 Astral Space and general mage questions |
  |
 Nov 22 2006, 12:51 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 600 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,659  |
How accurate a reflection of the real world is it? How tough is it to see people?
Scenario #1: Looking for a safe in a building, not sure which room. Mage says "let me go astral!" flies from room to room looking for a safe, flies back". Scenario #2: Sniper is hiding on a rooftop under a piece of cardboard. Mage is astral from a couple hundred feet up looking for people. Test or no test? How hard is it to notice a lifeform from a hundred feet away? A thousand? A mile? Scenario #3: A guard is sitting is patrolling a hallway and someone is going astral down the hall. Ceiling is 8ft, guard is 6ft tall. Mage flattens himself against the ceiling. Is he passing through the guards aura or not? Is your aura bigger than you? Or could a mage astrally crawl between your legs to avoid the roll to notice someone passing through you? How much bigger? Scenario #4: Peeking your head into the safe mentioned in #1, light isn't the same in astral and objects in the real world exist in astral so could you see what's in the safe? Scenario #5: Laying in the back of a car with tinted windows casting spells. You can affect people normally and they can't target you at all, is that correct? |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 01:02 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
1) i would say you could probably see a safe. provided, of course, it's just sitting in the open. more likely imo, it would be in a wall or something. but sure, if you could see it with your regular vision had you been physically in the room, then i would say you can see it from the astral.
2) well, the sniper is probably more visible, since he's on a rather contrasting background. that being said, if he's adequately hidden under the cardboard, you still won't be able to see him. there is a test, it would be the sniper's infiltration vs the mages perception (i think... unless assensing replaces perception, can't quite remember) 3) your aura is the same size as you. i would say the mage could probably go on (or, for that matter, in or through) the ceiling. as far as crawling through the legs, i would say generally no. the exeption being if they happen to have their legs wide enough that you could crawl through them with your physical body, and they're holding them that way (and since i don't imagine that being common in most games, i'm sticking with generally no). i would probably make it some kind of test to avoid brushing up against them and warning them, however... agi+rea? or rather, log+int i suppose. maybe even infiltration, not sure. 4) most likely not. light in the astral comes from living thing's auras. in the event that the safe has something alive in it, however, then yes you could see. 5) assuming this is the general mage question, and not an astral question, yes. of course, they *could* target "the driver's seat", "the back seat, middle" and so forth as general locations, but to hit you they would suffer the blind fire modifier i think. of course, if you're talking about being targetted by spells, rather than weapons, then yes, you can cast spells normally and no, they can't target you with their spells. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 01:10 AM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
The mage's Aura would be shining and cast a glow, in a small confined space that may be enough to see by. The issue is that you couldn't generally discern what was inside unless it had some sort of distinctive shape... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 01:19 AM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
Everything present in 'real' world is present on the astral. Scenario #1: Perception test, threshold based on how 'fast' the mage is looking. Travel is fast but looking under each desk / in each wall / etc takes work. Furthermore if a 'wall' safe mage will have to actually poke his head into the wal all around. He can't 'see' through the walls (although he can move through them). Scenario #2 Pretty much exactly the same as if you were spotting him (possibly even harder). That cardboard is grey and lifeless but opaque. Mage can't see through it. Now the mage MIGHT be able to recognize it is a possible hiding place (and either zip down to look) or 'guess' somebody might be there. Scenario #3 Your aura is the same size as you. (although it does 'bleed into/aborb' clothing. (so you can 'hide' in your clothing to be safe from spells. Sound like a good time for a reaction + agility (or possibliy gymnastics roll). normal hallway threshold 1 to plaster yourself against a wall (or ceiling) to avoid the guard accidently 'touching' you. Between somebods's legs would be a 3-5 two adult, person walking would be a threshold 5 (IMO) to not accidently touch his legs. a gnome squeezing between a standing trolls legs might only be a 2 or 3. Scenario #4 I have always gone with magic 'twliight' aspect. with everything having the faintest of glows (enough to see them not other things). So seeing inside the safe would work. IF you found it. Now reading a stack of papers is very hard 'astrally' since you would have to get your eyes at JUST the right depth/heighth to see anyting but the top page. I will usually allow people to get some ideas of the contents of something but something like an envelope will be very very hard (high threshold) to read a letter while 'in the envelope' Scenario #5 By the rules correct. Though I do apply a -1 visiblity modifiers for casting through heavy tint windows. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 01:21 AM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
By that augment the nice very bright aura of the mage should make it easy to read |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 02:25 AM
Post
#6
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
yep, demerzel got that two posts up. on a side note, iirc you cannot read stuff at all in the astral according to canon. while general shape of objects is clear, fine detail is not. you can, however, often tell what an object is simply by it's aura (for example, you could probably tell a porn magazine if someone looks in it occasionally, because of residual emotion. however, you might not be able to tell electronic paper which is sometimes used to access online porn, and an actual piece of real paper with porn drawn on it) of course, in very specific scenarios (FAB ink!) i suppose you could write stuff that would be visible in the astral. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 22 2006, 02:53 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
Jaid:
I know previous verision ALL text was meaningless (well save for possible emotional content). However, I can find nothing specific for SR4 and several threads here have specifically mentioned the change of the text is meaningless implying reading is/might be possible. Can you find a specfic quote. I have to admit, I tend to take more of a pre-fourth edition myself and go with the rought shape and 'emotional' content are there but 'text' is meaningless, myself but cant find anything that directly gives an example of can or can not read. And if it is just a matter of 'detail' / blurriy / etc. What can you read and what can you read.? The famous 'Holywood' sign? A large billboard? Door Numbers? A name plate? Title of a book? Chapter Numbers of a book? normal text of a book? Footnotes in a book? The mint mark on a coin? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 03:08 AM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
can't find a quote offhand, and of all those you would pretty much only be able to read the hollywood sign imo, and that only because of the fact that you can see rough shapes, in this case outlined against the earth (which, having an aura, would provide a good backdrop) my personal rule of thumb is that you must have something living to contrast it with, and it must be large and separate from it's backdrop. alternately, if you had something alive on top of something not alive, that would work too. or, of course, if it's an entirely astral object or dual natured i suppose. [edit] iirc, the posts about being able to read came from people talking about manifesting (not materialising, manifesting) onto the physical plane, in which case i suppose you could read. i personally still wouldn't allow anyone to read a stack of papers though. no one can hold themselves that still, imo. [/edit] This post has been edited by Jaid: Nov 22 2006, 03:10 AM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 03:36 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
I can't recall an actual quuote to that effect either. I would be interested in seeing if such a restriction is specifically included in SR4, or if we are all inadvertantly working off of a legacy ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 04:08 AM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
My understanding, probably based on what others whom I trusted told me, was that in previous editions it was like a dream, and as a result you were specifically unable to read. But this in SM makes me believe that in fact something like FAB ink, or really any living ink would stand out on a page and be readable. The issue is that if you want to write something that will last you want an ink that is very dead, or it will degrade your medium. Using mold for ink may seem a good idea until you come back to the book in a week and find that all you have is a moldy tome and no words to read on the astral or physical planes... |
||
|
|
|
||
 Nov 22 2006, 04:15 AM
Post
#11
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
well, yeah... that's why you laminate a sheet of FAB paper (with nutrients) and use DEAD ink on it, silly. man, do i have to figure out everything for you people? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 22 2006, 04:21 AM
Post
#12
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
Yea, but the laminate is not alive so all you see is it's astral shadow. I think there was another thread where we talked about glass not being clear in SR4, so plastic is also right out. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 22 2006, 05:29 AM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Okay, disclaimer first. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I truly don't understand the mindset/though process. With that out of the way... edit: I reread what laughingowl said, and caught the "several threads ... have mentioned", so the following is more a question in general rather than a question directed to laughingowl. Why on Earth would you require a rule stating that it hadn't changed, rather than assuming that it has changed just because they don't say that it hasn't? It just seems like so much more work for no reason to go through reading "lack of statement" as "statement to contrary" than it does to go through assuming that something with previous supporting material hasn't changed unless specifically noted. edit again: cleared up wording, must go to sleep ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 05:32 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 600 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,659 |
It specifically says you can't see things with detail unless youre assensing them. And then it's only living things - not books.
If you need the rules to define what detail means in every situation you're just SOL then. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 05:38 AM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Um ... because part of the book's target audience has not had the pleasure of playing previous editions of Shadowrun. They therefore would not know about how reading actually works from the Astral POV unless it was specifically mentioned. And that is the point ... is it specifically mentioned anywhere in SR4 exactly what, if anything can be read from the Astral? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 05:40 AM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
Don't worry eidolon, I hate it when he makes good points too.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 05:50 AM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Technically, that's not true. According to Synner, almost anything can be assensed, if it is of even minor value to someone. Exactly what you might find out from many certain things is debatable, but the fact is that you can do it. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 10:54 AM
Post
#18
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
Umm if they are difficult to discern you CAN discern them.... They are readable.
The rules are very explicit it is possible to read the book, just very very very very (all but impossible), while mere images are merely difficult to discern. My take on it is evrything (and that would mean the lettering) is present on the shadow that is on the 'real'; howver, it is very faint and indistinct. Obserrve in Detail (1) test will allow you to make a 'a' image. (A ingle letter, number, glyph, symbol, etc). Thus it is 'difficult to discern' text as per the first quote. The 'book' (or the page) is 'all but impossible' to read as it would require several hundred (to possibly a few thousand) Observe in detail actions and a long time. Unlike earlier editions which expressly prohibited, the wording above explictly makes it possible. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nov 22 2006, 10:56 AM
Post
#19
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
Mainly as you mentioned, because of posts hear saying it has. A now that text from Street Magic has been quoted, it is Explicitly possible to discern: color, texture, smell, taste, sturdiness, text, and images! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 22 2006, 03:23 PM
Post
#20
|
|||||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
I know that, although I guess I could have been more clear in my post. (It was late, after all ;).) See, I know from being around that there are plenty of us that have played the older editions, and that we generally have no problem with stepping in and providing the "outdated" or "historical" way things are handled. laughingowl's post reads such (and I started typing this earlier, he has now confirmed) that even in threads where that is bound to have happened, others have still debated the issue to the point that doubt remained. It doesn't just apply to this one issue, either. You see it all the time. "There's nothing that says that X hasn't changed, so it must have changed." It's just not good logic at all. As far as this particular issue is concerned though:
All that is going on here is that laughingowl has - Started with a presupposed outcome, and one that he apparently favors over the contrary. - Been given a somewhat ambiguous quote that was written in SR's regrettable but prevalent style of "it's obvious that we mean one thing, but for some reason after years of doing this we still haven't gotten it through our heads that we need to knock this crap off and just write plainly" (the authors/editors seem to still be laboring under the notion that unclear text when presenting rules somehow has to be done to further the "Shadowrunny feel") Frankly, sometimes you have to forget logical semantics and just read. - Used the less likely and more labor-intensive interpretation of that rule to shore up what he had made his mind up about in the first place. I'm not saying that's inherently bad, only that it seems to me that if you wanted to be able to read text on the astral, just house rule/declare/state that in your game you can read text on the astral. If I were GMing the game, I would point to the precedent set by material prior, because I have that frame of reference. Even if I did not, I would read that quote from Street Magic and rule that you couldn't unless there were some sort of extenuating circumstances, because it states (albeit in the "let's be unclear because that's teh cool" style that Shadowrun favors) that the text is all but impossible to read. All but impossible does not mean "but you can, so there was no point in us mentioning it" to me, it means "you can when the GM says you can due to special circumstances that he will tell you about". At any rate, saying that it's "all but impossible" is hardly the same as saying that it's "explicitly possible". [ Spoiler ]
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Nov 22 2006, 03:54 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
I think this is the important part, the words themself can light up if they are emotionally charged and you can read them for what they are and not just their emotional content. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 03:56 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
Absolutely, it is possible to discern those details on the astral. But it doesn't depend on the magician, it depends on the object being observed. The ability to discern those details depends on whether those details carry any emotional significance on the object. If they don't, no matter how hard the projecting magician observes the object, those details just are not there on the astral.
A children's book that was the favorite of a small child, who had it read to her every night before bed, would be discernable on the astral. The Canon XL1 user manual sitting on my desk carries no emotional value to anyone (I certainly don't care about it) and wouldn't be discernable on the astral. No matter how hard a magician observed that user manual on the astral, they just could not get any meaning from the text. The details don't exist there. Note that I never said the text was readable. Because you aren't really reading anything on the astral. Nor are you ever really seeing anything on the astral. You are sensing it. Observing that children's book on the astral would strongly convey the meaning of the text, so you would understand what it contained as clearly as if you were reading on the physical plane. The text of the user manual, however, carries no meaning on the astral. No matter how closely you observe it there, you just can't get meaning from it. Not unless it was emotionally significant to someone at some point. Same with many other features. Although objects typically appear drab in the astral, if the color of the object held emotional significance to someone, a mage could sense the color of the object. They would just know it was red, they wouldn't necessarily see it as red. Also note that because the astral doesn't work on typical physical senses, you can discern details from objects that you can't possibly discern with normal senses. Which is what assensing is all about. If someone used the telephone on my desk to murder someone by bashing them over the head with it, that could be discerned in the astral because of the emotional significance. Without some physical evidence of the crime, there's no way I could discern that from observing my phone in the physical world. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 03:57 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 93 Joined: 9-December 03 From: Greenville, SC Member No.: 5,889 |
Er, I think that if something is 'all but impossible' that really does explicitly say that it is possible, though difficult. My objection is that if they're going to change the rules around on us, they should at least give us some clue as to how to apply them. In previous editions, you could not read from the astral, at all. Now in fourth edition, you can, under some circumstances. What circumstances? I dunno, because we aren't given even the littlest hint as to what the author was thinking. Personally, I'll allow the text in emotionally charged items to be read, since emotion tends to make the astral shadows of material things more 'real' in the astral. Some examples:
I have no idea if that's the intent of the authors, but since they apparently went out of their way to be vague, that's how it'll work in my games. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 22 2006, 04:14 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
Reading and sensing are different.
Reading would get consistent results from the same text. Assensing doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2006, 04:16 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,206 Joined: 9-July 06 From: Fresno, CA Member No.: 8,856 |
In prior editions when reading was astrally impossible (As opposed to physically impossible) it led to strange arguments. When does that break down? Someone above mentioned the Hollywood sign. It’s huge and you can make its shape out from a large distance. We can reasonably assume that large shapes are recognizable in the astral because we can tell that a building is a building or a van is a van. But, if I looked at the Hollywood sign my brain was unable to process the information… In astral I could not describe a T shaped intersection as such, because in old SR letters had no meaning in astral. There’s a disconnect there.
In my above post I pointed to a section of the earlier quote I made and I still think that’s the important part, but I’ll extrapolate. The words themselves hold the emotional significance. Where it talks about the emotional content of the words it does not talk about anyone’s attachment to that particular text. If you wrote out a copy of MLKs, “I Have a Dream” speech, every occurrence of “I have a dream” would stand out bright and clear as that is where most people hang their emotional attachment to that speech. The whole speech would be readable, but those words would stand out above the rest. It wouldn’t matter if those words were hand written by some university professor or printed on a laser printer. It’s the words that carry the emotion not the medium, and that is what makes them clear. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th April 2024 - 06:01 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.