While I agree that this would be a much more acceptable way to do rule it, strict RAW would arguably mean that even when the mage is in regular daylight, and can draw LOS to his target with his natural vision, he'll still technically be looking at the target through a piece of vision enhancing technology, and thus he won't be able to cast spells at a target, at least not without taking the tech off first (or perhaps just turning it off).

But again, I do considder the very strict RAW interpretation to be somewhat idiotic, especially since it just seems needlessly punitive to the mages, and arguably makes it very impractical for such characters to use any form of tech that covers the eyes.

@Mäx
It aint possible to get thins like low light vision with "glasses". You would need somekind of "monitor". (Look up nightvision googles on wiki or just google it)
There is just no way not to break LOS.

Some would be possible like image magnification. So yes, they are monitors of some sort.

@Kyrel
First, I dislike argumentation based on "natural science" in a roleplaying game. The main reason ist, they mostly are not based on anything near natural science.
Espacially when it comes to magic. (And I am not talking about ignoring the theory of Relativity, i am talking about ignoring Newtons laws of movement)
So the wording "natural science" is mostly just an empty shell, which actually means: I want it this way, but I have not any sort of real argument.

Second, I will make the effort to talk it through but I guess you won't like the result.
Mostly because there is no way of making for example Infrared visible without breaking line of sight. It is physically impossible. Your eyes cant "see" light of this frequence. And the only way of changing it is absorbtion/emittation processes, thus disabling LOS.



The Problem is: With what are you shooting? If you stick by this analogy and magic would be shot out of your Eyes (like the bullet is shot out of the weapon), would glasses interfere with the "magic bullet"?I guess so.
(btw: To shoot at someone you do not have to see him or her. There must be a line from the point of your gun to the target, without any obstacles.)


Magic is a very big plus. So as a magician there should be some minus.
So I do. So we can confirm we agree to disagree on that point.

Well they have, from the mage point of view, equally "silly" limitations.
The streetsam needs a gun and ammonition to use his skill and the Face needs to be heard and/or seen.
No mage needs a magic wand or the target must see and hear him to be affected.


Well to end the argument: This is the result of the means necessary to establish this vision enhancements. They have to break LOS. And since they have to break it for all the light...

You could argue, that there might be a possiblity to turn the "goggles" of, so they become just transparent. I would agree with that (well actually i am unable to think of any, but what the hell). So if you hit the "off" switch you are able to cast again. If I have the say. (RAW you are not and the physic would (I guess) march in the same direction)

Why would they have to "become" transparent? They probably already are transparent and the additional imagery is just displayed in an overlay or HUD. Don't think of these as current night vision goggles where a thermographic camera + monitor is strapped to your head, but more like something out of a FPS video game where you just have a targeting reticule (or whatever) superimposed on your vision.

Lastly if you're ever in this kind of situation just turn on your astral perception. It's better than any vision enhancement, you can be in a pitch black, thermal smoke filled room fighting an enemy wearing thermal and optical camo and still see them perfectly clearly. They'd have to release a cloud of FAB into the room to try to stop you.

@Lanlaorn
Can't tell you.
The point is, I can't tell you how it could be working. And if you have something like flare compensation, it is going to be even more unlikely.

So yes, smartlink might be thinkable. But even here I can not guess the how.

Even to have this stuff in a contact linse is beyond me.

Indeed. Some of you are simply not being creative enough. AR means additional information is *added* to what you see, via DNI/trodes, or via some kind of optical overlay. Yes, *real* 2010 night vision is a separate scope, but 2070 vision enhancements obviously are not. As long as you don't use any of that additional information, your mage LOS is fine.

Irion.

1st. I can't get the multiquote thing to work just now, so bear with me...

As you say, let's agree to disagree on some of these aspects and just move on. My original question is well over and answered anyway (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I partially agree with you that in some situations it's impractical to discuss a game world in real life scientific terms, because, as you say, the game world isn't likely to be designed to live up to this level of consistancy anyway. And I do agree with you on that, to a certain degree. I.e. I might not expect E=MC^2 to be true in a game world, but I would expect an apple to fall towards the ground if dropped, unless it was under some special in-game effect, in a liquid, or in a weightless environment.

I'll agree with you in the issue of a line being drawn between the gunmuzzle and the target. Incidently we then just happen to disagree on where the line should be drawn between, when it comes to magic. You say the eyes of the mage specifically, I see the power of the mage more as an emination from all of the mage, or from a selected bodypart, i.e. a hand or the eyes. You take the eyes very litterally, I considder it less so, and see it more as an indication that the target has to be visible to him, and within visible range. Since we are talking about a non-existing phenomenon and no "ultimate truth" here, we're unlikely to get any further.

Your argument that humans can't see into the infrared spectrum I'll buy into. Good argument, and one that'll support the situation that you can't cast a spell at a target you couldn't see without technological assistance.

At the end of the day, I suppose the argument comes down to what you put into the description of a mage needing to see a target without technological assistance, and not being able to cast spells at someone through a monitor and camera. I'll buy that if the mage couldn't normally see a target with his unaugmented eyes, then he can't cast a spell at it (though then implants with the same ability don't make a lot of sense, except from a game balance perspective...). But I'm not convinced that it was the intention of the rules that a mage shouldn't be able to wear any form of tech that enhances their sight in some way (i.e. AR and Imagelinks), without it preventing them from casting a spell.

Anyway, it's unlikely that we'll be able to get any further with this. We agree on some of the stuff, but our interpretations of a couple of key issues that don't have a single answer (without the developers giving an definitive answer), seem to differ.

Thanks for the civilized debate though (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Nothink stops you from targeting while wearing enchament, you just cant use the data provided by those enchament to target a spell, using your natural vision works just fine.

You can cast indirect spells though, right?

@Kyrel
Well I get we can finish this, because we tend to agree in mostly every point.

And this is always a hard to determin. There are a lot of things which are clear by Raw but seem to be just wrong. (Type O-cells, which are just too good)
I guess I tend to look at it this way, because it is simple. You can not and off you go.
If you start to mix it, it gets a bit difficult. You have seen him with the vision aids, but can you target him without?



Well it is the magical essence stuff. I see it as a bit of pixidust, which makes all the crazy implants work the way they do.

At what point does distance become a factor when casting a manabolt? If you have normal vision, no binocs or other optical enhancement, how far can you cast? If you see a dot three miles in the distance, can you blast it just the same as if it were standing next to you?

I know previous versions of SR placed a 100M x Magic Rating maximum distance for some things magical. Is there anything like that in SR4?

I would say (for an explanation) tht if you can see him fine with the enhancements (Say Lowlight) but not with natural Sight, you suffer the vision modifier for targeting with normal vision when Lowlight would negate it... which is indeed how it works... That, or you just switch to Astral Perception and you use that (which suffers no inherent penalties, but may still suffer vision modifiers based upon what is going on in the astral)...

There are published Ranges for Detection Spells...

Normal Detection Spells: the Range of the Sense is usually Magic x Force Meters...
Extended Range Detection Spells (with more Drain Naturally): Range is Magic x Force x 10 Meters...

I've wondered about the range of attack spells, as well. Should there be some kind of Perception test for magical sniping? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Since someone asked, I don't believe you can cast indirect spells through non-essence'd tech either. They both require 'natural' LOS, I thought?

Well, we always have a Perception Test for such things (likely opposed), with the attendant modifiers thrown in... You can't target what you cannot see after all... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Yes, but whats the rage penalty for spells? I don't recall one. It makes sense logically and should mechanically as well, but I don't recall listed vision penalties for distance. There's listed for use by the type of weapon you're using, but that's not vision, that's the accuracy of the weapon.

So, I'm not really sure how to handle it off the top of my head.

Well, there *are* range penalties for Perception tests; the bad news is, it's only '-3, object far away'. That's a little vague, and crazy people might argue that it's already negated by '+3, actively looking'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) So, not super-helpful there.

One method (not playtested) would be to simply apply Perception and Visibility penalties in the same way that Cover is applied, to the resistance test. Would this work/do anything? If that's overkill, maybe only apply the 'far away, -3' as a Cover-type modifier.

Why would you apply range penalties to spells, aside from indirect combat spells you're not actually aiming anything. It doesn't matter how far the target is, if you can create your mystical link by looking at him that's it, the spell is going off.

I can see it for indirect combat spells since you're actually shooting a lightning bolt or whatever in their direction, but honestly I wouldn't do anything further to discourage indirect combat spells. The huge drain hit and having to deal with armor is already a harsh price to pay for what are usually minor elemental effects.

Their aplying it to a perspection test to see the target, not to spell casting test.

Exactly.