A question about spell targeting, Astral Perception vs. Invisibility Options

[Thanee]

Mage A (Attacker) wants to cast a direct combat spell (i.e. Stun Bolt) on Mage T (Target).

Mage A is astrally perceiving, Mage T is not astrally active.

Mage T is invisible, so Mage A cannot see him physically.


Can Mage A attack Mage T with that spell?

If so, are there any visibility modifiers applied (i.e. blind fire)?

Bye
Thanee

[Summerstorm]

When mage A didn't make his spell resistance, no. No he can not target mage T directly.

So he better has an indirect spell, or begins to counterspell (or destroy) the invisibility spell of Mage T.

[jimbo]

Invisibility affects sight; astral perception is not sight. T is a valid target for A. In addition, since spellcasting is not a task penalized by the astralperception modifier, there is no visibility modifier for that.

[Summerstorm]

No, i don't think so... If you see something with astral sight you cannot cast on him on the physical. Astral sight is your sense in another world. If your target is "not really there" (He is not astrally active) your spells cannot connect. And your sense in the "real" world is blocked by the spell. So you cannot connect via that either.

I really think Mage A has to take down the invisibility spell first (Spells are always astrally active), OR he can AIM using astral sight, but it has to be an indirect physical spell. (Like firing a gun with astral sight).

[Yerameyahu]

You can shoot guns with Astral Perception. You can certainly cast spells, as long as the LOS is not physically broken.

[Summerstorm]

Of course you can (like i wrote)... but not DIRECT spells. If he could do that, he could cast manaspells out of the astral space, which i hope we can all agree on, nobody can.

He cannot enchant somebody with astral sight either. He needs to SEE him, OR have access to an astrally active aura. If the Target Mage is not active AND invisible.. you can know exactly where he is... but he is untouchable to direct combat spells.

Astral entity and physical are seperate (Only in the case of a projecting or perceiving mage they share effects.)

[Yerameyahu]

Ah, sorry. I see what you mean now. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I misunderstood your point. Someday I'll learn how to read. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Deadmannumberone]

Mage A (Attacker) wants to cast a direct combat spell (i.e. Stun Bolt) on Mage T (Target).

Mage A is astrally perceiving, Mage T is not astrally active.

Mage T is invisible, so Mage A cannot see him physically.


Can Mage A attack Mage T with that spell?

If so, are there any visibility modifiers applied (i.e. blind fire)?

Bye
Thanee

You do not have to be astrally active for a mage who is astrally perceiving to target you via your aura.

[Laodicea]

It's a tough question. One answer is that that's what indirect spells are for. Another answer is that a ruling like that makes blind mages way less appealing. Would you really rule that a physically blind mage who is astrally perceiving couldn't cast a LOS health spell on a friendly target? I would not.

[Yerameyahu]

Blind mages shouldn't be appealing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But that doesn't answer the question, I just felt it was important. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Laodicea]

Blind mages shouldn't be appealing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But that doesn't answer the question, I just felt it was important. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Yes they should. It's a cool character concept. It has fairly potent drawbacks. Like "Oh no, there's a projecting mage and he's going to pelt me with mana bolts! I better stop perceiving!" And then you're just blind. It's certainly not game breaking, and it would be fun to play.

[Yerameyahu]

That's *why* it shouldn't be appealing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's all drawbacks.

[Laodicea]

runners with all strengths and no weaknesses = boring.

[Yerameyahu]

Psh, that's not the point. Blindness shouldn't be a reasonable (appealing, fashion-accessory) option; it should be a crippling problem to be dealt with. You don't pick it because you're *bored*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Laodicea]

6BP!

[Summerstorm]

I even played a blind man once. Ki-mage (mystic adept). And no: Of course i couldn't shoot mana spells into people with astral sight. It really isn't that of a drawback though. Good aim and a nice, realistic force for some manipulation spells makes good combat too (Played that in 3rd ed. It is now indirect combat spells, but stay true). All other buffs/healings/perception based spells you can bestow per touch. (The spells which you have to modify for that even lose drain value.)

But remember: +2 for physical action... so you better fight at least with a sword or a staff/Naginata etc. But nowadays it is just 2 dice you lose... so you lose nearly no effectiveness.

[Walpurgisborn]

Of course you can (like i wrote)... but not DIRECT spells. If he could do that, he could cast manaspells out of the astral space, which i hope we can all agree on, nobody can.

No.

He can't cast manaspells out of astral space, because magic doesn't cross from astral to real space, not because there are any issues targetting.

I want to say there was faq concerned with targetting spells using other senses, and it was considered valid with appropriate modifiers. Astral perception is another sense, and it very clearly will "see" the invisible mage. I don't see the problem.

[DireRadiant]

Mage A (Attacker) wants to cast a direct combat spell (i.e. Stun Bolt) on Mage T (Target).

Mage A is astrally perceiving, Mage T is not astrally active.

Mage T is invisible, so Mage A cannot see him physically.


Can Mage A attack Mage T with that spell?

If so, are there any visibility modifiers applied (i.e. blind fire)?

Bye
Thanee

Yes. There are no modifiers.

Any mage can use astral perception to target. An astrally perceiving, but not projecting, mage has the choice of casting on the astral or mundane plane. The invisibility only renders the target invisible to normal sight, not astral perception. In fact both the target and the invisibility spell itself are visible to astral perception. Since the astrally perceiving mage can target the opponent, and can cast the spell, and there will be no negative modifiers for performing a magical action while astrally perceiving, the spell can affect the target.

[DireRadiant]

No.

He can't cast manaspells out of astral space, because magic doesn't cross from astral to real space, not because there are any issues targetting.

I want to say there was faq concerned with targetting spells using other senses, and it was considered valid with appropriate modifiers. Astral perception is another sense, and it very clearly will "see" the invisible mage. I don't see the problem.

That is true if the casting mage is astrally perceiving as a result of astral projection. However, if they are only astrally perceiving they can choose to cast in physical or astral space. An astrally perceiving mage who is not projecting can be considered dual natured for most matters.

[Summerstorm]

Well, i see your point (And i am aware that i am going against the F.A.Q.... should have mentioned that, sorry *g*). But for me it is clearly an artificial created rule, created to please everyone and breaks the fluff.

It is often noted that astral sight isn't sight at all but an undescribeable OTHER sense. It can be thought of as the OTHER sight. If you "see" something in astral you don't have to see it in the real world. You do not gain line of sight on the real world, but on astral, which means you have to cast a direct spell ON THE ASTRAL... and since he isn't active, you cannot. If you were to allow line of sight through other means (senses) it would mean that people could cast through hearing/smelling someone, radar, divinations, perception spells. It just isn't consistent and you cannot just make exceptions everywhere you like because it is inconvenient for a character.

Yes, blind ghouls/others have to touch or use indirect spells, their bad.

I always took the "line of sight needed" for something else than just "knowing where he is" of course. And that is what i based my argument on. But without that one logical jump CHAOS would ensue... since you COULD just blind cast direct spells otherwise.

[Walpurgisborn]

That is true if the casting mage is astrally perceiving as a result of astral projection. However, if they are only astrally perceiving they can choose to cast in physical or astral space. An astrally perceiving mage who is not projecting can be considered dual natured for most matters.

I agree complete, I was only reponding to Summerstorm's claim that "Allowing astral perception to target ----> allowing astral to physical casting

[Yerameyahu]

We've had this discussion before. The rules say "An astrally perceiving (or otherwise dual-natured) magician can cast spells on a target in either the physical world or in astral space." However, this doesn't make it clear whether that means 'direct spells at physical targets'. It could just mean 'dual-natured is dual-natured, so he has 2 spaces to act on'. The preceding and following text imply that physical LOS is required for physical targets, and astral LOS for astral forms.

[Dakka Dakka]

IMHO line of sight is a misleading term because, if taken literally no mage could ever cast any spell on the astral plane but touch range spells. Astral Perception is most definitely not sight and as such cannot satisfy that literal condition of LOS. Line of Perception would be much more appropriate.
As for not being able to target mundane targets with astral perception, I think such an implied drastic deviation from what is actually written in the books should be mentioned explicitly.
What we have in the books

• Unless the spell is touch range anything the mage can perceive can be targeted.
• The mage must be magically active on the same plane as the target.
• Astral Perception means magical activity on both planes
• Activity means being able to cast spells.
• Unless the mage is a dual-natured critter he can only perceive the astral plane.

I just had an idea: If you actually needed mundane perception to cast a spell at a mundane target the mage could not cast any spell on the physical plane. Astral perception means that he cannot perceive the real world any more, so he won't even be able to cast touch spells, as all he could feel would be the astral "touch". This interpretation clearly contradicts being able to cast on both planes. So in conclusion astral perception must satisfy LOS even for a totally mundane target.

[Yerameyahu]

I think all that does is tell us that the 'perception shift' must not work as written, not that Astral Perception is being used for physical Touch spells. Is this an important use-case, though? Do people cast a lot of touch spells in physical space while astrally-perceiving? I'd be fine with that *not* working.

I'd much rather not have Astral Perception be an almost-zero-tradeoff option. I mean, why do we even have mages getting cybereyes and things? At worst, they can avoid being 'open to the astral'.

[Dakka Dakka]

I think all that does is tell us that the 'perception shift' must not work as written, not that Astral Perception is being used for physical Touch spells.

By RAW all senses are replaced by astral perception, this includes touch.

Is this an important use-case, though? Do people cast a lot of touch spells in physical space while astrally-perceiving? I'd be fine with that *not* working.

The thing is, if this does not work, there will be no casting at all on the physical plane while the mage is perceiving astrally. Or more correctly there will be not targeting. If it does work, astral perception satisfies LOS for mundane targets.

I'd much rather not have Astral Perception be an almost-zero-tradeoff option. I mean, why do we even have mages getting cybereyes and things? At worst, they can avoid being 'open to the astral'.

There can be just as many negative modifiers on the astral plane as on the physical. Look at Street Magic p. 114. And then there is the vulnerability from both planes. Hardly a zero-tradeoff option.