Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Astral Perception

Posted by: Luke Hardison Jul 21 2004, 02:04 AM

Situation: A character is blinded, either by a flash grenade much too close, or snowblindness ... anything causing blindness for a few days. (partly as a plot hook). To protect the eyes and promote faster healing, she is wearing a thick blindfold. (think Neo in Matrix3 if you need a visual) That character is an adept with the Astral Perception ability.

Can the adept use Astral Perception while their eyes heal? I know the function of the eyes doesn't affect Astral Perception working, but I'm specifically talking about the cloth. The cloth is a solid surface, which would block light in the physical. I've always thought that Astral Perception would work through it, but it occurred to me that a complete eye covering like that might block the ability.

My GM decision is that the purpose of the blindfold is paramount; if it's applied involuntarily to blind the target, then it affects both senses. If it's applied voluntarily as protection or for a reason other than affecting sight, the user can see through it. LOS from the aura, which extends outside the blindfold?

Canon ideas or house rulings?

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 21 2004, 02:07 AM

Astral perception has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physical sight. A character with no eyes can see via astral perception. It is, as described in SR3, a purely psychic sense. The intent behind applying the blindfold is irrelevant - wearing a blindfold will in no way interfere with astral perception.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 02:16 AM

QUOTE (Jason Farlander)

I call bullshit on that interpretation.

A blindfold definitely does stop astral sight, that's the entire point behind a magemask, whish is a totally mundane item that blocks astral LOS. That's it's entire purpose.

Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 21 2004, 02:18 AM

From the official FAQ at Shadowrunrpg.com:

QUOTE

The basic rule of thumb is this: if you can see through it in the physical world, then you can see through it on the astral plane. If you can't see through it physically, then you can't see through it astrally, either. The only real exceptions are astral barriers (and other astral things), which are at least partially opaque on the astral, but physically invisible.

So, no, you cannot see through the blindfold with astral perception if you cannot see through it with your own eyes.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 21 2004, 02:23 AM

Wrong. A magemask blocks physical LOS, and makes it more difficult to even begin to astrally percieve/project - requiring a willpower (10) test. Furthermore, it applies a +6 TN mod to any spellcasting attempt by pumping white noise into the mage's ears and prevents the caster from speaking (which hinders common geasa/centering skills).

Edit: as for the FAQ answer, I would say that for the exact same reason wearing a shroud does not prevent spell targeting via astral perception, a blindfold would not prevent astral perception - though holding it at arms length *would* hinder astral vision through it.

Posted by: Luke Hardison Jul 21 2004, 02:31 AM

Actually, the magemask "completely cuts off" LOS and "astral projection" requires the Willpower (10) test. The text (MitS, p. 12) doesn't mention Astral Perception, but the phrase "completely cuts off line of sight" makes me think that the mask, and the blindfold by transference, would block Perception.

I hadn't thought about looking at the magemask to solve the problem, lol.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 21 2004, 02:46 AM

Alright, well, I doubt I'll be able to convince you otherwise with canon quotes. As Ive mentioned in the past, there are problems with the cut-and-dry rulings that tend to crop up in FAQ answers... but whatever. Ill just say that I've always been happy ruling as I described.

In your game, YMMV as they say.

Posted by: Glyph Jul 21 2004, 02:48 AM

The FAQ needs to be taken in context. It does not apply to blindfolds; it is talking about the opacity of barriers such as walls, glass, etc. Actual, physical blindness does not prevent astral perception, so a mere blindfold certainly wouldn't.

If blocking physical LOS with a mask prevented astral perception and spell targetting, then the +6 TN penalty to spellcasting from the magemask would be redundant and unnecessary.

Posted by: Odin Jul 21 2004, 02:52 AM

alright here I'll explain in laymens terms why the magemask has the functions it has so it'll be clear....

1. the blindfold blocks line of sight preventing any form of spellcasting using your eyes obviously.

2. the white noise generator disrupts the concentration of the awakened individual as both astral perception and projection require at least a few moments of concentration and are TOTALLY independant of the physical senses.

3.The gag whch is used to prevent both the somatic component and any sort of lingual centering.

oh by the way blindfolds do not block astral perception you people are just being silly.

Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 21 2004, 02:54 AM

QUOTE (Glyph)

Wrong again. Not all spells are LOS - Increase Reflexes, Increase Attribute, and various other health spells do not require LOS if you're casting them on yourself, nor do a host of other spells, when casting on yourself.

If you can't see through it on the physical, you can't see through it on the astral. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

That's why they call it a Blindfold... because it effectively renders you blind. Now if you want to ignore the FAQ and decide you can see through blindfolds, go right ahead.

You do not require eyes to astrally perceive, but you still have the same limitations as people who do have eyes.... namely if it can't be seen through on the physical plane, it can't be seen through on the astral plane.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 02:56 AM

QUOTE

That's why they call it a Blindfold... because it effectively renders you blind. Now if you want to ignore the FAQ and decide you can see through blindfolds, go right ahead.

And, once again, blindness doesn't stop Astral Perception. It's not Astral Sight; it doesn't use your eyes, it doesn't revolve around your eyes, and it has nothing to do with your eyes whatsoever. It's not even linked to your head. It's a full-body experience... you "see," "hear," and "feel" (words used simply because there's no other way to describe the sensation to us mere mortals) everything on the astral plane using a completely new psychic sense. A blindfold does nothing to stop it.

Posted by: Odin Jul 21 2004, 03:07 AM

Well I think that covers it then unless anyone would care to dispute that with information that hasn't been presented?

Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 21 2004, 03:16 AM

QUOTE

And, once again, blindness doesn't stop Astral Perception.

Well, duh, why do think I said Astral Perception doesn't even require eyes? It is a psychic sense, but it's still visual in nature.

QUOTE

SR3, pg 171 "This allows you to SEE anything present in astral space. You can also SEE glowing auras surrounding living and magical things.

Nowhere under Magemask (MiTS, page 12) does it say that you can Astrally Perceive through a magamask, only that Astral PROJECTION requires a Willpower (10) test. In fact, they don't even mention Astral Perception period. And if a simple plastic hood wasn't enough to prevent Astral LOS for the purpose of spell targeting, then the +6 TN mod for spellcasting means dick as a force 4 Powerball could be cast with enough net successes to disintegrate said hood.

I'll stick with WizKids Official FAQ - if you can't see through it on the physical, you can't see through it on the astral. Thus, IMO, a blindfold works on the physical, and astral plane, as astral perception is still restricted from within the bounds of your body - i.e. you don't have astral eyes that float outside your body when you astrally perceive, bypassing blindfolds, magemasks etc.

Posted by: OurTeam Jul 21 2004, 03:19 AM

I don't know of any text in the books that says Astral Perception works through a blindfold.

Without a passage in a book, I will run it a simple way -- it blocks Astral perception.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 21 2004, 03:22 AM

Gah... I really wanted to just back away from this, but I find this to be a decent point to make.

Lets assume we have a mage who was *born* without eyes. Hell, he doesnt even have eye SOCKETS, optic nerves, anything... just a flat layer of skin and bone where his eyes should have been. Some sort of freakish genetic anomaly. Can this freak astrally percieve? Yes.

Would putting a blindfold on this person prevent astral perception?

Posted by: Dax Jul 21 2004, 03:36 AM

To back this statement up, on page 146 of the Call Free sourcebook, there is a Awakened Critter known as the Slime Mold. Which is just one huge pile of sludge. However it is awakened slude. It sees by Astral Perception.

It has no eyes, no visible head on its body to have "sight" from. So, does putting a blindfold on said creature stop it from Astrally Perceving?

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 03:40 AM

QUOTE

it doesn't use your eyes, it doesn't revolve around your eyes, and it has nothing to do with your eyes whatsoever.

Is there a quote somewhere to back this up? It says you dont have to have to have eyes that are functional in the normal world to use astral perception, but is there anything that says your eyes can be missing and still have it function or is that just an assumption? Is there a canon example of an eyesless NPC that can percieve, or are they all just blind ones with eyes?

QUOTE

Lets assume we have a mage who was *born* without eyes. Hell, he doesnt even have eye SOCKETS, optic nerves, anything... just a flat layer of skin and bone where his eyes should have been. Some sort of freakish genetic anomaly. Can this freak astrally percieve? Yes.

I don't think there's a canon example to support this. I would believe this is an assumption.

As evidence, the magemask doesn't say it prevents physical LOS. It says it prevents LOS. It has no qualifiers to that term, it is absolute.

QUOTE

There's no evidence how it works, because it obviously is not metahuman. If you put it in a sack then no, it should not be able to astrally percieve through it.

Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 21 2004, 03:41 AM

Yes, even without eyes (as I've said twice), you can have astral perception. Mages with Cyber vision still have astral perception.

Mages with their eyes ripped out of their head and still bleeding from the empty sockets still have astral perception.

Since you can cast spells at targets you see with astral perception with no TN penalties, a magemask ("a plastic hood" MiTS, page 12) that didn't block astral perception would be useless. Since a magemask blocks LOS, it has to work on the astral as well, otherwise you could just use astral perception to target spells.

So yes, a blindfold still blocks astral perception.

Posted by: Odin Jul 21 2004, 03:42 AM

all right look at it this way because the whole bodies integrity is essential to magic use the entire body is at play otherwise using your logic that astral perception can't see through a blinfold how would a mage with cyber eyes ever use astral perception you have the right to your opinion but that doesn't make sense.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 03:43 AM

QUOTE

Yes, even without eyes (as I've said twice), you can have astral perception. Mages with Cyber vision still have astral perception.

The eyes are paid for by essence and thereby count as natural for the purposes of performing magic through them, bad example.

QUOTE

Mages with their eyes ripped out of their head and still bleeding from the empty sockets still have astral perception.

Is there a quote somewhere to back that up?

Posted by: ShadowGhost Jul 21 2004, 03:46 AM

pg 171 - "Astral Perception does not rely on physical vision in any way."

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 21 2004, 03:47 AM

you mean, besides pg 171, SR3: "astral perception does not rely on physical vision in any way; it is a psychic sense" (emphasis mine)

Posted by: Odin Jul 21 2004, 03:50 AM

perhaps we should just look at it this way note the name of the term astral perception it's not called astral sight and has no bearing on any visual organs as the blind have no trouble with this and it relies on all the mages magical sense so I'll retort the only way you could theoretically blindfold a mages astral perception would be with a full body cast by your logic

Posted by: Person 404 Jul 21 2004, 03:53 AM

So if I'm perceiving, I can stick my pinkie around a corner, and consider that line of sight to whatever's there?

Posted by: Odin Jul 21 2004, 04:01 AM

no because your pinky isn't a significant portion of your body lets for arguments sake consider it 1/1000th of your total body so putting it around the corner would allow you to perceive 1/1000th of your regular astral perception in my opinion.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 04:06 AM

QUOTE (ShadowGhost)

pg 171 - "Astral Perception does not rely on physical vision in any way."

Like I said above, I'm referring the the eyes themselves being present, not whether or not they work, I know a man whose eyes do not see can percieve. There eyes, and the ability to see are not the same thing for the purposes of what I am asking.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 04:22 AM

So you're all saying that a blindfold over your eyes disables Astral Perception. That a blindfold "deafens" you on the astral plane. That a blindfold makes you unable to "feel" on the astral plane. Because that's exactly what you're saying here, because astral perception is not sight. It's a completely new and different sense that only uses expressions like "hear" "see" and "feel" as a descriptive term. You're not actually "hearing" the astral plane any more than you're "seeing" it or "feeling" it. You're perceiving it. Hence the term "astral perception."

It's a single sense all its own. It's not an extension of existing ones.

If you can find a single line of text in the book that specifically states that putting a blindfold on someone will disable astral perception, you'll have something to back your theory up. Until then, it doesn't.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 21 2004, 04:23 AM

I dont know about you, BB, but, to me, saying that astral perception somehow requires the eyes to be physically present would be, well, relying on physical vision in *some* way - your eyes being the sensory organs for... physical vision.

Posted by: Person 404 Jul 21 2004, 04:46 AM

On the other hand,

"Your astral form has normal human senses of sight and hearing.... These astral senses are all "psychic" in a sense; thus, blind magicians can see perfectly well on the astral." (SR3, 173).

Could go either way, especially with the handwavy "psychic" part, but I think that saying that astral perception is a sixth sense totally unrelated to the normal 5 senses isn't really borne out well by the text.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 05:09 AM

You're quoting from Astral Projection, not Astral Perception.

Posted by: Gigapulse Jul 21 2004, 05:09 AM

Tought Desicion, Since astrally perceiving has nothing to to with sight I would say at first instance that the blindfold would not affect his perception through the astral space.
But look at the original Post, he says that the blindfold is very thick, so you could argue that it is like having the image of a solid(wall) object right in front of your eyes.
This leads me to another question. If you are astrally perceiving and you have a physical wall between you and your target, can you see the target through the image of the wall in the astral space? if you do, then the blindfold does nothing. If you don't see through then you could say that the blindfold block your sight. And that leads me to another issue.
If Astral perception has nothing to do with physical sight, then why do you forcibly have to perceive the astral through the physical position of you eyes. I could say that since it has nothing to do with your eyes or sight you are perceiving the astral, from all of you possible angles(directions?), directly to you essence.

Does that makes any sense?? English is not my home language, so I might be explaining my self wrongly.

Hope this help

-Gig

Posted by: Lord Ver'an Jul 21 2004, 05:34 AM

The abovementioned quotes from the main book make me go with the "astral perception does not require eyes" arguement. As I have always understood it, the main difference between astral projection and perception was that when projecting, you leave your body. When you are astrally perceiving, you are basically in both worlds at once; you can sense and interact with both planes but are vulnerable to both and suffer limitations because you are not fully in one world or the other - as indicated by the modifiers to taking most actions.

My own (often faulty) logic aside, the ghoul rules also support the idea that impaired vision does not hinder astral perception. Pg. 33, SrComp"All ghouls suffer from a degree of physical blindness. However, their dual nature allows them to see perfectly well on the astral plane." This description does not indicate that these rules regarding perception are abnormal.

Although not directly referring to all characters, ghouls are metahumans and much closer to Joe/Jane magic user than the aforementioned pile of goo is.

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 21 2004, 05:51 AM

If you could see through a blind fold then you could see through anything. What is the difference between a 3 X 12 piece of cloth or a 3 X 12 piece of steel? While astrally perceiving I still have to stick my head around the corner with my orbital sockets oriented towards my target to see anything. Eyes or no eyes they are part of your body. The blindfold is not.

Posted by: Shev Jul 21 2004, 06:04 AM

A blindfold would not hinder astral sight. Period.

I think the problem here is that some people think of astral perception as a kind of extension to the eyes, like thermographic vision. They imagine that being in a perceiving person's shoes would be like turning on night vision: suddenly, you see things that you couldn't before, but your method (and thus vantage point) of perception remains the same. However, this is simply not true for astral perception, for all the reasons listed above. It is not an extra "sight" centered around the eyes, and thus is not affected by them. This is why blind magicians can "see", with only a +2 modifier that applies to "seeing" object solely in the physical realm. (SRComp, p.19) Astral perception is sometimes called astral vision, but it is clearly defined as something beyond the ken of one simple sense.

As for mage masks, think about this: even if the mage could see in the astral, he could not target any mundanes, nor any non-projecting/perceiving magician. The point of the mage mask is to make concentration near impossible, and cut off LOS. While the book may not state that it only works for physical LOS, it never states that it works for both physical and astral either.

Of course, this is yet another interpretation of the rules. YMMV, as always.

EDIT: NT, you are making the the same assuption as everyone else here. You are assuming that the vantage point of the perception is through the eye area, when it isn't. It is not a sense based around a single organ, like sight is to eyes, or smell is to nose.

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 21 2004, 06:11 AM

Last time on this thread.

You are standing 2" from a wall and facing it with your normal sight. It is large and red and very solid. You shut your eyes (or rip them out you Oedipal freak) and astrally perceive. What do you see?

Posted by: Dax Jul 21 2004, 06:17 AM

Also last time on this thread.

It does not change the fact, that it says in the Big Black Book, that Astral Perception has nothing to do with normal sight, in anyway, shape or form.

Posted by: Shev Jul 21 2004, 06:21 AM

You see a wall. It blocks your astral vision.

However, if the wall had an opening from the neck down, you would see through that opening, even if you were standing up. Again, you are not using your eyes for this, nor is the perception even coming from that area.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 06:27 AM

QUOTE

However, if the wall had an opening from the neck down, you would see through that opening, even if you were standing up. Again, you are not using your eyes for this, nor is the perception even coming from that area.

Again, do you have anything besides speculation to back that up? Is that stated in the book anywhere?

When astrally percieving (not projecting) then if you're wearing clothes are you blind astrally because you cant see out the middle of your torso because of your shirt?

Can you provide any quote that astral perception has nothing to do with the eyes? Remember it having nothing to do with normal vision and nothing to do with the eyes are not necessarily the same thing. Eyes and Vision are not the same thing. You can have eyes and not see, you cannot see without eyes.

Posted by: Cochise Jul 21 2004, 07:50 AM

@ BitBasher:

Your answer is the "blind" flaw ... This flaw encompasses any form of physical blindness, including the one where the person is missing actual eyes ...
Magicians with that flaw can still astrally perceive ...

Posted by: Shev Jul 21 2004, 02:20 PM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

Can you provide any quote that astral perception has nothing to do with the eyes? Remember it having nothing to do with normal vision and nothing to do with the eyes are not necessarily the same thing. Eyes and Vision are not the same thing. You can have eyes and not see, you cannot see without eyes.

As said before:

QUOTE (SR3 @ p.171)

...astral perception does not rely on physical vision in any way; it is a psychic sense.

Emphasis mine.

Between this passage, and the explanation of blind magicians in SRComp, I conclude that astral perception is not based on the eyes in any sense of the word. It is magic and not subject to all the same limitations we apply to our physical senses. Yes, it can't see through walls and other things, but there is no one organ you can cover that will cut off astral perception. (execpt the mind, but if you cut that off, astral percetion is a moot point

)

If you want it in game terms, there is no perception test to notice things in the astral (unless they are specifically hiding from you). Therefore, it is not an ordinary (limited) physical sense.

Posted by: Garland Jul 21 2004, 02:43 PM

So you're saying that someone astrally perceiving can see out their ass with no problem, eh?

No thanks.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 03:31 PM

That's less absurd than the other argument that a blindfold deafens and numbs an astrally perceiving character. Or that cyberware (namely Independant Cybereyes) extend those same psychic senses. Or that being completely blind, complete with having your eyes plucked from your body, doesn't affect your ability to use astral perception, but -- for some reason -- placing a piece of cloth over your eyes does.

Of course he's not saying that at all. He's saying that, as a completely new and independant sense, astral perception doesn't rely on our own ability to see, hear, or feel. Anymore than being blinded makes us unable to taste.

Posted by: Arethusa Jul 21 2004, 03:54 PM

So if I stand in front of a brick wall, which is both physically and astrally opaque, I can't see through it, but if I tie a brick wall to my face, I can see just fine on the astral?

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 03:56 PM

Essentially, yes. Just like a brickwall will mute the sounds on the other side of it, but a brick in front of your eyes won't muffle anything. Or a brickwall will stop you from feeling a breeze from a fan on the other side, but a brick tied to your face won't stop you from feeling the breeze.

Again, it's a completely independant sense that only uses terms like "see" for lack of a better word.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 03:58 PM

So Necrotic, can you provide a book quote that astral perception replaces hearing and touch? I can provide a quote that says it does not replace hearing. It's below.

From multiple descriptions in the book astral perception is astral sight, auras have colors, he sees them, he does not taste or feel them. It just isn't related to physical vision in any way.

Can you provide an example of anything other than sight descriptive terms to describe astral perception? Hearing even works normally when astral, and remember:

QUOTE (SR3 p. 173)

"Your astral form has normal human senses of sight and hearing.... These astral senses are all "psychic" in a sense; thus, blind magicians can see perfectly well on the astral."

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 04:05 PM

Once again, that's astral projection, not perception. Hence the use of the words "your astral form."

SR3 p. 171, Astral Perception: "You can touch and interact with astral forms." Well, unless you put on a blindfold.

Oh, and SR3 p. 171, Astral Perception: "...astral perception does not rely on physical vision in any way; it is a psychic sense."

Note the use of the word "sense." As opposed to "an extention of your natural senses." It is a completely seperate sense all its own and is unrelated to physical vision in any way, shape, or form.

Posted by: tjn Jul 21 2004, 04:21 PM

If I may interject a point here... It's the same thing as clothing. Clothing does not hinder any perception on the astral plane, neither should a blindfold.

Well enless the blindfold is like three feet thick and extends past the individual's aura... but that would just be silly.

Posted by: Dice Jul 21 2004, 04:23 PM

Ok, how about this as a compromise that seems to cover both sides of the arguement without directly contradicting 'canon':

Each Astrally percieving creature has an'Astral Eye' that percieves from a species-specific area . For metahumans this 'Astral eye' percieves from roughly the Forehead of the metahuman. If the species is a blob of proplasm its Astral Eye 'floats' freely within it, so it can percieve in any direction it chooses (but can't do much from inside a sealed bucket)

As long as the Mage has an 'eye' sized area of his forehead uncovered he can percieve from it Astrally.

This would mean that a Magemask would still be effective, but a thin strip of cloth over the (real) eyes, or a band-aid over a forehead cut, or a hat (unless its pulled right down) wouldn't.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 04:25 PM

So, necrotic, just to be clear you're saying that when projecting your astral form has the normal senses of sight and hearing, but when perecieving you do not, you have no senses like normal sight and hearing despite actually being in your body?

so percieving is sensory wise completely different than your senses when projecting?

Posted by: Garland Jul 21 2004, 05:10 PM

I run this basically like Dice said above. The physical eyes aren't important to astral perception, but their location is symbolically important in that astral perception emanates from it. Since a blindfold is physically opaque, it is also astrally opaque. A blindfolded astrally perceiving mage could theoretically "hear" an astral spirit talking to him, but not see it (to target it for sorcery or whatever).

Otherwise you have people seeing out of their ass, like I mentioned, or having eyes in the back of their head, and etc. and etc. If a mage wants that, they have to project and move their astral form around appropriately (or inappropriately, as the case may be).

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (BitBasher @ Jul 21 2004, 10:25 AM)

No, I'm saying that your astral form has the ability to see and hear the physical world as well as the astral plane. That's why you can still see and hear the physical world even while projecting, albeit with the usual +2 TN penalty when appropriate. This is also why they specifically mention it as part of your astral form, because otherwise you'd only be able to perceive the astral plane -- which has no bearing on your physical ability to see or hear.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 21 2004, 05:31 PM

Quite a discussion.
In my game, I would rule that the sense of astral perception sees from the surface of the aura. Therefore a thin blindfold would have no effect, since the aura would extend past it, but a bulky thick mask could block it.
Basically, the same rationale for how a touch spell can work through armored clothing.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 05:36 PM

Why? Even a full suit of hardened milspec armor doesn't hide your aura.

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Jul 21 2004, 05:42 PM

Well now it's a question of how big is a Shadowrun aura?

Posted by: tjn Jul 21 2004, 05:45 PM

QUOTE (Garland @ Jul 21 2004, 12:10 PM)

The physical eyes aren't important to astral perception, but their location is symbolically important in that astral perception emanates from it.

That's more dependant upon the tradition of the mage in question. Hermetically, yes it might make sense but hermetic magic is but one interpretation; and according to how the Astral is presented in OOC and Game Information (IE the "reality" of the situation), eyes have jack squat to do with Astral Perception.

QUOTE

Since a blindfold is physically opaque, it is also astrally opaque.

So is clothing, but one can percieve living auras through them just fine.

QUOTE

A blindfolded astrally perceiving mage could theoretically "hear" an astral spirit talking to him, but not see it (to target it for sorcery or whatever).

Once again, Astral perception is not "seeing" or "hearing" anything, it's a completely seperate sense. It's akin to trying to describe what you see to a person that has been blind their entire life.

QUOTE

Otherwise you have people seeing out of their ass, like I mentioned, or having eyes in the back of their head, and etc. and etc. If a mage wants that, they have to project and move their astral form around appropriately (or inappropriately, as the case may be).

Once again, divorce the concept of "seeing" anything. There is no point of origin on an astral form because the astral form itself is the point of origin.

Posted by: Garland Jul 21 2004, 06:00 PM

Sorry, for astral perception, it makes sense that because the perceiving mage is still within his/her body and still interacting with the physical world, they are still bound to their analogous senses.

I can see I would've saved myself a lot of trouble in this discussion had I simply replaced "seeing", "hearing" etc. with "sensing."

I'll certainly agree that when an astral form is projecting, it's a whole new ball game.

Maybe looking at dual-natured critters is another way to try and figure this out. If a barghest has its tail and hindquarters sticking around a corner, and you're around the corner, can it see you?

Posted by: Herald of Verjigorm Jul 21 2004, 06:02 PM

The barghest can already smell you and is only pointing its less deadly end at you for humiliation purposes before it howls you into a coma.

Posted by: Garland Jul 21 2004, 06:06 PM

For the purposes of this example, there's a sewage treatment facility upwind, you're downwind, and the barghest has a bad cold. Smart alec.

Edit: spelling.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 06:13 PM

My personal opinion is that no, he wouldn't be able to see around the corner with astral perception. Just because it's a psychic, independant sense, that doesn't mean it's not still a directional sense, at least for more beings if for no other reason than because its easier for us to comprehend it that way.

Posted by: Garland Jul 21 2004, 06:22 PM

So now it's directional.

If you're hiding under a table and the barghest's head is above the table and the rest of its body is below, can it "sense" you with just its feet and torso in line-of-sight?

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 06:25 PM

Yep, sure can. Just like anyone else could sense you on a successful Perception Test to defeat your Stealth (Hiding) Test. Why, you could even be facing the opposite direction and still succeed. Imagine that.

Posted by: tjn Jul 21 2004, 06:38 PM

QUOTE (Garland)

What analogous senses are you refering to? It's a completely new sense and not analogous at all. A character astrally percieves with his eyes as much as he hears, touches, tastes or smells with his eyes.

QUOTE

I can see I would've saved myself a lot of trouble in this discussion had I simply replaced "seeing", "hearing" etc. with "sensing."

Quite likely.

QUOTE

I'll certainly agree that when an astral form is projecting, it's a whole new ball game.

If anything, the wonky thing is that when astrally projecting, astral perception duplicates hearing and vision (if only without the ability to read words).

QUOTE

Maybe looking at dual-natured critters is another way to try and figure this out. If a barghest has its tail and hindquarters sticking around a corner, and you're around the corner, can it see you?

Can it see the character? No. Can it perceive the fact that the character (who is not trying to hide) is around the corner with astral perception? In my opinion, yes, and until the barghest moves around the corner, both effectively have cover against each other. However whether Astral Perception is directional or not is not touched upon, and will require a judgement call on the part of the GM.

Posted by: Garland Jul 21 2004, 06:38 PM

Okay then. This is probably where we agree to disagree.

Posted by: JaronK Jul 21 2004, 06:58 PM

Here's my own oppinion about it, though in the end this is just going to come down to each GM's personal idea.

You see, using astral perception, from your eyes, and hear from your ears. The astral is a place of the mind... since the mind of the mage believes that vision comes from the eyes, he will see from there when he astrally percieves, and since the mind of the mage believes that hearing comes from ears, he'll hear from his ears. A very well trained mage might see from elsewhere, but that would require a great deal of work, perhaps even a metamagic technique.

Now, auras "bleed through" objects, allowing those touch attacks. That doesn't mean you see from the edge of your aura though... you'd still see from where your eyes are. Thus, a blind fold wouldn't enable you to see, since it would be covering your eyes and is opaque to the physical world. This fits with the cannon idea that you can't see with a magemask on. However, if you were looking, astrally, at a mage that was covered up in mummy tape, you'd still see his aura bleeding through the tape. That doesn't mean the mage in mummy tape could see you, however.

I would say that a mage who was blind since birth could see from a place other than his eyes... since he has never seen with them, his mind might allow him to see from another place in his astral aura. This might allow for the blind swordsman arctype... a blind adept wearing a blindfold that can see through the astral. In his case, his mind doesn't restrict his astral vision to his eyes, so he could effectively see out of his chin or whatever.

I view it very much like the matrix... what you do in the astral is based on what your mind thinks is possible. You have to unlearn things like gravity and all that... where you see from is probably something most mages don't think to unlearn.

I would say, however, that duel beings always have to see out their eyes in the astral, no matter what... since they exist on both planes, their physical bodies seem more attached to their astral ones, in some ways.

JaronK

Posted by: Apathy Jul 21 2004, 07:12 PM

I got lazy and haven't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if I'm going over ground someone else covered.

1. Barriers that block physical sight block astral sight. So if you face an opaque sheet of paper, you can't see what's on the other side of the paper, assuming it blocks your line of sight.

2. Astral vision isn't limited by your ability to physically see, but things that block physical visibility (obsticals, smoke, submerged under water, etc.) by getting between you and the target affect your astral perception as well.

3. Your aura extends several inches beyond your physical body. So the aura of your body can be seen even when it's physically tied up in a sack. This does not necessarily imply that you can see out of the sack (open to interpretation).

3. The crux of the question is, what 'sees' astrally?

Is it a pin-point origin sense based on where your physical eyes are located on your body, or can you see from any part of your aura? If the answer is 'any part', then I should be able to astrally look around corners by sticking my finger around the corner and leaving the rest of my body hidden. I personally rule that astral perception uses the same general physical location on your body as normal vision (the center of your face, probably in the area on the forehead that the metaphysical types refer to as 'the third eye'). So if there's an obsticle between your 'third eye' and the target, you couldn't see it. Note that a GM might well rule that a 2 inch blindfold doesn't actually cover the third eye, but a sack would.
If my aura extends 3 inches away from my body in all directions, does my astral sight come from the edge of my aura (i.e. 3 inches away from my meat bod) or from the meat bod itself? For game simplicity, I play it that I astrally percieve from the edge of my meat body, not from 3 inches past it. I can see valid arguments either way, though.

Are these the only issues, or is there something I missed?

Posted by: Cochise Jul 21 2004, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

Once again, that's astral projection, not perception. Hence the use of the words "your astral form."

Problem there: You already have an "astral form" when you start to perceive astrally. That astral form has different attributes than the one you have while astrally perceiving, but it's an astral form nontheless ...
That astral form has its own set of senses. Audio being the same as your physical sense (even while projecting). Touch being the physical sense plus an addition that informs you about interaction with astral objects (you lose he pyhsical part while projecting). Smell and Taste are unreferenced. And finally "sight" which is replaced by astral perception which is described in analogies to physical sight (otherwise we'd be unable to comprehend the concept) but exists simulataniously to physical sight (again only until you start projecting)

QUOTE

SR3 p. 171, Astral Perception: "You can touch and interact with astral forms." Well, unless you put on a blindfold.

I guess that's the part where part of you misconception comes from. Activated astral perception "physically" manifest your astral form on the astral plane. Once there you have the ability of interacting with other astral forms that also includes an astral equivalent to the physical "touch" sense ...

QUOTE

Oh, and SR3 p. 171, Astral Perception: "...astral perception does not rely on physical vision in any way; it is a psychic sense."

Note the use of the word "sense." As opposed to "an extention of your natural senses." It is a completely seperate sense all its own and is unrelated to physical vision in any way, shape, or form.

This is true however and that's the part that creates the problem with the mage-mask / blindfold ...

I usually describe this as a problem of defining something as "part of the target" vs. "not part of the target".
First some facts (shortened, because I'm too lazy and too tired after work to search all relevant quotes from the core rules and MitS):

Any object living or non-living can be seen on the astral as a "faded", "greyish" reflection of itself. (should be p. 161 SR3)
The transparency of objects on the astral is not explicitly ruled on with the current SR rules. However there is one thing that suggest that all objects retain their normal transparency on the astral as well: Water as an transparent medium does not interfere with astral perception in any way (MitS, p. 82) *Lifeforms within the water however do*. The FAQ answer heads into the same direction by saying that as a rule of thumb any object retains the same transparency as on the physical plane
Any living being has an aura that surrounds the astral representation of its physical body (again p. 161) => There are two different entities envolved here:
1. The reflection of the physical body (including any clothes worn)
2. The aura
Obviously anything that can be considered part of the reflection, does not interfere with the visibilty of the aura, otherwise we'd have modifiers for astral perception on living beings who wear clothes and we'd have modifiers on spellcasting tests that use astral perception since clothes would create some sort of cover ... we don't have something like that. This usually leads to the interpretation that auras "radiate" through worn clothes. A concept that's understandable but bears problems of its own: If auras really radiated through clothes then why wouldn't they radiate through a "paper" wall made of tin foil that is in direct touch with a person while a mage is astrally perceiving on the other side of said wall. On the physical plane the tin foil is most definitely not transparent for human eyes => It appears that the aura actually surrounds not the pure felsh and blood body, but anything that can be considered "part" of it as well. This also explains why it's not possible to perceive the aura of the person behind the tin foil wall, since that wall cannot be considered part of the body that is surrounded by the body.
Once a character starts to astrally perceive, the reflection of his physical body gets an astral form as an overlay (more colored and vivid than an aura on its own, again p. 161 SR3), which uses the physical attributes, the normal physical senses plus the previously mentioned additions to said senses. The aura is unaffected by that change => it's still there and can still be assensed.
If a character starts to project, he separates his astral form from the pyhsical body, taking the aura with him. What stays back, is the reflection of the physical body (mixture from several rules on stral projection, assensing and background info)

Now where does astral perception fit into all that, you might ask !?
The above points have established that anything that can be considered as "part of the perceived entity" does not interfere with astral perception on the "being perceived". Now it's not too far of a stretch that the same is true in the perceiving direction, because that would perfectly fit into the analogy of vision and it would explain why walls and the like actually retain the same transparency as on the physical plane, since a wall usually cannot be considered as part of an entity called "perceiving mage" (or "projecting mage" for that matter).
Now the final remaining question is: How can a worn blindfold or a mage mask be considered "not part of that entity" while worn clothes are "part of it"?

The answer is: Individual decision, based on intent and situation.

Yes, I'm aware that pretty much sounds like arbitrariness of the rules, but I can assure you that this is exactly in line with how SR magic works:

When using an invisibilty spell on a charatcer do you require the person to be naked? If not then you consider the character's gear and clothes as "part of the target". In general all spells of SR appear to affect the whole body including worn gear / clothes. The only notable exception there is the shapechange spell that explicitly demands the target to be affected apart from worn clothes.
In contrast to that general rule the levitation spell can target the whole entity (including gear), but it can also target hand-held gear, otherwise the rules on levitating objects from a person including a resistance via strength would be necessary
The rules on spells say that you cannot target individual parts of a target (like cyberware)
The very same rules do however allow to use a spell like "cripple limb" to perform what the previously mentioned rules disallows, since a limb is an individual part of the whole entity ...

Conclusion: There is no true "wrong" or "right" on the issue whether or not a blindfold / mage mask can block astral perception, since both interpretations are just fine with the rules as written. The intend of a mage mask however clearly states that its designed to destroy LOS ... and LOS can be achived both physical sight and / or astral perception => A mage mask should block astral perception to fullfil its purpose.
A blindfold should do the same.
=> It's not so much a matter of "logic" only, but also a matter of more esoteric concepts like "intend" ...
And that's pretty much how I handle it ...

Posted by: xizor Jul 21 2004, 08:07 PM

this is something that i don't think has been covered in any thread, that i think is very pertinent to this one,

what is a mage mask made of?
and could what it is made of possibly effect aseral perception?

sorry to have interrupted your regularly scheduled argument

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 08:39 PM

QUOTE (xizor)

what is a mage mask made of?
and could what it is made of possibly effect aseral perception?

A mage mask is mundane normal material, the hood is opaque plastic IIRC.

Posted by: Fygg Nuuton Jul 21 2004, 08:43 PM

its the loud random noises that make perceiving difficult, the hood cuts off physical LOS iirc

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 08:46 PM

QUOTE (Fygg Nuuton)

its the loud random noises that make perceiving difficult, the hood cuts off physical LOS iirc

Not to nitpick, but that's one of the points I keep saying and people keep ignoring. The hood cuts off "LOS" not "Physical LOS" It's is not qualified to only be physical. This is where one of my main points comes from.

Posted by: Fygg Nuuton Jul 21 2004, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

QUOTE (Fygg Nuuton @ Jul 21 2004, 08:43 PM)

its the loud random noises that make perceiving difficult, the hood cuts off physical LOS iirc

i always thought the hood was opaque, simply because thats how id make it... ill have to read it again

Posted by: tjn Jul 21 2004, 08:50 PM

QUOTE (xizor)

According to NAGNA, a magemask:

Cost 200
A simple plastic hood, easily fitted over a prisoner's head, the meagemask blocks vision, and is equipped with a gag-tube that can be shoved into the magician's mouth, allowing him o breathe but not speak. The nostrils are left uncovered for breathing as well. The mask is also equipped with a white-noise generator that can be cranked up to deliver as much as 90 DB to the wearer's ears. This serves as a major distraction for the victim.

As such it's a bit more then just a simple blindfold. Both remove LOS, but only one ruins the victim's concentration.

To me, as just turning on the ability to percieve astrally requires an action, and therefore some amount of focus, that 90 DB of white noise is enough to distract someone from astrally percieving.

A blindfold does nothing to stop the mage from focusing on his astral perception, whereas a magemask does.

Talk of intent and symbology are IC reasonings for what it does what it does and falls under the perview of traditions. Different traditions will view what happens differently, if a mage believes that without eyes he can not astrally perceive then that will be what happens. However the hermetics have already deduced that and any hermetic mage worth his salt isn't going to limit himself in such a way.

Posted by: Cochise Jul 21 2004, 08:52 PM

QUOTE (Fygg Nuuton)

its the loud random noises that make perceiving difficult, the hood cuts off physical LOS iirc

It doesn't specifically say physical LOS ...

QUOTE (p. 12 MitS)

It consists of a plastic hood that fits over the prisoner's head, completely cutting off line of sight

Since line of sight can be achieved with physical eyes and astral perception and line of sight is "completely" cut off .. Draw your own conclusions ~shrugs~

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (Cochise)

QUOTE (p. 12 MitS)

It consists of a plastic hood that fits over the prisoner's head, completely cutting off line of sight

Since line of sight can be achieved with physical eyes and astral perception and line of sight is "completely" cut off .. Draw your own conclusions ~shrugs~

That's pretty much the one I was going for.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 09:42 PM

You can use astral perception regardless of how you're blinded. Your eyes can be plucked from their sockets (which, by the way, doesn't qualify for the Blind flaw since that can easily be repaired with cybernetics). Your optic nerves could be completely destroyed (ditto). You could have been born with the portion of your brain that uses sight never developed or otherwise suffered traumatic brain damage that caused it to die (hey, we have a winner for the Blind flaw). You could have been in a tragic metal forging accident that left a blurb of steel molten and solidified in front of your eyes. And in all four cases, you can still use astral perception because -- pay attention, this is the important part -- astral perception doesn't rely on physical vision in any way whatsoever.

The mage mask does nothing to prove otherwise. Line of sight and astral perception are two seperate entities within the context of the game.

Need proof? Check out SR3 pp. 181-182 under "Spell Targeting." When describing line of sight, astral perception is never mentioned even when discussing the ways in which LOS can be modified. Later on they do talk about astral perception and even mention that the caster gets the best of both worlds; even if completely blinded on the physical world, he can still use astral perception to target opponents and, because he exists on both planes simultaneously, can still channel a spell into the physical world to bring a lot of hurt onto the target. And of course they never once mention line of sight when describing astral perception, because its an unrelated term in the game.

But hey, if you want to limit astral perception by physical sight in your game, no one's stopping you. 'Course you'll have to come up with a whole new BS reason why Independant Cybereyes modifies a completely psychic and magical sense that is wholly unrelated to physical vision.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 21 2004, 10:07 PM

I'd like to see if we can at least all have a concensus on this:

If I make a wide-brimmed hat (6" brim) and attach a curtain on the end of it that is opaque and drops all the way to the floor, would everyone agree that this blocks perception?

1. It's more than 3" from your meat body, so it extends past your aura.
2. It blocks physical vision.

Shouldn't this block astral 'visual' perception (while doing basically nothing to astral 'hearing')?

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 21 2004, 10:09 PM

QUOTE

pay attention, this is the important part -- astral perception doesn't rely on physical vision in any way whatsoever.

I have never, ever once said it did so far. In fact, I agree that mundane vision and astral perception are not permanently tied together, I acknowledge that blind people can percieve. I do not debate this. I haven't yet.

having eyes and being able to see are two different things. That is the point I have trying to impress.

QUOTE

The mage mask does nothing to prove otherwise. Line of sight and astral perception are two seperate entities within the context of the game.

That's like saying Eyeballs and the ability to see blue are two different things. Of course. One is an organ that lets you see, the other is the act of seeing. One is an object and the other is an action.

QUOTE

Need proof? Check out SR3 pp. 181-182 under "Spell Targeting." When describing line of sight, astral perception is never mentioned even when discussing the ways in which LOS can be modified. Later on they do talk about astral perception and even mention that the caster gets the best of both worlds; even if completely blinded on the physical world, he can still use astral perception to target opponents and, because he exists on both planes simultaneously, can still channel a spell into the physical world to bring a lot of hurt onto the target. And of course they never once mention line of sight when describing astral perception, because its an unrelated term in the game.

Yes, but while Astrally Percieving you still need valid LOS to the target to cast a spell. While physically percieving or astrally percieving the LOS rules for spellcasting do not change. You're comparing different parts of speech.

QUOTE

But hey, if you want to limit astral perception by physical sight in your game, no one's stopping you. 'Course you'll have to come up with a whole new BS reason why Independant Cybereyes modifies a completely psychic and magical sense that is wholly unrelated to physical vision.

Er no, there's no BS and no odd explanations. The sense "Astral Perception" happens from where the natural eyes were on your body. You cannot percieve through an independant cybereyes. On your astral template there's no eye there, just a dark shadow of cyberware. Also, I do not limit astral perception to physical sight in my game nor do I advocate it. That would mean that blund people couldn't percieve.

QUOTE

Sure, I agree with that no problem.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 10:10 PM

1. No clue where you're getting this 3" thing from. You can be in a JIM suit of armor and still have your aura targeted. Not that it matters.
2. Yep.

Nope. No more than it blocks your ability to hear.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 21 2004, 10:17 PM

QUOTE

It's a moot point. You're saying that in order to see, you have to have eyes in your eye sockets and that anything blocking your eye sockets cuts off your ability to use astral perception even though astral perception has no reliances on anything relating to physical vision.

It doesn't. As proven by both astral perception (which is only "sight" in terms of description) and independant cybereyes (which provides sight from locations other than your eye sockets).

QUOTE

More correctly, astral perception can be used in place of LOS. Again, two different techniques and two different terms within the game.

QUOTE

Ah, now you're making up more BS nonsense. First of all, you could have easily been born without any physical eyes and you still get to use astral perception even though your "astral template" was never modified and there was never any natural eyes for you to be perceiving from. Second, independant cybereyes effectively create "natural eyes" that modify your "astral template" (both resulting from the fact that it was paid for with Essence), so if you're going to go with physical obstacles limiting your ability to use astral perception, then you have to accept independant cybereyes as an augmentation as well.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 21 2004, 10:19 PM

QUOTE

Sure, I agree with that no problem.

QUOTE

Nope. No more than it blocks your ability to hear.

Then we're never going to agree on this. We have completely different interpretations of what our aura is and how it interacts with our environment. We're also never going to convince the people we're debating with to our point of view. I think there's no point in continuing the thread because we're all just saying the same things over and over again.

But it was an interesting point to think about, and it made me better define exactly what I thought, so thanks!

Posted by: tjn Jul 21 2004, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (Apathy)

Shouldn't this block astral 'visual' perception (while doing basically nothing to astral 'hearing')?

There is no such thing as astral "visual" perception.
There is no such thing as astral "hearing" perception.

A normal metahuman has five predominate senses:

Vision
Hearing
Smell
Taste
Touch

A normal metahuman mage has six predominate senses.

Vision
Hearing
Smell
Taste
Touch
Astral Percetion

Astral Perception is in no way a variant or replacement or even analogous to any sense we currently have. I don't understand why people can't quite grasp the concept that astral perception does not rely upon physical vision in any way; it is a psychic sense.

As eyes, or even the space in which they occupy, are a part of physical vision, they are not relied upon in any way when dealing with astral perception.

Posted by: Person 404 Jul 21 2004, 11:00 PM

That does get kind of weird when you move to projecting, though.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 12:17 AM

QUOTE

Astral Perception is in no way a variant or replacement or even analogous to any sense we currently have.

That is never stated. It is in every single example of astral perception completely analogous to sight, and in no examples does it do anything that sight does not do. Everything on the astral is referenced in terms of color, ect. It is never, ever referenced in any way other than visual except that it is a referred to as "a psychic sense" in that it does not rely on having normal vision to do it. Can an example be provided where this sense give any input other than visual, or where this sense is described in any way other than visual?

Functionally a mage has the following senses while not percieving/projecting:
Sight
Hearing
Touch
Taste
Smell

And while percieving:
Astral Sight (perception)
Hearing
Touch
Taste (only on physical world stimuli)
Smell (only on physical world stimuli)

And While Projecting:
Astral Sight (perception)
Hearing
Touch
(Taste and Smell are never to my knowledge referenced astrally)

QUOTE

I absolutely agree, but work is slow. Neither side can be directly backed up by the book, but both sides can infer their points.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 01:34 AM

Or while using the KISS principle:

Mundane Senses: Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste.
Awakened Senses: Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste, Astral Perception.
Astral Senses: Astral Perception, Sight, Hearing.

There is no such thing as "astral sight."

Posted by: Apathy Jul 22 2004, 01:43 AM

QUOTE

Astral Senses: Astral Perception, Sight, Hearing.

Actually, you don't have [normal] sight while on the astral. If you did, you could read, interpret diagrams, etc.

You also don't really have normal hearing, or you'd be able to understand spoken words coming from a speaker or a telecom reciever.

Instead, what you have are the astral analogs to vision and sight. I tend to think of astral perception being the astral analog to vision, but it would logically include both of those two senses.

So my version of your 3 categories would be:

Mundane Senses: Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste.
Astral Senses: Astral Perception (which has components analogous to sight and hearing).

I don't list your 'Awakened' category, because some of the senses seem to be mutually exclusive (i.e. while astrally percieving, you don't have normal vision).

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 02:08 AM

Nope, you are specifically granted the limited ability to see and hear the physical world with certain restrictions. It's seperate from astral perception which is why they specifically mention it. If astral perception were one in the same, there would be no need to mention it.

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 02:25 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

That is never stated.

Err I must have been born without this psychic sense then.

QUOTE

It is in every single example of astral perception completely analogous to sight,

Except the fact that astral perception doesn't percieve light energy. And the wonky Astral Projection simulates it except for the written word which it specifically does not.

QUOTE

and in no examples does it do anything that sight does not do.

Bit? When was the last time you saw the emotional resdue on an object?

QUOTE

Everything on the astral is referenced in terms of color, ect. It is never, ever referenced in any way other than visual except that it is a referred to as "a psychic sense" in that it does not rely on having normal vision to do it.

Visual interpretations of astral perception is only used as an expression to describe what they're percieving so that the mundanes can understand. It's known as "the Sight" only because vision is our most dominate sense and therefore easiest to understand.

Again, how do you describe colors to a person who has been blind since birth? You use elements he can understand.

How do you describe the astral plane to a person who was born without the gift? You use elements he can understand.

Take one of the more ubiquitous visual interpretations of astral perception, that of black patches on someone's aura to represent the presence and location of cyberware. If the percepter only gets one success, they only know if they have cyber, not where or even the extent. With one success, that black patch "looks" the exact same whether it's 1 MP of headware memory, or if they're a cyberzombie.

QUOTE

Can an example be provided where this sense give any input other than visual, or where this sense is described in any way other than visual?

Err, the entire assensing table itself?

QUOTE

Functionally a mage has the following senses while not percieving/projecting:
Sight
Hearing
Touch
Taste
Smell

The predominate senses, yes.

QUOTE

And while percieving:
Astral Sight (perception)

There is no such thing as Astral Sight. You both see the physical world and Astrally Percieve at the same time.

QUOTE

Hearing
Touch
Taste (only on physical world stimuli)
Smell (only on physical world stimuli)

Touch is the only sense that is stated works on both planes. (Astral Interaction, 172, BBB)

QUOTE

And While Projecting:
Astral Sight (perception)

Why would it specifically mention the fact that while projecting a mage has the normal human senses of sight (with the wonky effects) in addition to the ability to assense as seperate senses if they were the same sense? (Astral Senses, pg 173, BBB)

QUOTE

Hearing
Touch
(Taste and Smell are never to my knowledge referenced astrally)

Sensory input that has no equivelent may be translated as smell or taste in the astral. (Under Astral Senses, pg 173, BBB)

QUOTE

I absolutely agree, but work is slow. Neither side can be directly backed up by the book, but both sides can infer their points.

How does one infer that astral perception and vision are the same thing from the following sentence found on page 171, under Astral Perception, in the BBB.

QUOTE

You can also see glowing auras surrounding living and magical things and gain information from them, using a psychic sixth sense known as assensing.

Assensing is a sixth sense, meaning seperate from the other five major senses. This includes vision.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 02:35 AM

Now I'll hilight the part of that sentence that I find relevant, it's all in the interpretation.

QUOTE

You can also see glowing auras surrounding living and magical things and gain information from them, using a psychic sixth sense known as assensing.

IMHO analogous to sight except on the astral, and it's psychic because it doesnt have anything to do with physical vision, as we discussed. That doesn;t change the fact that in pretty much every example you are seeing it.

Probably more to come, im cooking dinner.

QUOTE

Assensing is a sixth sense, meaning seperate from the other five major mundane senses. This includes mundane vision.

With the two bold words added, I agree there!

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 02:39 AM

QUOTE (Apathy)

You also don't really have normal hearing, or you'd be able to understand spoken words coming from a speaker or a telecom reciever.

Care to provide a page reference for that chummer? Cuz there's nothing that supports that view in the BBB. Only thing that states is that symbols and words show their emotional impact, rather then what they say.

QUOTE

Instead, what you have are the astral analogs to vision and sight. I tend to think of astral perception being the astral analog to vision, but it would logically include both of those two senses.

You tend to think that way because you do not have the ability to assense, and therefore compare it to experiences you understand. It's a new and different sense that no one has ever experienced (that I know of).

Think outside the box.

Change the pair-a-dig-um.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 02:43 AM

inside the box.

paradigm is just fine.

it is not "sensed" in all the examples, it is "seen".

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 02:59 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

Now I'll hilight the part of that sentence that I find relevant, it's all in the interpretation.

And now I'll show you where your interpretation is wrong.

QUOTE

You can also see glowing auras surrounding living and magical things and gain information from them, using a psychic sixth sense known as assensing.

Not sight. Because assensing is not vision. It is a completely seperate sense.

QUOTE

Describe to me astrally seeing the emotional imprint of a hit and run?

What terms would one use? Dark? Dark is the relative absence of light, it happened in the middle of the day. Bloody? Is a tactile sensation, in any case they cleaned up the sidewalk 30 minutes ago. A miasma of black clouds? What clouds? It's a perfectly sunny, not a cloud in the sky.

All are interpretations of that perception, not the perception itself.

QUOTE

Assensing is a sixth sense, meaning seperate from the other five major mundane senses. This includes mundane vision.

With the two bold words added, I agree there!

Yet there's no such thing as Awakened Vision to compare against the mundane version of vision....

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 03:02 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

inside the box.

paradigm is just fine.

Says you

QUOTE

it is not "sensed" in all the examples, it is "seen".

Because us mundanes have no concept of the astral plane, and therefore is couched in terms we can best relate to

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 03:09 AM

Actually I just reread the section on astral perception and I believe we're both wrong and both right. Now is one of those times I wish i could copy and past from the E-book of the BBB that I can't buy yet

I will be posting again.

Incidentally it has to do with your quote above. Assensing is not astral perception, assensing is something you can do during astral perception. Astral perception and assensing are similar but not really the same thing.

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 03:26 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

Shhh... I keep telling you Bit, the gaming police are going to get you if you don't watch out.

QUOTE

I will be posting again.

Heh... I'll wait, I got nothing else to do tonight.

QUOTE

Incidentally it has to do with your quote above. Assensing is not astral perception, assensing is something you can do during astral perception. Astral perception and assensing are similar but not really the same thing.

I personally hated the phrasing of those two... lemme take a guess.

Astral perception would allow one to know where things are, but assensing required to get any info about what it is?

Posted by: Apathy Jul 22 2004, 03:37 AM

QUOTE

Care to provide a page reference for that chummer?

I hate to admit it, but I was wrong about hearing on the astral plane. Could have sworn I'd read that it worked that way...Maybe it was different back in SR2, or maybe I'd just been sniffing glue that day.

I still disagree with your overal interpretation, but I do acknowledge that it's a potentially valid interpretation of the rules. I just interpret them differently.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 03:46 AM

Bah. Wrong thread.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 22 2004, 03:54 AM

[Deleted my response to non-sequiter]

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 04:05 AM

QUOTE

I personally hated the phrasing of those two... lemme take a guess.

Astral perception would allow one to know where things are, but assensing required to get any info about what it is?

Give the man a cigar. Yes. Astrap Perception and Assensing are not the same thing, and for the purposes of this thread they have been used interchangably.

Here we go:

Under the heading Astral Perception on SR3 p 171 the first paragraph explains that the ability to perceive the astral plane is called "astrap perception" It's not related to physical vision and is a psychic sense, which is known as "the sight" among the awakened.

The second paragraph reads as follows:

QUOTE (SR# p171 Astral Perception 2nd paragraph)

To use astral perception spend a Simple Action to extend your perceptions to the astral plane. This allows you to see anything present in astral space. You can also see glowing auras surrounding living things and magical things and gain information from them using a psychic sixth sense known as assensing. You can touch and interact with astral forms....

That's the clincher here. Astral perception is not a sixth sense, it's the act of extending your perception to the astral plane in a psychic fashion. The sixth sense is the act of assensting, which gives you emotional impressions and the ability to read and even see auras. Assensing is the only thing described as a sixth sense. Astral perception is your existing senses working on the astral.

The way the descriptions go, it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense now that Astral Perception is in fact seeing on the astral. It doesn't have to do with physical vision at all, it applis only astrally. It's how you see the astral shadows of all the objects in the physical world, their shape, size, ect. It's assensing that's the sixth sense that allows you to see and read auras and magical things.

If somehow someone could astrally percieve but not assense he could see all the astral shadows of mundane objects but could not see any auras not magical effects.

Just tossing out another idea here.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 22 2004, 04:20 AM

Wow... for some reason I feel a sense of pride in having instigated this whole discussion, even if it would have existed outside of my having posted.

I will note, though, that noone has convinced anyone of anything, and I predicted that this would happen back on page 1 of this thread.

Its been a wild ride thus far, though...

Posted by: Apathy Jul 22 2004, 04:41 AM

QUOTE

I will note, though, that noone has convinced anyone of anything

To be fair, I have to admit that tjn did get me to correct myself about hearing on the astral.

But other than that, you're right. What is it about human nature that makes us desperately want to get everyone else to interpret things the same way we do, even when there's no chance it'll happen, and when there's no real significance to what we're interpreting anyway?

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 04:47 AM

QUOTE (Apathy)

But other than that, you're right. What is it about human nature that makes us desperately want to get everyone else to interpret things the same way we do, even when there's no chance it'll happen, and when there's no real significance to what we're interpreting anyway?

I was in the state championships in debate in high school. I don't need to talk anyone into my point of view, I do however enjoy the actual argument.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 22 2004, 05:04 AM

I only skimmed this thread quickly, since it seems like you're all just dancing around the real question (what part of the body astral perception, which is presumably a directional sense, originates from). However, I had to comment on this particularly amusing bit:

QUOTE (Arethusa)

So if I stand in front of a brick wall, which is both physically and astrally opaque, I can't see through it, but if I tie a brick wall to my face, I can see just fine on the astral?

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

Essentially, yes.

This is a pretty impressive ability. All my NPC mages will start carrying extra shoelaces so they can tie their faces to doors, walls, floors, etc. and cast spells at people on the other side.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 06:27 AM

Too bad walls, floors, and rooms block all of your senses then, huh? As opposed to a brick strapped to your head.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 22 2004, 01:24 PM

You mean a brick wall strapped to my head, right? That's what the quote says.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 03:36 PM

Then I'm just not going to respond to an idiotic question like that. If you have to ask it, you don't deserve an answer.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 22 2004, 04:49 PM

NM: I understand that you've indicated that you don't feel that astral perception is in any way related to the mage's eyes. But do you think astral perception comes from any particular place on the mage's body? or that evey portion of the mage's aura is capable of astral perception?

Asking it another way: I'm a mage, standing in front of an 8 foot high brick wall. Do you believe I can stick my finger over the top of the wall and, using astral perception, observe (and cast spells at) people on the other side?

If you don't believe that, then not every portion of the mage's aura would be capable of astrally percieving. And if it's not every portion of the aura that percieves, then which portion of the mage's aura performs this function?

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 04:57 PM

My personal opinion? I prefer to see it eminating from their minds and I like to use their "head" for most astral-capable characters and their "face" as the direction of the effect since the majority of other senses are located there and its just easier to describe things that way. But that's just my personal preference.

I also never said it was an aural thing. I simply stand by the fact that it's psychic in nature and that something as simple as a piece of cloth or even a helmet -- opaque or not -- won't stop it, especially if strapped around your eyes.

Posted by: Odin Jul 22 2004, 05:00 PM

QUOTE

And if it's not every portion of the aura that percieves, then which portion of the mage's aura performs this function?

I'd personally say that the majority of the mages aura would have to be unblocked considering thats what common sense dictates..........frankly quite a few of you seem to be grasping at the oversights of the authors instead of using your own heads instead.

Posted by: DigitalMage Jul 22 2004, 05:08 PM

QUOTE (Apathy)

3. The crux of the question is, what 'sees' astrally?

Is it a pin-point origin sense based on where your physical eyes are located on your body, or can you see from any part of your aura? If the answer is 'any part', then I should be able to astrally look around corners by sticking my finger around the corner and leaving the rest of my body hidden.
<snip>
If my aura extends 3 inches away from my body in all directions, does my astral sight come from the edge of my aura (i.e. 3 inches away from my meat bod) or from the meat bod itself? For game simplicity, I play it that I astrally percieve from the edge of my meat body, not from 3 inches past it. I can see valid arguments either way, though.

Are these the only issues, or is there something I missed?

I think Apathy had it back on page 3. There could be two valid interpretations, but if you go with one over the other you must expect to also allow all the baggage that goes with it.

If astral perception is not actually sight and hearing, maybe the human brain could be interpreting it as such if only to be able to comprehend it. Also regardless of whether a mage has eyes or not, maybe they "see" from their face because that is what their expectations are?

Alternatively you could state that astral perception occurs from any part of the body, and therefore that a blindfold wouldn't hinder you. Then you have to also accept Apathy's idea of an astrally perceiving person sticking their hand round a corner or over a wall and being able to astrally perceive what is behind it.

And if you do allow that, would you also allow that mage to cast spells as astral forms the other side? What about completely mundane forms (the mage is still dual natured and can perceive them via their hand)? This could suddenly become my new favourite trick!

Now if you don't allow such peeking round corners - what is the reasoning? That your hand if a limited part of your astral form? So what if you just stuck half your head around that corner or over the wall - would they not be able to perceive then?

Also if astral perception can extend from any body part does the mage have 360 degree perception now? Great in a fight I am sure! Or is it directional?

*****************************************

Also, for those people who state that astral perception can see through a thin blindfold - what thickness is thick enough to block vision? A lot of people seem to be quoting 3 inches as a range of your aura, is that the limit? If so can an astrally perceiving character walk up to a door, press their face to it and see what's on the other side (a door is less than 3 inches)? So how thick is thick enough?

What about a character who is fully clothed including gloves and a mage mask (i.e. no exposed skin), can they astrally perceive? What about a mage in one of those big sumo suits you can put on and have fights in with a box on his head?

I personally go with the interpretation that the astral senses are the astral equivalent of sight, hearing and touch and they originate from where the physical senses would not because of any biological reason but because that is the manner in which most metahumans are accustomed to sensing the world.

Although the other interpretation is maybe valid it just opens up too many cans of worms for my liking requiring numerous extra rulings.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 05:19 PM

QUOTE

Also, for those people who state that astral perception can see through a thin blindfold - what thickness is thick enough to block vision? A lot of people seem to be quoting 3 inches as a range of your aura, is that the limit? If so can an astrally perceiving character walk up to a door, press their face to it and see what's on the other side (a door is less than 3 inches)? So how thick is thick enough?

The same things that stop people from being able to cast a spell at your aura will stop you from using astral perception as far as I'm concerned. Clothing, heavy armor, and blindfolds do not stop you from being a target. Enclosed vehicles and buildings do.

Posted by: Apathy Jul 22 2004, 05:50 PM

QUOTE

I agree. For flavor's sake, I sometimes refer to the metaphysical 'third eye' and picture it as coming from the forehead, but whatever floats your boat.

QUOTE

The same things that stop people from being able to cast a spell at your aura will stop you from using astral perception as far as I'm concerned.

I can see the logic in this, even if I don't always concur.
However, in my world:

If a target has a foot poking out around the corner of a building, the foot is still targetable (although with heavy modifiers for only seeing a partial target, maybe as much as +6)
I won't let the character with a foot poking out use perception from his foot to target others.

So, the reason your clothes don't protect you as an astral target is because your aura extends out beyond them, right? If this is the reason, then exactly how far does your aura extend? I thought a read that it stopped a couple/few inches out past your body, but I'm at work and can't look it up right now.

If this were true, then you should be able to take a 3 foot diameter medicine ball, cut a hole in it for the neck, and pop it onto a captive's head to prevent him/her from astrally percieving those things around them.

However, you might not agree with this, since the rest of the captive's body is still visble and targetable.

Posted by: Pelaka Jul 22 2004, 06:13 PM

As best I can follow if you are using your pinkie to see around corners you are doing too much. As the sense eminates from your aura you just need to get your pinkie within 3 inches of the corner to see around it.

Pel

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 22 2004, 06:17 PM

For the record, I agree completely with Necrotic Monkey in regards to both the origin/direction of the astral perception sense and what it would take to block that sense.

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (Apathy)

My opinion? Neither. Again think outside the box. There is no "point of origin" to Astral Perception. It's psychic. More like:

Mage Detective: "The body's in the corner"
Mundane Detective: "How do you know that?"
Mage Detective: "I just do."

QUOTE

Asking it another way: I'm a mage, standing in front of an 8 foot high brick wall. Do you believe I can stick my finger over the top of the wall and, using astral perception, observe (and cast spells at) people on the other side?

With massive cover modifiers, perhaps. But that seems to be breaking the spirit of Astral Perception.

QUOTE

If you don't believe that, then not every portion of the mage's aura would be capable of astrally percieving. And if it's not every portion of the aura that percieves, then which portion of the mage's aura performs this function?

Again, in my opinion, there is not any one portion of an aura capable of astral perception. It's psychic. It's not directional and it's more akin to a Zen-like spatial recognition then any sense we currently have. They psychically percieve, understand, know, or "see" that the body's in the corner.

Posted by: tjn Jul 22 2004, 07:15 PM

I'm still mulling over the idea Bit tossed out earlier, so I apologize if I haven't specifically responded to that new idea Bit. It does seem to fit neatly with regard to canon however. As far as my personal view on it, nothing springs out immediate, but I still really dislike the word "see" to describe a completely psychic sense.

I do want to jump on the bandwagon with regard to Doc's definition of what blocks targeting and perception. I might want to say that anything that can be construed as being on the individual rather then seperate from the individual would qualify.

However, as the giant medicine ball over the head illustrates, it could get wonky.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Jul 22 2004, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (tjn)

I do want to jump on the bandwagon with regard to Doc's definition of what blocks targeting and perception.

Wait... what? Dammit, I *knew* there was a reason his posting voice seemed familiar...

Goddamn people changing their handles...

Posted by: Garland Jul 22 2004, 09:34 PM

QUOTE

I *knew* there was a reason his posting voice seemed familiar...

I was kind of suspecting the same thing, after I sat back and thought about it. Never shoulda bothered.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 22 2004, 09:41 PM

If you base your comments on who a person is instead of what they have to say, that says a lot more about you than it does them. Especially if your first post in a thread is along the lines of "so you're saying they can see out of their ass?"

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 22 2004, 11:14 PM

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

But if you only do that with one poster, then it says a lot about them too!

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 23 2004, 12:40 AM

I said I wasn't but I lied. My opinion is stated several pages back so I won't repeat it. I do have to point out for everyones arguements one thing about astral perception. A spell caster who is astrally perceiving can target any thing he can see with either sense (visual or astral) on either plane. Magehood? Center against penalties and blow away everyone on the detention block.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 23 2004, 01:40 AM

No, because you cant cast on something without valid LOS. Magemask blocks LOS.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 01:47 AM

Yep. And if you're using astral perception, you can use that instead of LOS and can even get to choose which plane the spell is being cast on, so you can still target mundanes that way.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 23 2004, 02:01 AM

You know that astral perception and LOS aren't even the same type of thing right? Just like Inigo Montoya said: "That word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Astral perception is using senses astrally, while LOS encompasses your field of view. It's entirely possivle to have LOS to a target without astrally percieving, and it's likewise possible to be astrally percieving without having LOS. It's also possible to have LOS to a target while astrally percieving.

I can list examples if you want.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 23 2004, 02:31 AM

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

Then I'm just not going to respond to an idiotic question like that. If you have to ask it, you don't deserve an answer.

I do have to ask it, since you have said yes where any other person would say no. However, now that you call it idiotic, I think that your previous answer was the result of a minor mistake and you wish to correct yourself -- which you should do instead of telling me that I don't deserve to question you when you are unclear.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 02:57 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher @ Jul 22 2004, 08:01 PM)

You know that astral perception and LOS aren't even the same type of thing right?

And, just as I pointed out the text for Spell Targeting in the SR3 sourcebook, LOS and Astral Perception are indeed two seperate things. Astral Perception does nothing to augment or modify LOS. Thermographic Vision modifies LOS. Darkness penalties modifies LOS. Cover modifies LOS. All visual modifiers modify LOS. Astral Perception, however, does not modifiy LOS in any way whatsoever because Astral Perception isn't sight and thus provides no Line of Sight.

Later, in the very same section that talks about LOS, Astral Perception has their own unique set of rules for spell targeting. It's not a different chapter or subsection of a chapter. It's all in the same spot.

QUOTE

It's entirely possivle to have LOS to a target without astrally percieving, and it's likewise possible to be astrally percieving without having LOS.

Exactly correct. And you can target someone with either one.

QUOTE

It's also possible to have LOS to a target while astrally percieving.

That's also correct. And the best thing of all is that you can use either one of them in order to target someone. Because they are, in fact, two seperate things.

QUOTE (Zazen)

I wasn't unclear. I just refused to read his scenario because it was so absurd that I subconsciously assumed it was a mistake. In my reply I specified a brick -- not a brickwall -- being strapped to the magician's face. There wasn't anything unclear in my response, only my personal reading of his situation.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 23 2004, 03:53 AM

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

Next time that happens, you might want to say "Here is the answer to a different question than the one you're asking". That way you won't again fool us into thinking that your reply of "yes" to a question is meant to answer it.

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 23 2004, 03:57 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

No, because you cant cast on something without valid LOS. Magemask blocks LOS.

My point exactly. Very early on in the thread is was mentioned that a mage hood doesn't block astral perception (not by me obviously) and it doesn't matter anyway because you couldn't target mundanes. As you can cast spells at anything you can astrally perceive, by that arguement, a magehood isn't very effective.

I thought for a while that people felt I was saying that a blindfold stops AP, as in you can't do it anymore. Now I see that people believe that AP is omni directional and can't be stoppped by blindfolds/magehoods/bricks and is has nothing to do with LOS. As per spell targeting, you can cast spells at physical or astral targets if you can perceive them. Read back through this thread and see what that would mean in peoples arguements.

BitBasher, I agree with you from point one except for be able to perceive something without LOS. I would like an example that deals only with AP, not astral senses which includes projection (Like assensing or targeting across the planes)

Posted by: Odin Jul 23 2004, 03:59 AM

well their are obviously strong opinions how about we all agree to disagree and let the thread die considering this is just turning into a schoolyard shouting match.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 23 2004, 04:23 AM

QUOTE (Odin)

well their are obviously strong opinions how about we all agree to disagree and let the thread die considering this is just turning into a schoolyard shouting match.

been there, tried that earlier, we failed

And Necro Tech, I never said you can astrally perceive something without LOS, I don't know what you mean.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 04:30 AM

QUOTE (Zazen)

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey @ Jul 22 2004, 09:57 PM)

Considering you same the exact same mistake in reading my response, I don't think you have much room to talk.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 23 2004, 04:34 AM

How can I have answered a different question than the one that was asked? You didn't ask me a question at all!

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 04:36 AM

You read "brickwall strapped to his face" where I typed "brick strapped to his face." I read "brick strapped to his face" where he wrote "brickwall strapped to his face." Same mistake.

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 23 2004, 04:37 AM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

And Necro Tech, I never said you can astrally perceive something without LOS, I don't know what you mean.

Sorry, read it again. You apparently were with me on the whole stoppage of AP with blindfold thing. You were saying that you can be astrally perceiving yet not have LOS because you vision is blocked. Got it.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 23 2004, 04:49 AM

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

You read "brickwall strapped to his face" where I typed "brick strapped to his face." I read "brick strapped to his face" where he wrote "brickwall strapped to his face." Same mistake.

I read "yes" where you typed "yes".

You frequently inject unrelated information into a response, so I ignored the bit about the brick.

Anyway, since you seem to have made an innocent reading mistake instead of insisting that people can see through walls, there's no need for us to continue.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 04:52 AM

Then try ignoring the entire post in the future.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 23 2004, 05:06 AM

Surely you're joking?

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 23 2004, 05:09 AM

QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey)

Astral Perception, however, does not modifiy LOS in any way whatsoever because Astral Perception isn't sight and thus provides no Line of Sight.

Actually it modifies it considerably. When using AP to achieve LOS in the physical plane you ignore darkness modifiers because the astral plane is always lit up. You can also use it to draw LOS on things you can't see with your normal eyes such as invisble people. If you fail your resistance check vs invis you can switch to astral, find them and gack them with no problem. You can also use astral perception to locate hidden active foci, like inside someones shirt (or in the case a foci weapon implants, their arms) for dispelling or destroying purposes or just simple awareness that the enemy mage is loaded for bear or other large game.

Once again, I'm not saying that physical objects stop the use of AP. I'm just pointing out that it severly limits what you can do with it.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 05:19 AM

Nope, not kidding.

Necro Tech, check out the text for Spell Targeting. There's a distinct difference between line of sight and using astral perception to target a spell.

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 23 2004, 05:33 AM

HUH? Its talking about targeting. For purposes of casting magic on other people. Which requires LOS. It says so in the spell descriptions. It says you can use AP to achieve LOS. "Such a spellcaster could cast a spell at someone hidden by an Invisibility spell, using astral perception to target their physical body, since both the spell caster and the target are on the physical plane." SR3 pg 182. The whole paragraph states that an astrally perceiving character has the best of both worlds for targeting purposes. Targeting. You can only cast offensive magic at valid targets. Valid targets are ones that you could achieve LOS on. "With spell casting, the caster must be able to see the target {also know as LOS} and must be present on the same plane (physical or astral) as the target." SR3 pg. 181. As I previously stated, spell casters can use Astral perception to enhance their targeting possibilities.

Posted by: Zazen Jul 23 2004, 05:53 AM

So even if you're answering my own question, I should ignore your entire response if it contains an unrelated or irrelevant point (which, no offense intended, is a common feature of your posts)? Presumably afterwards I should say "Why haven't you responded at all to my question?" when you clearly have.

No, I won't do that. It's ridiculous.

Posted by: BitBasher Jul 23 2004, 05:56 AM

Necro Tech I've been trying to explain that to him in several posts so far. Good luck with your run of attempts

Posted by: Necro Tech Jul 23 2004, 06:12 AM

Thanks, but I'm really done this time. I'm not even gonna look at this thread anymore. Fundamental communication errors never go anywhere but into the streets with guns and knives.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 06:16 AM

QUOTE (Necro Tech)

Where do you see LOS mentioned in that quote? They are talking about acquiring a target using astral perception in lieu of LOS. LOS is handled at the very beginning of that section in the first five paragraphs. Not once do they mention astral perception in reference to LOS. And it's not just because they're avoiding mentioning magic; they specifically mention spells like Clairvoyance regarding LOS. And again, astral perception is not mentioned once because it's a wholly different beast.

However, later on page 182 they talk about using astral perception for targeting a spell. You have the option of choosing to target a spell at anything you 1) see using your normal vision or 2) anything you perceive using astral perception. You get to use the best of both worlds; whichever one affords you a valid target is the one you get to use.

QUOTE

The whole paragraph states that an astrally perceiving character has the best of both worlds for targeting purposes. Targeting.

Exactly correct. Targeting. Which is not LOS, though LOS can be used to target a spell. LOS and astral perception are two completely independant ideas within the game, and both can be used to target a spell.

QUOTE

"With spell casting, the caster must be able to see the target {also know as LOS} and must be present on the same plane (physical or astral) as the target." SR3 pg. 181. As I previously stated, spell casters can use Astral perception to enhance their targeting possibilities.

And again, they use words like "see" with astral perception for lack of a better descriptive term. See != LOS. Astral Perception != LOS. Targeting != LOS. Only LOS = LOS.

Posted by: Necrotic Monkey Jul 23 2004, 06:17 AM

I love it.

When I refuse to change my opinion on a subject, I'm a pig-headed ass. When you refuse to change your opinion on a subject, you're a brilliant genius above and beyond all others. Get a life.

Posted by: Odin Jul 23 2004, 06:53 AM

QUOTE

love it.

When I refuse to change my opinion on a subject, I'm a pig-headed ass. When you refuse to change your opinion on a subject, you're a brilliant genius above and beyond all others. Get a life.

yeah you've pretty much summed up this entire threads theme.