a blindfolded character, can he cast his Manabolt spell at a target he touches?

Posted by: Adarael Aug 22 2007, 08:20 PM

GM call. I've always played it that way, though. Touch trumps sight for forming links, IMO.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 22 2007, 08:20 PM

LOS and Touch are two different ranges. You don't need the former for the latter and vice-versa.

Sorry, I misread. If a spell has a LOS requirement, you have to see them even if you're touching them. Only Touch spells (or those you cast using Ritual Spellcasting) get around the LOS requirement of LOS spells. So no, you couldn't cast Manabolt by touching someone only, but you could cast Death Touch. They're two completely different types of "ranges," and one doesn't trump the other.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Aug 22 2007, 08:22 PM

Posted by: darthmord Aug 22 2007, 08:49 PM

Umm... why worry about the blindfold? Have said mage use Astral Perception. The blindfold shouldn't be an issue then.

Posted by: Adarael Aug 22 2007, 08:53 PM

Alas, it still is. Because despite the fact that Astral Perception isn't "sight", shit that blocks your vision still blocks that.

Posted by: mfb Aug 22 2007, 08:54 PM

astral perception does not let you see through solid objects.

Posted by: Draconis Aug 23 2007, 12:03 AM

Besides, not all Mystic Adept types have astral perception.

Posted by: Buster Aug 23 2007, 12:23 AM

Mfb is right, astral perception is blocked by solid objects (even sunglasses and windows).

Posted by: Red Aug 23 2007, 12:45 AM

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 23 2007, 12:52 AM

Posted by: Buster Aug 23 2007, 01:09 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2007, 01:10 AM

I wouldn't mind seeing a quote as well.

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 01:11 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 23 2007, 01:50 AM

Why would a blindfold keep a mage who is astrally perceiving from seeing? Astral perception trumps the eyes not working, so it should equally trump having the eyes covered.

As far as casting, I say he could cast death touch, but not manabolt via touch but not sight.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 23 2007, 01:53 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 01:55 AM

blindfolds trump astral perception for the same reason that a brick wall trumps astral perception. the blindfold and the wall are doing the same thing--limiting the caster's vision. in both cases, the caster is not blind per se--he's just unable to see past the obstruction. anything between the caster's eye and his blindfold, he could easily target with a spell. with actual eye-not-working blindness, there's no obstruction; the physical organ simply doesn't work correctly.

Posted by: Red Aug 23 2007, 03:01 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 23 2007, 03:33 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 04:25 AM

as i stated above, there's a perfectly legitimate reason. blindness is not a physical obstruction. blindfolds are a physical obstruction. you don't need working eyes to astrally perceive, but you do need an unobstructed view. for stylistic reasons, i think i'd bend the rules such that a blind person wearing a blindfold would still be able to astrally perceive, but by a strict reading of the rules, i think they'd actually be astrally blinded by the blindfold.

hyzmarca, i don't believe your argument makes sense in the rules. it effectively gives mages near-perfect 360-degree vision. if that were the case, i think somebody would have said something, because that's going to have a huge effect on many aspects of the game.

Posted by: Marwynn Aug 23 2007, 04:29 AM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2007, 04:35 AM

A lot of these arguments, if true, would make the Mage Mask a non-item.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 23 2007, 04:51 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 23 2007, 05:06 AM

Well mfb, a mage can't cast LOS spells if he closes his eyes either. But he can astrally perceive and see things with his eyes closed. His eyelids are an obstruction in the astral too. You can't see through living things any more than you can see through a wall. So, that means mages have to keep their eyes open while perceiving too.

What if the mage doesn't have any eyes at all? Because of some sort of accident?

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 05:06 AM

you don't need facing rules. you just need the understanding that the modifiers in the book apply to creatures with a field of vision at least passingly similar to that of an unmodified human. there's a huge, huge difference between being able to look in any direction at any time, and being able to see in every direction at all times. nothing in SR i've ever seen suggests that you look at the astral through anything except your eyes--working or not. adding that in is a major change to the fluff, even if you discount the impact on the rules.

Tarantula, i think it's probably up to the GM whether or not closing your eyes--or covering your eyes with your hand, or whatever--blocks your own astral perception. someone who doesn't have any eyes at all would be, in the rules, blind, just as if they had non-working eyes. the rules for being blind would apply to an eyeless person they way they do to any other blind character. they would perceive the astral from the portion of their face where their eyes normally would reside.

what in the rules suggests to you that there's a difference between having your vision blocked by a brick wall and having your vision blocked by a blindfold?

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 23 2007, 06:59 AM

The fact that a brickwall completely seals you off from an area, while a blindfold leaves quite a lot of you unblocked.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2007, 07:04 AM

Posted by: Casazil Aug 23 2007, 07:17 AM

Here's a question: If your using astral perception wouldn't the spell be cast on the astral plane?

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 23 2007, 07:18 AM

They don't exist in SR4. At least not yet. So... nothing.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 23 2007, 07:19 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 08:16 AM

a blindfold seals you off from the area outside the blindfold. the only difference between a blindfold and a brick wall is how close they are to your face. if you put your face against the wall, does it become a blindfold and allow you to see through it? no, of course not. so maybe it's the dimensions that matter--a blindfold is only a few inches high and wide, and generally less than a fifth of an inch deep (i'm estimating, obviously). does that mean that any thin item a few inches high and wide is transparent? are they only transparent when you hold them up to your face? how close to your face do they have to get before they become transparent? and most importantly, why hasn't the fact been ever mentioned before that items of certain dimensions become transparent to astral perception in certain circumstances?

there are huge, huge differences between being blind and wearing a blindfold. one of those differences is that being blind doesn't stop you from perceiving astrally, and everything in the rules indicates that wearing a blindfold does.

here's what it boils down to for me: blindfolds worked in 1st-3rd editions. nothing in 4th edition indicates that anything has changed with the way blindfolds interact with astral perception. ergo, nothing has changed with the way blindfolds interact with astral perception.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 23 2007, 09:06 AM

As others have pointed out, astral perception is a completely psychic sense. It is neither sight nor sound, and the descriptive equivalence of both exist to the psychic sense (thus negating that one is, in fact, linked to the other in any real way; else there would be astral sight and astral hearing senses). You can actually "see" inside people while using it, detecting not only the location of any implants they have, but toxins, diseases, and hoards of other details that real sight can't give you.

So why do so many people assume that sense originates from the eyes of the magician? Especially since there's faiths out there that claim a "third eye" located in the middle of their forehead is the source of their psychic senses, and doubtfully countless other similar belliefs not centered on the physical eyes. Why can't the entire body of the magician be the "astral eyes," or more correctly their own aura? And why should a blindfold stop it? Just because it interfers with their meat eyes, even when that's not necessary the seat of their astral senses?

A brick wall is definitely an obstacle. But why should a blindfold be one when a headband or hat isn't? Or any form of clothing for that matter? What makes the meat eyes so special to a psychic Hindu, or someone who was born without the ability to see and never associated sight with his eyes to begin with?

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 09:29 AM

the psychic Hindu can be wrong about the point of origin of his astral perception, just as a Christian can be wrong about the idea the 'miracles' granted him by YHWH are more powerful than the magic granted by any other god.

as to whether or not the psychic Hindu is wrong, well, the canon doesn't state it in concrete terms one way or the other. but a combination of evidence and reasoning leads me to believe that astral perception originates from the location of the meat eyes, whether they work or not or even whether they're there or not. we know that at least up until 2070, magemasks blocked astral perception, which means that astral perception originates from the head somewhere. astral perception is not sight, but it is a visual sense--it's described in terms of color and shape, in other words, rather than (say) pitch and volume or sweetness / saltiness / sourness. given that it's a visual sense, the simplest assumption is that it orginates in the eyes. it might orginate from the nostrils or the mouth or the chin or the crown--but that would be weird, weird enough that the fact that nothing states that astral perception originates from one of those locations can be taken as evidence that it doesn't. the fact that i've never told you i don't have six fingers on each hand can be taken as evidence (not proof, but evidence) that, indeed, i don't have six fingers on each hand.

that covers up to 2070--1st-3rd editions. in 4th edition, it's entirely possible that the origin of astral perception has changed, maybe to a mystical third eye, maybe to the entire surface of the skin. however, if it has changed, there's no evidence of it in any of the books thus far printed, including Street Magic--the definitive source of magic for 4th ed. therefore, the evidence that holds true for 1st-3rd edition also holds true for 4th. that evidence says that astral perception comes from the eyes, which means that a blindfold can block it.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 23 2007, 09:41 AM

So you can effectively "see" through people's clothes, skin, muscles, and organs to detect the exact type and location of an implant, but a thin piece of cloth stops you dead in your tracks... but only if it's blocking your meat eyes, which have zero direct correlation to astral perception? Curious.

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 09:47 AM

well, to get technical, it never actually says you can see the implants. you just discern their location based on the aura of the person you see.

and, as i asked above, what's the difference between a thin strip of cloth and a brick wall? it never says anything in the rules about thin objects being transparent to astral perception.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 23 2007, 09:58 AM

Every time an obstacle is mentioned, it's something that's not part of the magician's own aura. That brick wall isn't part of the magician. Those sunglasses, blindfold, and monocle all are, in much the same way a projecting magician isn't stripped naked the moment they project. Sure, the current rules don't technically say you're not naked (at least not when I last read them), but it is a fairly safe assumption considering the art and flavor text seen all over the place.

Now if someone comes up behind you and covers your eyes with their hands, I can see that affecting things since that's someone else's aura impeding on your own. A magemask (a very specialized type of blindfold that was more than a mere blindfold, but a complete hood!) may very well have had its own aura, whether by being soaked in some kind of FAB-like substance, woven out of a dual-natured plant, or whatever else. Or it may have been simple cloth. It's rather a moot point right now since it curiously doesn't exist in SR4. The main point is that it clearly was more than a blindfold regardless of which idea you like better. And why is that?

That said, if astral perception was reliant on your eyes, why can't things like Optical Vision Magnification assist on assensing tests? Why are mages who never had eyes still limited by their eye sockets? What makes that part of the head so important to a sense that has nothing to do with sight beyond a metagaming reliance on sight and sound (which is our -- the players' -- most dominant senses) to describe things? Especially to those who place no importance there whatsoever?

Then again a blindfold could work due to the "emotional resonance" of it. People believe it blinds them, thus it blinds them.

EDIT: God damn, I must need sleep or something. Even I have no idea what I originally wrote!

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 10:06 AM

in SR3, at least, it actually does all but say that your astral form is naked. you're allowed to create whatever clothing you want for your astral form, but it's pretty clear that you come out of your body with what you were born with. it doesn't say anything about clothing in SR4, unless there's something in SM. *shrug*

y'all keep misreading what i'm saying or something. i'm not saying astral perception depends on your eyes. it obviously doesn't, or being physically blind would render you astrally blind. but your POV when you're astrally perceiving is, as best i can determine from the evidence at hand, located in your eyes. why that is, i don't know. i didn't write the rules, i'm not in charge of the fluff.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 23 2007, 10:09 AM

No, I'm not misunderstanding you. Think you're just not getting what I'm saying either. I haven't read anything that says your eyes or your astral POV is based on your eyes. Yes, the descriptions rely on sight and sound, but that's because that's all we, the players, can comprehend. Astral perception isn't real (warning: incoming hippie alert!), so it's pretty damn hard to describe things with a sense you can't even comprehend.

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 10:13 AM

granted. however, since it is described in visual terms, i don't see why the metaphor of vision wouldn't hold true except where it's specifically stated otherwise. i mean, it never says that you can differentiate between near and far astral presences, using astral perception--but we assume you can, because of the vision metaphor. why wouldn't the metaphor hold true for the location of the POV, since it's not stated otherwise?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 23 2007, 10:26 AM

Not the best analogy there. Distance is relative whether you can see it or not, whether you can hear it or not, or whether you can feel it or not. As for other analogies, I kinda touched on it two of my posts above. I'm leaning to it being more of an aura thing than a physical thing.

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 10:36 AM

i'm not sure what the fact that distance is relative has to do with perceiving relative distances. if astral perception used scent instead of vision as a metaphor, it would be perfectly reasonable for it to be hard to differentiate between near and far astral presences; a near presence with a low force might very well smell as far away as a distant presence with a high force.

i've read your analogies and agree with them--astral perception is not vision, and does not necessarily follow the same rules as vision. however, it uses vision as its base metaphor, so to me it's more reasonable to assume that it works like vision except where stated otherwise than it is to assume that it has completely different properties than vision in cases where no determination is made in the rules.

...i'm getting tired, it's getting tough to condense what i'm trying to say into short sentences. might crash soon.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 23 2007, 10:43 AM

I don't know, dogs seem to have little trouble following a scent. Knowing it's not right where they are, but which direction it's coming from. Much like astral tracking, in fact. (Does that mean you can't astrally track someone if you have a nose plug on?) And what if someone covers your ears? Are you deaf on the astral plane, too?

And yeah, I'm heading out myself.

Posted by: TonkaTuff Aug 23 2007, 10:56 AM

The visual metaphor isn't the only one they use. The last paragraph under Astral Perception says pretty clearly that there are astral "sounds". And elsewhere they mention that astral perceptions can be as much tactile or directly empathic as visual or auditory. A person with cancer reads as "gravely ill". A temple "feels" sacred. Murder scenes "smell" wrong.

Now, admittedly, they use 'see' much of the time. But, as Funkenstein pointed out - if you're trying to describe an experience to someone who hasn't (or can't) have it themselves, you couch it in the closest terms that they can comprehend. It's like the way artificial ultrasound systems are rendered as a visual approximation. The actual data collected has very little to do with the way sight works, but that's the easiest way to put it so people can use it.

Really, from the descriptions, astral perception seems to work a lot like the way matrix perception does. You're really taking all of the information at once but there's so much of it you're only generally aware of it as background noise. The astral energies permeate everything and react against each other in as a radiant field. The magician's body/soul is sensitive to all of this and by shifting their focus to particulars among the whole, they can try and make some sort of sense out of it or pick out individual components. How easy or difficult it is to detect a given thing among the chaos depends on how big it is, how "strong" its emanations are, or however else it stands out from the rest, not it's (meta)physical location relative to the observer.

Which gets back to the wall v. bandanna thing. If you couch astral perception totally in a visual metaphor, there is no real difference between them. Their shadows are equally opaque, and if the latter is "close" enough to you, it can blot out just as much of the astral world as the former to your perspective. But using the omnidirectional sense approach, the shadow of the cloth can only obscure another astral form smaller than itself (or exactly the same size). The wall, since its shadow is much larger, can offer cover to larger astral forms.

And, from a practical standpoint, it's alot easier than typing see/smell/hear/feel every single time. It's not an indicator that that's how the input is actually processed.

Also, the magemask wasn't a fancy gimp hood because covering the head or eyes blocks astral perception, but because it blocked physical LOS and it served as a useful base for installing the white noise generator, earplugs, and gag tube in one convenient package. Astral Perception and other mental or magical actions were hindered because the bloody thing made it exceptionally difficult to concentrate enough to do any of them. With a high enough willpower or a lucky roll, you theoretically could do any of those things - albeit with a high dice penalty.

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 11:02 AM

from what i've read, dogs discern scent direction by the scatter of the scent--as time goes on, the scent left by somone's passing spreads, so the scent trail is weaker and wider where it's older. using that metaphor, you could track where an astral presence has been, but not necessarily where it is now, including how far away it is--though you could make educated guesses based on the relative age of different parts of the scent trail.

which is a whole 'nother topic. on the subject of astral POV, my stance is that it's in the eyes because the perception metaphor is visual. blindfolds are rarely encountered enough that if other GMs want to rule otherwise, i'm not going to come to their house and shoot them. they're wrong, and the lord will send them to hell for their wicked ways, but i'm not going to try to stop them.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2007, 11:21 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 11:32 AM

MitS, page 12. it says it "completely cuts off line of sight", but doesn't say anything specific about astral perception. my assumption has always been that no LOS = no astral perception (since otherwise, astral perception would grand you LOS--a kinda important detail).

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2007, 11:47 AM

Yeah, I know that reference, but I see nothing about casting with high penalties, or only being effective because they make concentration difficult.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 23 2007, 04:59 PM

Actually, wouldn't a blindfold be within the mage's aura and as such, not affect this abilities on the Astral?

You certainly couldn't target a spell at the blindfold while it was on someone. There are rules in place that specifically forbid that sort of stuff.

I also remember in an earlier edition the claim that you went astral sans clothing. Which is why I mentioned using Astral Perception. But then again, opening your senses to the Astral isn't the same as actually GOING Astral (Perception vs Projection).

Honestly, if you are going to neuter a mage's ability to cast on you in terms of prisoners... you are going to put him/her into a living cage / barriers / wards so they can't escape astrally and their spell casting would be limited.

I just can't see a mere blindfold stopping their ability to cast entirely. Interfere with? Yes. Totally prohibit? No.

Posted by: Blog Aug 23 2007, 08:05 PM

I always understood Astral Perception to be a 360 view perspective from the head (well in meta-humanity).
Therefore
blindfold = partial cover.
mage mask = total cover.

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 09:24 PM

there is nothing in the rules i'm aware of that links a mage's aura to his astral perception. so the fact that the blindfold is part of the mage's aura, and can't be seperately targeted, has no bearing i can see on whether or not the blindfold blocks his astral perception.

i've never seen anything in the rules that says that astral perception allows the mage to see in all directions simultaneously. i think the rules are actually fairly strongly against that model--the listed modifiers are for beings with a field of vision at least vaguely similar to that of a mundane metahuman, ie two eyes that face in the same direction. there are no modifiers for astral perception that indicate that it grants a significantly different field of vision.

a blindfold is not enough to completely inhibit spellcasting--you could still cast touch-range spells, and maybe other spells as long as you're touching your target. it does, however, block LOS as best i can determine from the rules.

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 23 2007, 09:33 PM

This still doesn't answer the question of what happens if you blindfold something like a human form weretiger, whose astral head doesn't remotely line up with its physical head. It doesn't deal with possessed chairs either. Where exactly are a chair's eyes normally located?

Posted by: mfb Aug 23 2007, 10:37 PM

i think i'd rule that a shapeshifter is affected by a blindfold the same way as any other humanoid. say the astral form floats around so that their heads match up, or something. i'm not going to even try to call that canon, though. if anyone's managed to slog through those Nyx Smith stories, there might be something in there.

a chair... again, not canon, but i'd anthropomorphize it, pick features or shapes on the chair and assign them as eyes. or maybe i wouldn't even try to assign a definite ruling on it; if i need the possessed chair to be able to see from a certain portion of its chairnatomy, it will be able to, and if i don't it won't be able to. trying to blindfold a possessed chair is a rare enough occurrence that even a detailed-rule fanatic like me is willing to let it slip by.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Aug 23 2007, 10:40 PM

Posted by: Red Aug 23 2007, 11:02 PM

I think I agree with the metaphorical, or symbolic approach. A blindfold blocks astral sight because when worn it blocks physical sight. Yet it might allow astral sound just fine. The opposite for earplugs. I think that is simpler than working out points of origin for psychic senses.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 23 2007, 11:13 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 24 2007, 04:35 AM

As far as the mage-mask goes, coming from pg12 MitS... you get a +6 penalty to any mental action taken (including trying to use magic) this is from a white noise generator. It goes on to say "Actions that a mage normally performs automatically, like astral projection, require a Willpower (10) Test to accomplish." So, yes, it cuts off all physical LOS the mage could have. You still could astrally perceive (if you can succeed the willpower (10) test) and then try to cast at someone (with the +6TN penalty). Its a very very very longshot, but could work. (Good thing there wasn't edge/longshot tests back with magemasks).

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 04:55 AM

I have to disagree with the fact that astral sight aligns with physical sight, due to a couple of specific paragraphs and sentences in the BBB.

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 05:08 AM

then you have no basis at all for deciding what blocks it, if anything. the POV of your astral perception could be your right foot, the back of your neck, it could be a spot three feet to the left of your hip. anything and everything is pure conjecture, if you toss out the idea of basing everything off the vision metaphor except where noted different.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 05:13 AM

I am saying that a blindfold blocks physical sight, and if you are astrally perceiving (not projecting, that is a completely different ballgame) then that blindfold is still only blocking your physical sight, not your astral. Sure, you wouldn't be able to physically see your target, but you are dual-natured while perceiving, so you are only blinded on one part, but you will still be able to tell that there is an aura there and thus able to target said aura. In the astral you do not see with your eyes, you have no eyes, you see with your aura. You do not hear with your ears, you have no ears, you hear with your aura.

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 05:15 AM

again, i've never seen anything in the rules that suggests you sense with your aura. your aura is not your astral form--it's just part of your astral form.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 05:18 AM

Then what is the rest of your astral form then? If not your aura, then what else is there? I mean, it is nothing physical, because it is astral....so what is it then?

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 05:21 AM

I simply stand by it not being a traditional sense at all, let alone one linked to any single physical location. It's like saying that you use your eyes to hear, or your ears to smell.

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 05:23 AM

it's you. it's your astral body, whatever energy astral bodies are comprised of. whatever they are, it's clearly stated in the text that auras and astral forms are distinct:

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 05:30 AM

Alright, be that as it may, it is still not physical. When you perceive, you are both your astral form and your physical, you are perceiving through both, hence why doing anything involving strictly your physical senses comes with a negative dice pool, because the two do not align with each other. If you were 'seeing' through the same sensory inputs, then the things you were observing would align with each other, but they don't.

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 05:33 AM

that's not in the rules. you get a -2 modifier for using astral perception yes, but in 4th ed it doesn't say why. in previous editions, as i recall, it was because the astral plane distracted you. regardless, the alignment thing has no basis in the rules or the fluff.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 05:35 AM

Hmmm....I am going to think more on this and I will have a response for you....tomorrow. I have been working all day and I desperately need sleep....so, yeah....tomorrow.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 05:46 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 05:49 AM

the magemask "blocks LOS". it doesn't specify physical LOS, so unless i'm missing something it should also block astral LOS.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 24 2007, 05:56 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 06:04 AM

Magemasks block "line of sight." Not "prevents the magician from assensing with astral perception." Those are and have always been two completely separate and distinct things. I don't recall once ever hearing the term "astral line of sight" in any edition of the game.

Not that it mattered in SR3 with a magemask anyway. In SR3, you had to be on the same plane in order to cast a spell at someone, and assensing them was acceptable for fulfilling the LOS requirement against astral opponents. Again, two separate things. The magemask prevents a magician from casting a LOS spell on anyone who couldn't defend themselves. Those who were astral or dual-natured had the ability to defend themselves just fine, especially since the magician had a +6 TN penalty on the few things they could do to them. And that was the main point of a magemask, to let mundanes have a defense and physical restraint against them in law enforcement.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 06:05 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 06:08 AM

by that logic, there's nothing stopping you from assensing the aura of anyone, anywhere, no matter where you are in relation to them or what obstructions there are to your astral senses. you could assense Lofwyr all day long from anywhere on the planet. besides, assensing and perceiving are two different things. even if you decide that assensing isn't blocked by astrally opaque obstructions, those opaque obstructions will still stop you from perceiving anything beyond them.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 06:14 AM

How on earth are you making that leap? Just because you're not using your fucking eyes to "see" on the astral plane doesn't mean you're spontaneously manifesting your point of view anywhere in the universe. That's just ridiculous. "OMFG, I don't use my eyes to hear with, so I can hear what Lowfyr is saying anywhere in the world!!!" That's the kind of retarded comment you just made.

Posted by: TonkaTuff Aug 24 2007, 06:35 AM

Off-hand, I suggest we just call the thread. Without an official stance, this debate isn't going to be resolved. The fundamental assumptions of both sides can be applied to the somewhat ambiguous text to prove their version to their satisfaction, if no one else's. And in any event, it doesn't matter what any of us think the right answer is - we're all free to play the game however the hell we want to anyway.

If you want unidirectional astral perception, fine. It radiates in a cone out of the front of your characters' heads, and you treat perception just like sight with a different light source (distance, perspective, etc. applies). If you want omnidirectional astral perception, cool. It's a roughly-spherical sensory field radiating out of your entire body and LOS is determined by whether there are astral shadows or other features interposed between your perceptual locus and your intended target large enough or clustered densely enough to obscure their astral form.

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 06:38 AM

well, you're separating what you can assense from what you can astrally see. that's what LOS is, man. i mean, these are your words:

Posted by: darthmord Aug 24 2007, 01:17 PM

Posted by: Apathy Aug 24 2007, 02:55 PM

Here's a related question:
Several people have suggested that a mage might be able to astrally percieve from any part of his body. Does this mean that he can peek around corners with the tip of his finger? Can he shoot while blindfolded with just a -2 modifier instead of the -6 for blind fire?

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 24 2007, 03:25 PM

Can a blind-from-birth mage do the same?

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 03:52 PM

Posted by: ThreeGee Aug 24 2007, 04:53 PM

You astrally percieve with your brain rather than your eyes. Given the emotional content of the astral world, the brain can be the only organ capable of interacting with it.

Posted by: Apathy Aug 24 2007, 05:03 PM

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 24 2007, 05:07 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 05:12 PM

If its an obstacle between you (whatever "you" is) and what you're "viewing," yes. But again the main point of the thread is that astral perception is not necessarily based on the point of view of your eyes. So how exactly is that blindfold going to stop you from "seeing" things when your "eyes" are located on your forehead or you're a shapeshifter or drake with an astral head closer to your crotch?

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 24 2007, 05:16 PM

I suppose that could be the case. I guess I didn't follow that problem. I personally think Astral Vision is controlled by the eyes perceiving a different medium than light. You want to use Astral Touch -- go head, but you're going to reach out and touch something with a limb or brush up against it in astral space some how. YMMV.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 24 2007, 05:27 PM

Posted by: darthmord Aug 24 2007, 05:33 PM

Posted by: Buster Aug 24 2007, 05:37 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 24 2007, 05:44 PM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 05:47 PM

Posted by: Apathy Aug 24 2007, 05:49 PM

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 24 2007, 05:54 PM

You would get a modifier for attacking from cover and your enemies would be able to shoot at or cast spells at you with cover penalties.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 24 2007, 07:09 PM

hyzmarca, I believe there are modifiers for cover that are used in spellcasting tests in terms of whether or not you are able to successfully cast on the target.

Which has a certain level of logical consistency. The more of your target(s) you can see, the better you will perform the desired action upon them in terms of shooting / targeting.

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 07:56 PM

Posted by: augurer Aug 24 2007, 08:40 PM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 24 2007, 08:51 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 24 2007, 09:35 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 25 2007, 04:55 AM

If I conjure an earth spirit, and you tie a blindfold on it, can it suddenly not see at all?

Posted by: mfb Aug 25 2007, 05:01 AM

depends on whether or not you tie it around the seat of its astral POV. couldn't even begin to guess where that might be on an elemental.

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 25 2007, 12:13 PM

In regards to the main questions of this thread:

1) IMO touch is enough to target a LOS spell with. Basically LOS < Touch < Personal (ie Touch restricted to self only).

2) In the case of blindfolds vs astral perception, aside from the magemask and the episode with Krista Fried in Night's Pawns I can't recall anything in previous canon to indicate that blindfold > perception. Thus, based on the fact that astral perception is a psychic sense and based on the described workings of a magemask, I'm gonna have to come down on the astral perception > blindfold side of things.

Posted by: Red Aug 25 2007, 01:29 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 25 2007, 02:58 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 25 2007, 05:09 PM

If you'd like mfb, I'll offer an interpretation for why a magemask works but a blindfold doesn't. If the eyes receive visual input, what receive psychic input? The mind. Thus, the mind is the focal point for astral perception, and since a magemask does encompass the entirety of the mind, it blocks astral perception, however, since a blindfold does not, it does not block out astral perception (I'd give everyone the -4 partial cover modifier though).

Posted by: eidolon Aug 25 2007, 07:00 PM

That's pushing it a tad, I think. Can't I just push my astral perception out through my neck?

Posted by: DTFarstar Aug 25 2007, 08:15 PM

Tarantula, please don't get people started on an existential mind/body debate. I'll assume you meant the brain recieves psychic input, but if you meant the mind instead.... I feel you might be opening yourself up to an argument you really don't want. Frank seems fairly proficient in logical and philosophical arguments and he IS a troll.... so I would clarify if I were you.


Chris

Posted by: mfb Aug 25 2007, 08:44 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 25 2007, 11:52 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 25 2007, 11:58 PM

all of the text for blindness in SR specifically states that astral perception can still be used by the blind. therefore, blind people can use astral perception to get LOS. people in magemasks can't because astral perception because astral perception is not specifically excluded from the blockage of LOS.

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 26 2007, 12:00 AM

Or, more correctly, it doesn't specifically include astral perception and even cite additional rules and consequences for other magical abilities the mages.

So again, which sort of blind is blind? What sort of blind is being blind? Does "blind" not mean "blind" only when it suits your argument? And where, exactly, does it ever state that astral perception is focused on a magician's eye sockets? I keep missing that part, too.

Posted by: mfb Aug 26 2007, 12:13 AM

there's no need to specifically include astral perception. magemasks block LOS--all LOS. specifically including astral perception would be like saying "everybody who posts to Dumpshock, plus Doctor Funkenstein."

a person in a magemask is not blind. they are perfectly able to see within the confines of the mask--they can't see much, because it's dark in there, but their eyes are functioning properly. therefore, the rules for being blind don't apply to them--just the rules for not being able to see. there is a difference.

Posted by: Buster Aug 26 2007, 12:19 AM

Newbie question: what is a magemask and what page of what book is it on?

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Aug 26 2007, 12:24 AM

It's essentially hood that zips close over the mag'es head, so taht they can't see. There fore blocking LOS. They also usually have white noise generators which is psupposed to interfere with astrally perceiving/projecting, although there's really nothing else that I've seen that supports that in the rules. *shrug*

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 26 2007, 12:27 AM

Posted by: TonkaTuff Aug 26 2007, 05:35 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 26 2007, 06:03 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 26 2007, 06:17 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 26 2007, 07:45 AM

again, you're misreading/misinterpreting my argument. as i've said several times, i'm not saying that astral perception is based on one's physical eyes. this is clear in the rules; as you keep pointing out, a blind mage can astrally perceive with no penalty of any kind.

my stance is that the location of the astral POV is the same as the location of the physical eyes, or at least where the eyes should be in the case of mages without eyes. my stance is mostly based on negative evidence--because astral perception is most frequently defined in terms of vision, it can be assumed that it works like vision in all respects except where specifically noted otherwise. in five pages of argument, no one has shown a single shred of evidence that the seat of the astral POV is not the location of the physical eyes; therefore, it makes sense to assume that it is.

now that i've had a chance to go over Street Magic, however, i've found that i actually can provide positive evidence--maybe even a concrete ruling. here is the specific text:

Posted by: TonkaTuff Aug 26 2007, 10:30 AM

My last post was there to answer fistandantilus's apparent confusion about why, according to the rules, having a white noise generator in the hood hindered the wearer's ability to use their magical abilities. Admittedly, there was that one last dig in there when I presented the 4th edition text. And that was probably a mistake. One of those "the devil made me do it" moments, y'know?

Anyhoo. I've read the exact same text you have, many times over these last couple of days, and I still come to a different conclusion on how this one facet of astral perception works. C'est la vie. It's not even a major game-affecting issue, really. In fact, whether or not head-covering = total cover is the only issue here. I think most of us are in agreement as to how perception actually functions from a practical standpoint: shadows and other astral clutter hinder assensing and spell targeting. The only quibble is what it takes to achieve it.

In any event, total cover is only a -6 dice pool modifier (SR4 p. 141). It doesn't block LOS completely. Curiously, nothing does outright without GM fiat. There are only dice penalties. The rules suggest calling for a perception test to determine if it's visible enough (SR4 p. 173) because almost any visibility is sufficient . If not, oh well. If so, then you stack the visibility mods onto the spellcasting test (and, one would assume by extension, assensing tests) - which may render it near enough to impossible as matters.

Besides, even if you decide that a blindfold is sufficient to completely stymie a magician's ability to use assensing or spellcasting, the people trying to stop him still have to actually get it on him first in the first place (usually, not an easy task unless he's already disabled). And not being able to cast spells or read your aura won't stop him from calling up a spirit to totally kick your ass.

If you decide that blindfolding/hooding it not good enough, dual-nature doesn't let him ignore metaphysics. He still can't automatically cast spells at mundane targets because his physical LOS is subject to Total Cover and he can't target mundane auras from the astral no matter how he got there (at least, as I read the section on dual-natured spellcasting. I think there's further debate on this topic?). If he passes the perception test (no blindfold is perfect), he might be able to. And he can, of course, still use conjuring.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 26 2007, 09:58 PM

As far as a negative evidence arguement goes. Why does a magemask exist if a blindfold is able to replicate its ability to prevent (or rather severely hamper) magical activites (specifically casting).

Posted by: mfb Aug 26 2007, 10:18 PM

probably because of touch-range spells, spirits, centering, and astral projection. and maybe a few others that i've forgotten.

i have a hard time buying the idea that the astral full cover that a magemask effectively imposes on a mage does not break LOS on the astral, since the astral full cover is only imposed because of the LOS-breaking physical full cover that the magemask imposes. full cover may not necessarily break LOS in every case, but since the broken LOS is what provides the full cover in the first place, here, i think it would be fairly silly to decide that the astral full cover somehow doesn't break LOS.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 26 2007, 10:33 PM

The magemask doesn't stop any of those things either. It just hampers them. Mages who go astral can't do anything to the people holding him anyway (unless they're dual natured) so thats not really a threat. You can still touch people with a magemask (and thusly cast touchrange spells on them), as well as call spirits or use centering to concentrate.

The difference with a blindfold according to you, is the WNG that causes such a distraction. Thats it. So, build in a blindfold with earbuds, that blast out the same thing. Is it now a magemask?

My point was, that if eyes are the organs to perceive physical sight, the brain is the organ to perceive astral senses (any and all of them). A magemask fully encloses the brain, thus blocking astral senses. A blindfold does not, as large portions of the top and bottom of the brain are uncovered. Allowing astral perception. Like I said, I'd give a -4 partial cover modifier to targets targetted via astral perception while wearing a blindfold, but it is a far cry from a full magemask.

Posted by: mfb Aug 26 2007, 10:36 PM

so, because it can't stop centering, it must not be able to stop astral perception?

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 26 2007, 11:02 PM

Posted by: Adarael Aug 26 2007, 11:27 PM

Here's an amazing theory. It could be psychically based in the area where normal, functioning eyes usually are, given that psychic body image is (unless the mage is seriously wierd) an idealized form of their actual body, and the head is the seat of all sensory input.

So it might not matter where their eyes are, or what they do in the real world. All that might matter is the mind's expectation that you sense with your head-area. I mean, just as a thought.

Edit: Plus, with this reading of it, you can make up a merit for mages so they can have all-around vision, or eyes in wierd places, or whatnot. And it stops a whole lot of contradictions from existing rules and fiction.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 27 2007, 12:51 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 27 2007, 01:20 AM

Posted by: Adarael Aug 27 2007, 03:28 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 27 2007, 03:39 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 27 2007, 03:44 AM

Posted by: Adarael Aug 27 2007, 03:51 AM

Rules change by edition, not neccessarily things like that.. Unless you can provide concrete 4th Edition souces that say 'astral forms look like whatever', I'm gonna go by what prior editions have said. Just because 4th Edition doesn't have rules on what the laws are in Tir Tairngire doesn't mean the TT book should just be chucked wholesale. Or just because 4th doesn't have any fluff on what it's like to be a merc doesn't mean that Picador's stuff from SOTA64 should be ignored and merc ops treated like shadowruns. You can't just ignore the precedent because you think one thing. Well. I mean, you CAN. But it doesn't mean you're objectively correct.

And as to the question, his eyes would be 'wherever the head type space' of the fire elementalish astral body would be.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 27 2007, 04:15 AM

Posted by: Adarael Aug 27 2007, 04:20 AM

That's repeating the same without actually addressing the issue. I'm willing to work with you on this, because it intrigues me. Let's say that the astral form isn't limited by anything at all. What is a form of emotion? How do you astrally respresent someone who's very proud? An ooze of yellow? What is an idealsed form for absolute belief in mathematics? A hail of numbers? I'm unsure what an idealzed form of belief and emotion would look like if that emotion and belief is in, say, strength? Would their astral form look like a titan and take up several city blocks? Hence my desire to key the idealization to something a mage can fundamentally understand - a platonic form of their own body or totem, or perhaps a combination of the two. A man who is both man and spider. Even purely totemic forms cause problems, IMO. If their totem is Mouse, does that mean their astral form is the size of a mouse? What does that mean for perception checks against the mouse-form? Do they suffer the normal die pool penalty for trying to find a normal mouse?

Posted by: Fortune Aug 27 2007, 04:24 AM

Meaning the fat mage might not see himself as fat on the astral, but instead has a sleek 'idealized form'.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 27 2007, 04:39 AM

Absolute belief in math doesn't have an astral form. Its your idealized image formed from belief and emotion. I.E. Yes, Fortune, a generic fat mage might appear as skinny on the astral. He might also believe himself to be much fatter than he is, of blimpish proportions.

Alternately, what about people who people they are animals trapped inside a human? What if they're totem is of that animal? Is there any reason they couldn't have an astral form of that animal because thats what they truely believe?

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 27 2007, 06:07 AM

Posted by: Apathy Aug 27 2007, 04:55 PM

Several people have pointed out that astral perception =/ astral sight; that astral perception is a combination of multiple senses that correlate to a combination of sight, sound, touch, smell, etc. But 'sight' seems to be required for targeting.

Example: There's a 6x6 brick wall between me and the toxic mage. While astrally percieving, I can smell the stench of corruption on the other side. I hear his cackle of evil intent. I might even feel the heat of his toxic fire elemental radiating through the brick. But none of those astral senses grants me LOS or targeting ability - I can only get that if I an unobstructed view.

Because of this, I've always felt that the astral requirements for LOS were pretty much like the physical requirements for LOS - a straight-line path between the sensing organ and the observed object without opaque obstructions between. We can interpret the sensing organ as being located in the eye-area, or the face, or the whole head, or the whole body, or to be at the edge of the mage's aura (couple inches past the body in all directions), but since there it's not actually addressed in the book one way or the other it seems pretty much up to GM discretion.

Posted by: mfb Aug 27 2007, 08:56 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 28 2007, 02:02 AM

Only if you agree that the blindfold is covering the sensing organ. Which, as I showed, is the brain, not the eyes. It isn't covering the brain (while a magemask does) therefore, you don't have full cover from someone wearing a blindfold who is astrally perceiving.

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 28 2007, 07:41 AM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Aug 28 2007, 08:46 AM

Posted by: NightmareX Aug 28 2007, 09:15 AM

Posted by: Apathy Aug 28 2007, 01:37 PM

I think we'll never actually resolve this, because it's devolved into argueing about interpretations of text that doesn't directly adress the LOS and astral perception questions. Some people on the board believe that a blindfold blocks the ability to target astrally active beings while astrally percieving, others think it requires a covering of the entire head, and still others suggest that none of those work.

The one thing everyone agrees with is that you can't see through the brick wall.

My next question is an incremental step past that: Say I stick the mage in a big sack, and close the top. He's entirely within a completely opaque container, but his aura (which extends a couple inches past his body) extends beyond the the sack and can be seen by those outside the sack who are astrally percieving. Can the sacked mage still astrally percieve those around him or not?

Posted by: mfb Aug 28 2007, 03:21 PM

Posted by: BlackRabite Aug 28 2007, 03:54 PM

The way it was explained to me by my GM when I asked something similar was this.

When you are astrally perceiving from your meat body you are dual natured, thus you are combining the two aspects. It is called perceiving because you are sensing the astral via your meat body. When you are projecting your are not astrally perceiving because you are only astrally active, it is your only sense.

Therefore when you are perceiving through your meat body you are sensing whatever astral information you get via your meat senses. So if you are blindfolded while perceiving then you are astrally blind. I think the reason that you had to make a willpower (?) check for the old magemask was because you were trying to perceive the astral while still in your meat body without using your meat senses, basically trying to project without projecting and it was very difficult.

Does anyone find a reason to disagree with this stance? Seems like it makes it pretty clear to me. When you are projecting your form is just humanoid because that is how you think of yourself. It can be just like and Icon and look however you want it too therefore you can astrally sense from any part of yourself. While perceiving you are still limited to the physical form and thus can only perceive from your physical senses.

Posted by: eidolon Aug 28 2007, 04:56 PM

That's pretty much exactly how I look at it and run it.

But as far as anyone finding a reason to disagree? That's like asking if there's anyone that breathes air.

Posted by: augurer Aug 28 2007, 05:26 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 28 2007, 06:34 PM

i've never seen anything in the rules or the fluff that supports the idea of assimilating astral sensory input into a single representation.

Posted by: eidolon Aug 28 2007, 06:41 PM

Echo mfb. In fact, there is specific fluff (as of 3e, and I haven't delved that deeply into 4e magic yet) that supports that it is not merged.

See the bit in the 3e core book about how your astral form retains its senses, which are described as functioning normally with exceptions (or twists, as it were).

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 28 2007, 07:12 PM

With your arguement of "use the same cover modifiers" then a mage who closes his eyes and perceives is equally blind as the blindfolded one.

Does that work for you too?

Posted by: mfb Aug 28 2007, 07:29 PM

i suppose. though for stylistic reasons i'd probably ignore it.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 28 2007, 07:54 PM

What about putting his hands up to avoid targetting certain team members with a stunball? I.E. blocking the line of sight to those teammembers with his hands while casting the stunball. Do you permit this?

Posted by: mfb Aug 28 2007, 08:10 PM

i believe there was a ruling against that sort of thing, but i don't remember where. maybe one of the FAQs.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 28 2007, 08:22 PM

I thought so too, but checked the FAQ and couldn't find it.

I'm glad you agreed that closing his eyes would effectively blind him too. What if the mage has nictating membranes? Do those effectively block astral perception too? Or contacts! Suddenly, mages with contacts can't ever astrally perceive! Why? Because the contacts block out entirety of astral perception!

Posted by: Apathy Aug 28 2007, 10:13 PM

I'm trying to hone in on exactly where each of you differ.

Which of the these block the ability to target while astrally percieving? Which provide targeting modifiers but don't completely block targeting?

1. By a brick wall, but can sense the presence of bad guy yelling on the other side who's making noise. (i.e. can percieve him with some of my senses (sound, smell), but not the one we treat as analogous to physical sight.)
2. Completely enclosed in a sack. (i.e. only my aura shows through, but my actual body 100% covered.)
3. Similar to above, but this time instead of being enclosed in sack, my body is 100% covered by clothes (body suit, ski mask, gloves, shoes) and blindfold.
4. Completely encased in sack, but with my bare pinky sticking out a hole in the sack.
5. Similar to above, but this time my pinky has a cyber eye installed (which I paid essence for.)
6. Out of the sack, now, but wearing a mage mask.
7. Wearing something that completely covers head, but not a true mage mask (e.g. pillowcase)
8. Wearing a blindfold (only covers the eyes). Regardless of whether mage is blind or sees.
9. Wearing contact lenses.
10. With eyes closed.
11. With nictating membranes down(that I paid essence for.)

Posted by: eidolon Aug 28 2007, 10:23 PM

My take:
1. total block
2. total block
3. total block (blindfold)
4. total block, unless you wiggle around and look out of the hole
5. target as normal
6. total block
7. total block, unless its one of those thin pillowcases you can see through
8. total block
9. target as normal
10. total block
11. unable to answer; don't remember specifics on nictating membranes; although unless they are transparent, I'd probably rule this as being the same as closing your eyes: total block

Posted by: hyzmarca Aug 28 2007, 10:53 PM

12. Replaces face with smooth single-piece cyberskull that has no openings. Breathing is handed by a quickened oxygenate with a hidden diaphragm port and internal air tank as backups. Quickened Fasting and Nutrition take care of eating with an intestinal port that pre-digested slurry can be poured into for backup. The featureless cyberskull is paid for with essence, of course.

Posted by: Buster Aug 28 2007, 11:08 PM

LOL. Darth Hyzmarca! I gotta use that trick...

Regarding #9, the contact lenses would block astral perception since they are a physical object and not paid for with essence.

Posted by: Red Aug 29 2007, 01:16 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 29 2007, 01:57 AM

SM, 114, "Determining cover works the same way on the astral
plane as it does in the physical world (see pp. 140–141, SR4).
Shadows of physical objects in the astral plane may be drab and
insubstantial, but they are still opaque and can prevent targeting.
Items that are transparent or mirrored in the real world
(like a car window) simply impair visibility as astral shadows."

Air doesn't, because it isn't an obstruction in the physical world either. However, transparent things are merely a solid shadow, so objects (glasses, contacts, windows) block sight all together. Water, usually has quite a bit of life in it, so chances are, it'd block it, but that depends on the water. Ocean, would be teeming with all the plankton. A swimming pool you'd see down to the bottom of no problem.

Posted by: eidolon Aug 29 2007, 02:11 AM

My reason for allowing targeting through contacts and eyeglasses is that it would be ridiculous to prevent it, world fluff wise. Are you telling me that there isn't a single mage on the planet that has to wear corrective lenses of some type?

"Hang on, I'm totally going to stun bolt you, just let me get out my contact case and rinse my lenses and put them away. Just a minute...I need a mirror. Dangit! Okay, would you mind holding on for a second? I'm just going to run to the men's room. I'll be right back to stun bolt you in a minute, I promise."

But as Red said, it's debatable. Feel free to rule that they block and all that disclaimer jazz.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 29 2007, 02:27 AM

eidolon, they can grow you some new eyes if you want. Perfect vision. Lasik that is perfect also. Definately affordable for any employed mage. Or take the glasses off. Having trouble reading street signs is nothing compared to non-functioning/missing eyes, and those can both astrally perceive. Just because your meat eyes aren't the best doesn't mean your astral perception is impaired in any way. Just that your glasses are a solid wall to it.

Posted by: kzt Aug 29 2007, 02:51 AM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 29 2007, 02:51 AM

I think that all of this talk of clothing and glasses, contacts and all that, blocking astral perception is complete bs. So you mean I can be a mage, perceiving astrally, with all of my body except my eyes covered and no one can hit me with a spell on the astral unless they can see my eyes, because my clothing blocks astral LOS to my body. Fine, and I can't target someone on the physical plane unless I can see some of their skin, because clothing isn't part of them. Makes damn perfect sense to me.

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 02:54 AM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 29 2007, 03:01 AM

Posted by: eidolon Aug 29 2007, 03:02 AM

Posted by: kzt Aug 29 2007, 03:06 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 03:08 AM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 29 2007, 03:16 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 03:28 AM

you're misreading. what that's talking about is the auras of living things which are not active on the astral plane, ie not dual-natured. living things which are not active on the astral plane do not have an astral form, therefore they cannot be targeted, even by their aura. dual-natured beings do have an astral form--therefore their aura is not 'alone'.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 29 2007, 03:54 AM

Hmmm..upon further reading, this kind of becomes a non-arguement.

Clothes do not offer any resistance to astral glow or perception.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 29 2007, 04:01 AM

What is your idealized Astral Form using to cover everything but his eyes?

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 04:01 AM

that's not true. what you can see through the clothing is the aura of the wearer. if i hold a flashlight up to a t-shirt, you can see the glow. that doesn't mean you can see through the t-shirt material.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 29 2007, 04:18 AM

But if that person wearing said clothes, which let's just say covers everything but his eyes, suddenly starts to astrally perceive, meaning his has an astral form as well as a physical form, and you, a projecting mage, are behind him. By your arguements, you cannot target him with a spell, because there is a shadow inbetween you and his astral form. Even if his astral form shines through the shadows, making them nigh transparent, you still couldn't cast at him because there is an astral shadow in the way....

What kind of sense does that make? Why should clothing or contacts, or glasses, or anything like that block astral perception? They are negligible shadows if they affect your astral perception at all. In the astral there is light everywhere, coming directly from the earth below you. With a t-shirt in front of my eyes and a standard halogen light bulb on in a room I can see the basic details of the room, and that is on the physical plane. On the astral items are but shadows of what they are physically, so if you something just barely impedes my vision physically, why should it suddenly impede it completely on the astral?

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 04:24 AM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 29 2007, 04:28 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 04:33 AM

there is no 'sense' about the astral plane or magic. it's fiction. it is what it is, as defined by the rules. if your conception of how things work clashes with the rules, then your conception is mistaken.

Posted by: Red Aug 29 2007, 11:34 AM

Posted by: darthmord Aug 29 2007, 12:02 PM

Posted by: darthmord Aug 29 2007, 12:09 PM

Posted by: BlackRabite Aug 29 2007, 01:55 PM

Wow. Some of you guys are taking things to such an absurd extreme that I can't tell if you are serious or not. It seems like it should be pretty obvious how they intended it to work but we'll see what you think.

Glasses, contacts are small transparent objects that you look through on a regular basis. Being transparent objects they do have an astral shadow but being less than an inch from your eyes the difficulty of seeing through them is nill.

Blindfolds, no you cannot see through them while perceiving. You are still in your meat body and your meat limitations apply to your senses because you are perceiving through those senses.

Yes you can see through a shirt pulled up to your face. The next time someone blindfolds you with a thin white cotton t-shirt I command you to take careful aim and kick them in the balls for being a moron. If you were perceiving and someone put a tightly stretched t-shirt up to your face I would allow you to see through it but with a negative modifier for obstructed/clouded vision.

No you cannot stick your hand around a corner and perceive through it because it has no way to perceive without an essence paid cyber-eye. Some of you may disagree but you are still perceiving you are not projecting and thus your hand is still a hand.

Blind people. I would have no problem with them perceiving in the way they normally perceive things. That is I assume that when they are dual natured they perceive the astral in a strange way that neither they nor I could properly explain. I doubt it is in the same visual fashion that the regular mage does. It would be a neat character concept and some good RP if they came up with a fun way to do it.

Posted by: eidolon Aug 29 2007, 02:48 PM

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 03:06 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 03:41 PM

darthmod, your points about cloth are basically irrelevant. you're completely ignoring the way the rules work in favor of how you think they should work. clothing does not prevent assensing/astral targeting of the wearer, but it does block assensing/astral targeting by the wearer if it covers his face. if your mental picture of how things work clashes with that, then your mental picture is ill-founded and should be revised. personally, i don't see the conflict: your aura glows brightly enough to shine through any clothing your wear--a fact which is completely unrelated to whether or not you can see through a thick cloth that is held over your eyes. it works the same way with thermographic vision; you can see a person's body heat through their clothing, but if you have thermo vision, you're still unable to see through a blindfold. you can argue that seeing the glow of someone's aura shouldn't be enough to target them with a spell, if you like, but the rules would disagree with you.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 03:46 PM

but i dont think it does, because well, if you're blindfolded, you can still SENSE emotions, which is what the astral is made up as. you dont "Read" words that say "turture chamber" you feel the pain and anguish that has gone on in there. Which i think can happen regardless of ther blindfold

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 03:47 PM

then you can still sense emotions through a brick wall, or the planet. besides, your example is flawed--you can still see the words, they're just blurry and indistinct. if the book were closed, you wouldn't be able to get an emotion out of that word.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 04:20 PM

so you blindfold a mage w/ cybereyes, who then turns them off, what happens?

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 04:27 PM

he's unable to see physically or astrally. i'm not sure why turning the cybereyes off would make a difference.

Posted by: darthmord Aug 29 2007, 04:31 PM

So slap a pair of nylons over the mage's face and you've neutered his ability to cast? So who needs that damn expensive magemask? By golly, every security squad on the planet just needs a cheap t-shirt to cover the mage's head and there are no more magical problems. All those stupidly expensive FAB and other magical safeguards really aren't needed.

You are all but saying a simple 2 nuyen piece of cloth can solve all the magical casting concerns by the opposition. That is complete and utter bullshit IMO and a bad ruling by RAW if RAW actually takes that stance.

I find it ironic and very strange then that a pair of nylons would always / without exception block the ability to properly sense someone so as to not be able to target them with a spell.

Then again, I find the sheer idea that contacts, glasses, and safety goggles would prevent someone from sensing properly on the Astral completely and totally mind-boggling. It defies common sense given the multitude of descriptions regarding physical objects' representations in Astral Space.

Then again, how again does a mage see in Astral Space given the multitude of single cell organisms that exist as airborne creatures in the very air we breath?

The most I could see being blocked / impeded would be sensing the physical portion (if any) of anything that was dual-natured or fully astral (which you wouldn't see anyways due to something being fully astral not having a body attached to the astral form at that location with it).

So under that, how *I* would rule it would be like so... blindfolded mage can still assense and astrally perceive. They would NOT see any physical portion (if any was present) clearly, if at all depending on the thickness & opacity of the obstruction. They would however still be able to perceive any astral portions of said targets.

Then again, this is a persistent problem with SR4. The rules were written very minimalist and drawing off common sense rulings from previous editions seems to be verboten. That's fine by me. Don't expect me to agree with you when your position defies common sense.

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 04:37 PM

Posted by: odinson Aug 29 2007, 05:52 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 06:12 PM

the whole reason this argument is taking place is that there aren't rules directly concerning blindfolded mages in 4th. there are only bits of evidence and extrapolations. there weren't any rules directly concerning blindfolded mages in 3rd ed, either. i've laid out the rules that lead me to believe that blindfolds obstruct astral perception (in both 3rd and 4th) previously in this thread, several times.

the reason you give for brick walls preventing assensing is a sound theory, but it has no more proof to back it up than any other theory that has thus far been presented.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 06:25 PM

ok mfb, let me give you four situations, all similar, and see how you would rule them. imo, there should be no difference between the rulings, but we'll see....

1)a mage with natural sight is blindfolded.

2)a mage who is physically blind, is also blindfolded.

3) a mage, who has replaced his natural eyes with cybereyes, is blind folded.

4)the same mage as #3, but he has turned off his cybereyes.

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 06:26 PM

all are blinded astrally and physically.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 06:29 PM

so how does the blindfold affect #2 and 4?

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 06:35 PM

the astral shadow of the blindfold obstructs their astral perception, the same way the astral shadow of a brick wall would. astral perception is not linked to the physical sense of sight, as everyone keeps telling me. therefore, the state of the mage's native ability to see things has no effect on whether or not his astral perception works. he could have no eyes at all, and be able to perceive just fine--until someone blindfolds him.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 06:37 PM

so all of the clothes you were also affects astrally perceiving?

Posted by: augurer Aug 29 2007, 06:40 PM

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 06:40 PM

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 07:48 PM

i think the problem is that some of us beleive that "astral vision" DOESNT involve sight on the astral plane, where others, like mfb do.

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 07:58 PM

i don't see how you can decide that astral perception is not strongly based on sight without ignoring huge, huge chunks of the pertinent text. i mean, just about every time it talks about astral perception, it does so in terms of vision. that's rules, that's sourcebook fluff, that's novels. every time any official source describes astral perception, they talk about vision. other senses are mentioned secondarily, if at all.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 08:36 PM

i not saying that it doesnt involve sight, i just dont think it involves sight as we know it, ya know, its MAGICAL...

so magical, i might just cast a magic missile at it....

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 08:47 PM

i agree that it's magical, but i don't agree that means that the rules for it differ significantly from the rules for regular vision, except where specifically noted in the rules.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 08:51 PM

but the significant difference is that it specificlly says that it's not linked to physical sense. Also that is is Psychic! that seems pretty different than the rest of the rules.

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 09:05 PM

it can be, and is, significantly different in lots and lots and lots of ways, but still be similar on certain points--points which have the net effect of making astral perception vulnerable to obstruction by blindfolds.

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 11:14 PM

so, is it also blocked by blinking? or just closing your eye lids? or what about being in total darkness?

Especially total darkness, cuz ya know, that totally ruins normal* vision, just like a blindfold, but yet it clears states that it's a bright, vibrant world, which to me, could th erotically shine through a blindfold.

and also, to me, the astral is less a plane seen, but more a plane experienced. you close your eyes and the emotions of your surroundings pervade you. the air around you echoes in pain, the ground vibrates in harmony, etc. i just dont see the eyes are king viewpoint, go listen to a song called clint eastwood by the gorilla's... it kinda puts my persepective on the astral in pretty good terms.

Posted by: mfb Aug 29 2007, 11:30 PM

i'm not sure how to explain this any more clearly. astral perception is blocked by obstructions. blinking and closing your eyelids may count as obstructions, depending on your GM. darkness does not, because the line between your eyes and your target--aka, line of sight--is not obstructed by anything. there's no astral shadow standing between you and the target, preventing you from seeing it.

your mental picture of the astral plane is nice. i'm glad it suits you. but the book does not describe anything like that. i'm not saying you can't use that paradigm, i'm not saying it's wrong. i've played a raccoon shaman before whose primary astral sense was smell--she didn't see auras, she sniffed them. what i didn't do, and what you're trying to do, is to use that non-canon fluff paradigm to redefine how the rules work.

Posted by: Demerzel Aug 29 2007, 11:55 PM

I haven’t been able to bring myself to catch up on this whole thread, but the current argument is if a blindfold blocks Astral Perception right?

Posted by: Aku Aug 29 2007, 11:57 PM

ok, time to bring out the dictionary.com. i know this word is clearly stated in the book. highlights mine

Posted by: Demerzel Aug 30 2007, 12:09 AM

On top of the localizing the single point of origin of the sense there is another issue.

When I’m wearing clothes and someone casts invisibility on me, why do the clothes turn invisible also? The spell isn’t an area spell it’s a single target spell, yet the clothes I have on are some how a part of me when I’m cast on.

Likewise is I were wearing a full leather jumpsuit including a motorcycle helmet and you couldn’t see any bit of my skin you could still cast on me, yet I am completely obscured by my outfit. You could even still see my Aura and assense me…

There is clearly a precedent in SR for things like clothing (including blindfolds) behaving strangely with respect to LOS and Astral Perception…

Posted by: Trigger Aug 30 2007, 02:10 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 02:34 AM

Dem. The clothes turn invisible also because the spell is an aura surrounding your person for the duration it is sustained.

Full leather + motorcycle helmet you can still be cast on, because you can still be seen. In this example, the mage would have to not be astrally perceiving (since you're not astrally active). Thusly, your point is moot. If they were perceiving, they could see your aura, and still assense you, they can't cast on you since you're not astrally active.

Now, if you were perceiving, and they were perceiving. Your astral form would be your idealized beliefs and emotions. Not a mirror of exactly what you are. You would be utterly blind, and they could still assense your aura, but not cast a mana spell at you on the astral plane.

Why would you be blind? Because your brain is completely covered. Same reason a magemask blinds a mage whos perceiving. Blindfolds don't cover it up, and thusly don't blind a mage astrally perceiving.

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 03:13 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 03:28 AM

Actually mfb... SR4, 182, "Many Awakened characters can perceive the astral
plane from the physical world. This ability is called astral perception. It is the primary sense used in the astral plane; it shows auras, allowing magicians to examine living creatures in the physical world as well as creatures who live on the astral plane."
Emphasis mine. It is its OWN sense. Seperate from the 5 normal senses. Its a psychic sense at that. From the definition of the word psychic that means it pertains to the mind. AKA the brain. What problem do you have with the brain being the sensing organ for astral perception instead of the eyes?

Cover isn't treated differently. There aren't rules for "sticking your head out" and for "sticking your hand out". Just for if you can see it or not. Since most peoples POV is in their head, that happens to be usually what you're dealing with. If someone gets a cybereye in their hand, guess what, regular cover rules apply, (plus the special rules for having an eye in a weird place). But the can stick one hand out to see, and the other hand out to shoot. Using the basic cover rules!

Aura's aren't organs at all, brains are, and brains are/should be the organ for a PSYCHIC sense.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 30 2007, 03:33 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 03:33 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 03:41 AM

Just because its described in terms of the 5 senses doesn't change the fact that it is a SINGLE sense of its own. It just happens to encompass aspects of all the other senses.

Yes, blindfold that cover your sensing organ do impose physical cover. If I put a blindfold down my shirt, or around my hand, or on my foot, around my forehead, or anywhere else, it imposes no physical visibility modifier. Only if it is blocking the sensing organ. It works the same with astral perception. If you have a large blindfold that can completely encompass the brain, then by all means, your mage is astrally blind. Just because it is covering up his eyes, doesn't by default make him blind because it makes someone physically seeing blind.

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 03:45 AM

requiring a full hood to bock astral perception is determining cover differently. same as if you decided your astral POV were in your hand or your foot.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 03:48 AM

So, requiring a blindfold and a glove to block physical LOS to a mage with a cybereye in his hand is determing cover differently too?

Posted by: Trigger Aug 30 2007, 03:52 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 03:56 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 04:01 AM

mfb, I didn't say astral perception. I said physical normal perception. For purposes of casting spells on the physical plane. A mage can have a cybereye in his hand, and can't a physical spell even while blindfolded (through the hand-eye). But according to you, this breaks the normal rules of how cover works! Being blindfolded should disable his access to cast through his cybereye just because blindfolded is a total cover modifier! Thats according to you. I say that he can still see from the eye, because it isn't impeded by the blindfold, and can cast as normal using penalties from the single eye. Likewise, a blindfold doesn't block out his brain, and thusly, he can still perceive things while blindfolded, albeit, I'd assign a -4 partial cover modifier for having the blindfold on.

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 04:09 AM

that's bad logic. a blindfold is only full cover if it's a full obstruction; i never claimed otherwise. if it's pushed up a bit, or doesn't cover the gap created by your nose (so that you can tip your head back and look down to see out from under the blindfold), then it's not full cover. same deal with a cybereye in your hand. i suppose that means that putting a cybereye in your hand adds to your astral POV the same way it does to your physical POV.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 04:13 AM

But mfb, your aura has a shadow in it FROM the cybereye. It isn't tied to the physical senses at all. It is a psychic sense. That tells you the sensing organ is the mind. The same way saying sight is a visual sense tells you the sensing organ is an eye. Claiming otherwise is absurd. You're asserting that just because you see light with your eyes then you astrally perceive with where your eyes are. The same as claiming because you see light with your eyes, you can hear where your eyes are. Or because you hear sound with your ears you can see where your ears are.

You can't. You astrally perceive with your brain.

Posted by: Trigger Aug 30 2007, 04:14 AM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 04:24 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 04:24 AM

Posted by: Trigger Aug 30 2007, 04:33 AM

Posted by: Apathy Aug 30 2007, 04:34 AM

Just poked my head back in, and it seems like everyone's been busy. Nine pages of people restating the same arguments over and over again without convincing anyone else but themselves... Still, I think it indicates that there's enough wiggle room on either end that it can reasonably be up to GM discretion unless/until it's addressed in a future FAQ. As long as everybody knows the GM's interpretation up front, and it's applied consistently.

My big issue was just that I didn't want characters able to peek around corners astrally with their fingertips (when they didn't have a fingertip cybereye) without exposing their heads, and most (though not all) people seem to believe that astral perception is either centered in the head or more specifically in the eyes.

From a practical perspective, it doesn't really matter if the whole head or just the eyes need to be covered to block perception. It's just as easy for the bad guys to put a sack over your head as it is to tie a blindfold around it. And after 60 years of magic I can assume that all the security guards know what works and what doesn't.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 30 2007, 05:07 AM

Posted by: mfb Aug 30 2007, 07:01 PM

Posted by: DTFarstar Aug 30 2007, 11:03 PM

MFB, no one- well not many people- is arguing that astral sight negates physical obstruction. What people ARE saying is that certain physical objects in certain circumstances aren't applicable to both astral and physical sight. The general consensus here on the opposing side seems to be that you see astrally with your brain. Well, I've got something to say about that in a minute, but we'll get to it then. IF you see with your brain and not with your eyes then a blindfold is no longer a complete obstruction. It still blocks a good 40% of your viewing surface though so some hefty penalties will apply nonetheless. I'm pretty sure just about everyone agrees that physical objects translate to astral shadows which provide cover just as they would in the physical world. Which applies to that, if someone had some modification that allowed them 360 degree sight from their brain, then a blindfold wouldn't blind them completely either.


A point I would like to make is that I doubt you see astrally with your brain. I mean, no doubt it does in fact play a role in astral perception, I mean it plays a role in EVERY sense. It is the processor for all the data the other organs collect. What I propose is that your AURA is your astrally perceiving organ. If you think about it I think it makes alot of sense. For one, your aura comes with you when you project, it is listed as often outshining clothing, which would explain why two perceiving magicians don't automatically have good cover from each others spells via clothes. Not to pick on Tarantula, but if what he was saying about leathers and a motorcycle helmet is correct then every mage would wander around with ONLY their face showing so if they had to perceive then a very small portion of then would be visible so automatic good cover.

As to sticking your fingertips around a corner to see with astral perception well, I don't know about you, but if I stuck something over my eyes that covered like 97-99% of them I am pretty damn sure I would be able to see well. I could still see something, but not well. If your aura is a single sense .... organ for lack of a better term... then the same thing would apply, it extends past clothing, but if most of it is behind a wall, then most of it is behind a wall. I mean, once you start getting 20-30% capacity then you've got mostly unobstructed vision, so you know, a hand and forearm, or maybe more. If you don't believe me, cover all but 10-30% of your eyes and see if you can't still read, it is difficult, but not overly so. -1 maybe -2.

Anyway, that is my two on this issue, believe me or not, I'll be willing to explain/argue or whatever, but know now if you ever play in a game I host then this is the way it works unless there is an official update telling me otherwise.


Chris

PS: I think it fixes alot of the problems and fits seamlessly into the RAW.

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 31 2007, 01:02 AM

Posted by: Ranneko Aug 31 2007, 04:10 AM

SR has penalties associated with having a field of vision greater than normal. Augmentation makes that pretty clear when it talks about eyebands and the like, a 360 degree FOV results in a -2 penalty while in motion.

Astral perception results in a -2 penalty for a completely different purpose.

As it is, in my games, blindfolding a mage will block astral perception. Either because their astral POV is covered by the blindfold or because a blindfold is designed to stop people from seeing, and the astral metaphor carries over. I don't particularly care which.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 31 2007, 02:35 PM

Posted by: augurer Aug 31 2007, 02:42 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Aug 31 2007, 02:55 PM

Posted by: Fortune Aug 31 2007, 03:49 PM

Among other things, the Magemask deters Summoning, as well as Projection itself.

Posted by: mfb Aug 31 2007, 06:20 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 1 2007, 01:41 AM

I still don't understand your justification for why a mage who has a cybereye that cost essence in his hand can perceive through it while blindfolded.
You claim that astral/physical points of view have to be the same in order to use the same cover modifiers. You also claim that this doesn't link astral and physical sight at all, but obviously, if having a cybereye installed alters your astral perception abilities, you are linking them.

Could you elaborate on your reasoning for allowing a cybereye to offer alternate points of view for astral perception?

Posted by: NightmareX Sep 1 2007, 07:55 AM

Tarantula, man, let it go huh? Me, I agree that the rules kinda support Mfb's view, but I personally prefer (for stylistic and theoretical reasons) the aura-as-sensory-organ view.

But canon on the other hand supports the brain-as-sensory-organ view, since in Night's Pawns (the only previous edition blindfoldish reference I can think of or find) they nullified Krista Fried's casting abilities by putting a bag or pillowcase over her head. Thus, that's the view I'm going with.

And with that, I'm outta this one.

Posted by: fistandantilus3.0 Sep 1 2007, 04:00 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 1 2007, 04:36 PM

Yeah, zippers are way harder than knots. I think the fact that magemask are usually accesorized with containment manacles more makes it hard to take them off.

Conversely, they're just that much harder to put on as well.

Posted by: Fortune Sep 1 2007, 04:46 PM

That's the whole point of the Mage Mask. It is a specifically designed item to serve just that very purpose. Handcuffs and a blindfold would work in much the same manner, although the blindfold would not provide the additional benefits (as listed above) that a Magemask would.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 1 2007, 05:23 PM

A magemask on its own is no harder to take off than a blindfold on its own was my point. The additional benefits? Of what? A big distraction?

Basically, that makes a magemask a blindfold with headphones. I've still yet to hear a convincing reason for why it should be a hood instead of just a blindfold.

Posted by: Fortune Sep 1 2007, 05:30 PM

Because it is much easier to slip out of a blindfold than it is a hood that is fitted and locked in place. Only in your description is it just held with a zipper. It comes with manacles for a reason. Even a manacled person can slip loose of most blindfolds, but a hood specifically made for that purpose is a different matter. Add to that the fact that it is easier to fit a hood with the (albeit strangely magical) white noise generator than it to do the same with a blindfold.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 1 2007, 05:48 PM

It doesn't come with manacles... I said its usually put with manacles. MITS supports this stating "The magemask is used in conjunction with mundane restraining devices such as handcuffs and even straitjackets." pg 12.

I suppose other things a magemask has over a blindfold is the gag tube, so your prisoner can't be a smartass with you either. Also, the description isn't that its hard to take off, or even has a zipper, its just a plastic hood with a gagtube and white noise generator.

Re-reading it, I'd argue that it'd be easier to slip out of a magemask than a blindfold, since a blindfold will be tied tight to you head, and can't be easily reached by your shoulders to nudge off. A magemask you could use the gag-tube to gain some control on it, as well as the bottom having to fit over your head means it can fit back over coming off too. They aren't fitted and locked. Just a plastic hood.

Another note: magemasks aren't meant for long-term control, just short term.

Posted by: Fortune Sep 1 2007, 05:58 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 1 2007, 06:13 PM

In the SHORT-TERM containment of magically active people. Long term is drugs/simsense loops. I.E. I see a magemask only being used when they actually need to interact with the mage. Such as for interviews. Otherwise, the mage is getting stuck in a simsense loop or getting a nice shot. So no, I don't think a magemask is all that hard to pull off, considering its standard practice to use it with handcuffs and/or straitjackets.

Posted by: NightmareX Sep 2 2007, 07:39 AM

Just popping back up to note this from Daemonseed Elite's blog:

Posted by: DTFarstar Sep 2 2007, 09:08 AM

That makes me feel better about myself.



Chris

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 2 2007, 05:34 PM

Even better. Aura > brain > eyes. More power to astral perception!

Posted by: mfb Sep 3 2007, 08:31 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 4 2007, 04:14 PM

Heres a fun one for you then. What happens when an astrally projecting mage is floating right in front of an astrally perceiving mages head? You say the same cover penalties apply, and astral forms aren't a cover penalty on the physical plane. So then they also shouldn't be a penalty on the astral plane either?

Posted by: mfb Sep 4 2007, 05:08 PM

obviously, cover that only applies on the astral is an exception. the existence of exceptions does not, however, negate the rule. and since there's no exception listed for blindfolds, i don't see why they would be exempt.

Posted by: Apathy Sep 4 2007, 08:05 PM

Posted by: darthmord Sep 4 2007, 09:56 PM

Posted by: Apathy Sep 4 2007, 10:09 PM

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 4 2007, 11:16 PM

Posted by: Fortune Sep 4 2007, 11:20 PM

Maybe not game-breaking. Maybe just stupid.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 4 2007, 11:46 PM

What is so stupid about it?

Posted by: DTFarstar Sep 5 2007, 12:27 AM

Not that anyone really read everything I wrote, but note what I was saying about modifiers on perception when using the aura as a perceiving organ.



Chris

Posted by: Apathy Sep 5 2007, 03:47 AM

Posted by: TonkaTuff Sep 5 2007, 07:34 AM

Posted by: mfb Sep 5 2007, 07:42 AM

it's only there if you assume the rule exists in the first place. nothing in almost two decades of rules and fluff has ever indicated that the aura functions in any capacity as a sensory organ. as handy a trick as it would be to be able to see around corners by sticking your hand out, you'd think someone, somewhere, in eighteen years of SR fiction, would have done so.

Posted by: TonkaTuff Sep 5 2007, 08:17 AM

But the point is that the rule is there if you are working from the assumption that the aura is the source of astral perception. Personally, I don't (obviously, neither do you). But I can see how someone could come away with that interpretation without "making stuff up" from whole cloth. There's nothing in the text or fluff of the 4th edition sources to render it impossible and enough that it put that idea into at least one reader's head. And, happily, they have a rule in place for handling that particular situation if it comes up in their game.

Posted by: TonkaTuff Sep 5 2007, 08:18 AM

Anyway, having read the posts rehashing these same points about a dozen times from every angle, it seems fairly clear that, while the printed guidelines help in the vast majority of cases, there's also enough ambiguity in the text to allow for, at my count, four interpretations on the base nature of how the sense works:

• The "astral eyes" theory: Astral perception (the 'visual' facet, anyway) begins at the physical location of the eyes and functions for all intents and purposes (barring specific differences listed in text) just like physical vision in another spectrum. Anything that would impede physical vision (as long as it has an astral presence of some sort) does the exact same thing to visual astral perception. Also, getting eyes installed elsewhere on your body provides you with another point to perceive from.
  
• The "giant astral eyeball" theory: The brain is the organ of astral perception. It functions basically like the previous example, only you have to cover the entire head to block perception totally. Lesser degrees of coverage impart lesser dice penalties. The field of view is still basically a very wide, forward-facing cone originating from the physical location of your noodle.
  
• The "full-aura" theory: The active aura is the "organ" of astral perception. No matter what you're wearing or where it's located, you can still clearly perceive astrally because your aura extends out beyond your physical form. All worn items are either incorporated into your aura, or simply don't count because it passes right through them. Though this reading also allows you to try and gain limited LOS by getting close enough to an obstruction so that at least part of your aura radiates through it.
  
• The "psychic point" theory: Somewhat similar to the "full-aura" theory, except there is no organ or locus for astral perception beyond the metaphysical "you" represented by your astral form. All other "psychic senses" described in the books are experienced directly within the mind, and most have no more specific point of view or origin than "the observer". Input comes from all vectors, unless you focus on a particular subject within range. As astral perception is itself a psychic sense, this model most likely applies to it as well, within the particular limits set out for the sense itself (i.e. it's susceptible to astral environmental conditions). Since the aura is only a property of the astral form, and the form itself functions only as a point of reference rather than a sensory organ, "bleed-through" is insufficient for bypassing cover. However it is also unaffected by articles placed or worn on the body, regardless of location, because there's no sensor to "cover up".

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 5 2007, 08:19 AM

Posted by: mfb Sep 5 2007, 04:04 PM

i've never claimed that the eyes are the organ of astral perception. i have claimed that the location of the organ for astral perception is the same as the location of the eyes.

Posted by: Fortune Sep 5 2007, 04:11 PM

Posted by: Doctor Funkenstein Sep 5 2007, 08:16 PM

Posted by: mfb Sep 5 2007, 08:24 PM

i'm not making up astral organs. "organs" is simply the term people have been using in the most recent pages of this thread to describe the thingy that does the perceiving. you didn't yell at anyone for using the term "organ" when they were talking about using auras to perceive, Funk.

as for not saying anything in support of my view, there is the simple fact that all of the fluff describes astral perception in terms of vision. no mention is ever made of significant POV differences between astral and physical POV.

i have not ignored the shapeshifter/drake argument. i've answered it twice so far in this thread. nobody responded to my answer.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 6 2007, 01:43 AM

mfb, thats because an aura is a single object. So is the brain. "Where the eyes are" is not a specific "thing" that could be argued to be what does the astral perception, because there isn't anything there, unless you say the eyes are, in which case you are ignoring the fact that it says there is no link between physical eyes and astral perception.

Posted by: Apathy Sep 6 2007, 02:54 AM

(Sometimes I'm sorry I even ask questions on this forum.)

Everybody: thanks for your enthusiastic input! I got a lot of good feedback and everyone made excellent points. But we've been repeating the same arguments for the last 6 or 7 pages. Can we please just let this thread die? Nobody's going to convince anyone else, and it's annoying to see people say the same things over and over and over and...well, you get the point.

Posted by: mfb Sep 6 2007, 02:56 AM

i can accept being told that i'm "making stuff up" by thinking that the astral POV is located in the same spot as the eyes. what i'm having trouble with is the fact that other concepts, like the concept of an omnidirectional sense that can pass through objects, or the concept of a third eye, or the concept of the brain as a sensory organ, are not being held to the same standard.

and, again, the text says that astral perception and sight aren't linked--it doesn't say that there are no similarities.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 6 2007, 05:01 AM

And its equally silent on similarities besides how the brain interprets it in terms of the normal 5 senses.

Posted by: Adarael Sep 6 2007, 05:03 AM

Just to remind you - all of you - about a rule of science and logic:
The absence of evidence against does not imply a positive. Vice versa holds true.
Remember to apply Occam's Razor whenever possible.

Some of you seem to realize this, some don't. Just giving you a heads-up from the science division.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 6 2007, 05:30 AM

Okay, applying occam's razor. As few assumptions as possible.

Things we know:
Astral perception is possible.
Astral perception is psychic.
Astral perception is not linked to the physical organs.
Physical cover works equally well on the astral due to astral shadows.
Normal vision POV is within the eyes.

Things we don't know:
Where the astral POV is.

As far as a logical arguement goes.
Psychic means: "of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental (opposed to physical)." dictionary.com
Perception means: "1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. " dictionary.com
Synonyms for mind include: "Brain is properly the physiological term for the organic structure that makes mental activity possible (The brain is the center of the nervous system.), but it is often applied, like mind, to intellectual capacity"

Definition of vision: "the act or power of sensing with the eyes; sight." dictionary.com

Normal visions POV is located within the eyes, because you sense visible light with your eyes.

Astral perception POV logically is located within the brain, because you sense astral light with your brain. (Because astral perception is a psychic sense).

Posted by: mfb Sep 6 2007, 05:53 AM

the logical disconnect there is the assertion that because "psychic" sometimes means 'mind-related', "psychic sense" must refer to the brain. there are a number of other possibilities, the most obvious one being that when it talks about psychic sense, it really is talking about your mind--not the physical organ that houses your mind but your mind itself. it should be noted that your astral form does not have a brain, yet you are able to see while projecting--even when you're looking at stuff that your brain could not possibly perceive.

here is my logic: astral cover is noted in the rules as being determined the same way as physical cover. to me, that means that in any situation where physical cover applies, astral cover also applies. there are obvious exceptions, such as cover imposed by astral forms, but those are exceptions--they don't make the rule stop being true. in order for astral cover to apply whenever physical cover applies, the astral and physical POV must be in the same place. that place is the eyes.

in addition, astral perception is noted, in both the rules and the fluff, as working similarly to physical sight. there are differences and exceptions, but where differences and exceptions are not described in the rules, it is illogical to assume they exist. it is stated that astral perception is not linked to physical perception, but it is not stated that the astral POV is in a different location from the physical POV--specifically, nowhere does it say or even imply that the POVs are in different locations. such a difference in POV location would be a notable aspect of astral perception--it's something that someone, in eighteen years of SR rules and fluff, would have commented on. for these reasons, it's illogical to assume that the astral POV is in a different location than the physical POV.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 6 2007, 03:28 PM

See: "to perceive with the eyes; look at." dictionary.com
Hear: "to perceive by the ear" dictionary.com
Smell: "to perceive the odor or scent of through the nose by means of the olfactory nerves; inhale the odor of" dictionary.com
Taste: "the sense by which the flavor or savor of things is perceived when they are brought into contact with the tongue." dictionary.com
Feel: "to perceive or examine by touch" dictionary.com

Notice similarities between all of these? They all name the perceiving organ. Astral perception is a psychic sense. Which relates it to the mind. I'll accept that your astral self while projecting doesn't have a brain, it only has an aura. Thusly, your aura must contain your "mind" and must then be the method of astral perception.

Posted by: mfb Sep 6 2007, 05:07 PM

to nitpick, "touch" is not an organ. there actually is no touch organ, just a network of specialized nerves.

your point doesn't prove anything. the fact that four out of five sensory definitions on dictionary.com include the sensory organ does not mean that "psychic sense" equals "brain". it means, at best, "mind". and in SR, "psychic" might be more accurately equated to "astral", since the astral is where the mind/soul are generally considered to reside.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 6 2007, 05:16 PM

I'm of the opinion that you "see" in astral space using your aura.

Therefore anything that wants to block your perception must block your entire aura.

Fairly simple.


-karma

Posted by: Sma Sep 6 2007, 05:24 PM

Posted by: mfb Sep 6 2007, 05:30 PM

skin is an organ, but it is not the only organ that you can touch things with. your eyes, for instance, can feel touch.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 6 2007, 05:41 PM

mfb, your position is equally unsupported by the rules or the fluff. You assertion that because cover works the same that the POV must be the same is incorrect. Cover requirements are: Partial: at least 25% of the target's form is obscured. Good: At least 50% of the target's form is obscured. And Target Hidden: Can't be seen.

None of those are a reference to the POV. If from the POV, the target has 25% of himself covered, he has partial cover. It doesn't matter whether that POV is from your meat eyes, the cyber eye in your hand, or from your aura, he has partial cover the same.

Posted by: mfb Sep 6 2007, 05:43 PM

they're all references to POV. if 25% of your target is behind a wall, but you're also behind that same wall, then your target has no cover. the target has to have 25% or 50% or 100% cover from your POV. and when you're wearing a blindfold, everything has 100% cover from your POV.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 6 2007, 06:47 PM

Yes, but there isn't any reason to assume that astral POV is the same as physical POV. The methods for determining cover utilize % of target covered from POV. Not "From where your eyes are". Thusly, your interpretation that the astral POV is located the same as physical POV has equally as little backing in the rules as the assumptions that the brain or the aura is the location of the astral POV.

Posted by: Sma Sep 6 2007, 08:38 PM

Posted by: mfb Sep 6 2007, 09:13 PM

it has backing, Tarantula: it has the fact that in eighteen years of SR fiction, not one single author has ever mentioned a discrepancy between the location of the astral and physical POV. vision is how humans gather the vast, vast majority of information, both on the physical and on the astral. any discrepancy between them would be--and are, in the rules--notable. the rules give information on how to handle things like light level and cover, but never once to they mention anything about the POVs being in different locations.

i don't believe that human tactile nerves react to IR light. they react to radiant heat, which as i recall is a phenomenon that accompanies IR light.

Posted by: Sma Sep 6 2007, 11:10 PM

The exact mechanism of temperature perception aren't 100% nailed down yet, but yeah while the afferent sensory neurons responsible for temperature perception are not stimulated by IR in the same way as the photoreceptors situated in the eye, they do react to the way IR warms them and the surrounding tissue. Which allows you to ascertain the direction of a IR Lamp with closed eyes. Thats what I meant with detect.

But I'll stop dragging this further OT, and leave you to discuss of the finer points of the physics of astral perception, without further snide remarks.

Posted by: Fortune Sep 6 2007, 11:36 PM

He's been saying the same thing for pages now (not that I disagree with mfb's take on things). The snide comments only serve to keep it interesting for him.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 7 2007, 06:23 AM

mfb, claiming that it has backing because it hasn't been mentioned is not backing. Its like claiming that because the rules don't say that you can't ice skate then you can.

My claim that its POV is not based in the eyes is because the rules describe it as a psychic sense that is not linked to physical sight.

Posted by: mfb Sep 7 2007, 06:43 AM

it is backing, because such a difference would be extremely noticeable by anyone who uses astral perception. no where in the rules does it ever state that Ares employees walk on their feet instead of some other part of their body, but we still assume they don't because if they did, someone would have said something by now. if nothing else, it would show up as a modifier in astral combat, since a dual mage trying to fight an astral spirit would suffer a huge blow to his hand-eye coordination. it'd be like fighting while looking through a periscope.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 7 2007, 06:51 AM

And whats your refutation for my rules standpoint that says it is a psychic sense not linked to physical sight? Because the book didn't say it wasn't where your eyes are? Isn't "not linked to physical sight" enough for you?

Posted by: mfb Sep 7 2007, 06:56 AM

it's not linked to physical sight. it simply has certain similarities to physical sight. other similarities include the fact that it provides a clear spatial understanding of one's surroundings, and the fact that it is completely blocked by obstructions, rather than being merely impeded (the way sound or scent are).

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 7 2007, 03:13 PM

So does ultrasound, radar sensors, and echolocation. Is your claim that those methods are off a reference point of the eyes? No. They aren't located in the eyes, radar and ultrasound are headware. Sure, they might be wired into the optical nerves to send their data to the brain that way, but their POV isn't located at the eyes. (Unless its computed and changed after data is received to appear as though it was, something magic can't do). Echolocation is based in the ears. You still have a clear spatial awareness (which is blocked by obstructions). In fact, echolocation seems to be a lot more like how astral perception is blocked, in that any object (clear or not) blocks perception, the same as it blocks echolocation.

By this, I mean, if you have a glass case with a jewel in it. You can look inside and see it. If you are blind however, you can perceive, and see a glass box in the middle of the room, probably with some greedy attached to it. Or, you can echolocate, and know of a box in the middle of the room. Neither one tells you whats inside.

So, because astral perception has similarities to sound (particularly echolocation) why not base it the same as echolocation, within the ears?

Posted by: Fortune Sep 7 2007, 04:14 PM

Yeah, ok.

Posted by: Apathy Sep 7 2007, 05:28 PM

Posted by: mfb Sep 7 2007, 06:05 PM

all of the senseware you mentioned is specifically noted as being located somewhere other than the eyes. no such notation is made for astral perception. all that is said is that astral perception is not linked to physical sight--which doesn't, as i've demonstrated, preclude them from having similarities.

Posted by: Tarantula Sep 7 2007, 06:46 PM

No, but astral perception is described as being a psychic sense.
Sight is a visual sense.
Hearing is an auditory sense.
Touch is a tactile sense.
Smell is an olfactory sense.
Touch is a tactile sense.

Why should astral perception being a psychic sense be tied to where these other senses are?

Edit: And where does it say the things required for echolocation aren't located in the eyes?

Posted by: Apathy Sep 7 2007, 06:52 PM