Ally Spirit's and Damage Options

[Mordinvan]

I for one in my home games use Synner's suggestion that trying to fool yourself like that will simply cause the spell to fail.

Yes, this would apply to ANY deliberate attempt to exclude targets from direct area spells, via blocking parts of your vision, whether it be AR-based or something like sticking your hand in the way.

Too bad the game is pretty specific about light from the target needing to enter the casters eyes, in order to acquire the target, if optical targeting is what is being used. Its not a case of tricking yourself, its a case of the needed component to target someone being blocked by opaque pixels in the lenses.

[Mordinvan]

I don't remember photons being mentioned in the book. Not being able to see a target will get you blind fire penalties. It does not, by any stretch of the rules, remove line of sight. LOS is a special thing and isn't based on sight.
It's a clear astral path for the magic to flow. Something that is opaque in the astral will block line of sight.

Light is mentioned repeatedly, as is the inability to acquire targets targets unless you are using your own 'natural' senses. See mage sight goggles, cyber eyes, and all references to using purely digital displays to try and target with.

[Mordinvan]

Of course they can wear glasses and cast. Just not glasses with electronics in the lenses.

Please find that quote for me. As I can incorporate electronics into magesight goggles, I just can't use them to acquire targets with, and I see no references to needing to take my smart glasses off to cast, only not being able to use the electronics in them to help me acquire targets.

[Bearclaw]

Light is mentioned repeatedly, as is the inability to acquire targets targets unless you are using your own 'natural' senses. See mage sight goggles, cyber eyes, and all references to using purely digital displays to try and target with.

There's a reason why the words Line of Sight are used, rather than just saying Sight. Your contention is, "if you can't see something, even though there is nothing between you and it, even if you know it's there and exactly where it is, not only can you not target it with a direct spell, you also can't harm it with a direct area spell." Right?

I want to make sure we're arguing the same argument before we go on.

[Irion]

Please find that quote for me. As I can incorporate electronics into magesight goggles, I just can't use them to acquire targets with, and I see no references to needing to take my smart glasses off to cast, only not being able to use the electronics in them to help me acquire targets.

Already done...


The point is, it just feels silly. Cant use electronic devices to target something and getting around it with declaring you are not replacing anything...

[Draco18s]

Nitpick

Ally Spirit's and Damage

"Spirit's" is not plural, that's possessive. That ally spirit owns an "and damage." Whatever that is. And this thread is about that "and damage."

[Dakka Dakka]

Already done...

I guess I failed a Perception Test there. Where did you quote that?

The point is, it just feels silly. Cant use electronic devices to target something and getting around it with declaring you are not replacing anything...

Actually it does not. It is completely logical. The mere presence of an electronic device does not necessarily invalidate physical natural LOS. Look for example at a single lens reflex camera (especially the schematic). As long as you look through the eye piece, you have normal optical LOS. If the camera also has a screen which displays what the sensor detects, you would not have optical LOS. If you by manual or electronic make obscure parts of the eye piece opaque, whatever is behind the obstruction cannot be seen by the observer and cannot be targeted by spells.

[Yerameyahu]

"if you can't see something, even though there is nothing between you and it, even if you know it's there and exactly where it is, not only can you not target it with a direct spell, you also can't harm it with a direct area spell."

Yes.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

"if you can't see something, even though there is nothing between you and it, even if you know it's there and exactly where it is, not only can you not target it with a direct spell, you also can't harm it with a direct area spell."

Yes.

Exactly... If you want to actually damage the target at that point, Bearclaw, you must use an Indirect Spell, preferrably an Elemental one. Or target the Victium with Astral perception, assuming you can do that.

[Bearclaw]

So can you keep spell defense up on an invisible team mate?

[Dakka Dakka]

No. Even turning your head stops spell defense

[Bearclaw]

Yea, that's what happens when you mistake "line of sight", for "sight".

[Yerameyahu]

Blame the writers. If they meant 'simply have a potential clear LOS', they should've made rules reflecting that.

[KarmaInferno]

Too bad the game is pretty specific about light from the target needing to enter the casters eyes, in order to acquire the target, if optical targeting is what is being used. Its not a case of tricking yourself, its a case of the needed component to target someone being blocked by opaque pixels in the lenses.

You'll note that I specifically said, "In my home games".

I look at this situation through the lens of "magic" rather than "science". And I houseruled as such.

My take is that casting a direct spell at someone involves syncing to their aura and delivering magical energy to it through the astral. It requires a certain discipline and mindset. Trying to play meta-game tricks by sticking your thumb in your field of vie so that you can't see your friend, well, that's you trying to fool yourself, as far as targeting that direct spell. That causes enough internal dissonance that your spell fizzles. Magic is a living thing, and attempting mundane trickery to alter how it works will fail.

I do agree that by RAW, if you block targets from your sight, they don't get affected by direct spells.

I just happen to think that's stupid.



-k

[Bearclaw]

Blame the writers. If they meant 'simply have a potential clear LOS', they should've made rules reflecting that.

They did. That's why it doesn't say "sight" or "vision" or "see". It says "Line of Sight".

[Yerameyahu]

No, they didn't. The rules frequently and clearly refer to being able to actually see things, not just draw lines in the air. Again, see mirrors, windows, magesight optics, the lack of non-sight (non-touch) targeting, the lack of info-guided targeting, etc.

[Dakka Dakka]

Define Line of sight, please. I am not aware that there is a definition that does not require the observer to register anything with his eyes. As such a blind man would have line of sight just like a seeing one.

Line of sight requires sight, that is why it is not called potential trajectory of photons.

[Yerameyahu]

Which is a problem for the current rules. A blind mage can't cast (ranged) spells without astral perception, for example, nor can he use astral perception to cast through mirrors, windows, etc.; if you say 'potential LOS' is all that matters, it changes many such aspects of rules. (Which, again, is why allowing negators is just so much simpler. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[darthmord]

It is discussions like this that make me wish the writers had kept the old description of how spell casting worked from SR1 & SR2. It was very clear and concise.

Any spells cast on the Physical required line of sight (LOS) to target & cast. The fluff description given for the crunch was that you had to synch up the caster's aura with the target's aura. Purely mana spells would hit the target even if physical obstructions were in the way. The example given was a glass wall.

Yet an indirect spell (I believe they used to be called Physical Manipulations) required not only LOS but ALSO an unobstructed path to the target. Why? Because the mana was creating the effect that did the damage rather than actually being the agent of damage. Thus a Fireball spell was creating an actual fireball that traveled to the target. A Manaball spell simply created a damaging mana AOE at the point being targeted.

One of the examples given in the older editions also pointed out that if it is dark (no light) and you could not see or touch your target, you could not cast on them without using Astral Perception.

Thus it does make perfect sense that if your team is all linked together, that you could have software running on your glasses/goggles/vegeta power meter as an overlay of some sort that blocks out members of your team from LOS yet leaves your preferred targets visible in a purely optical manner (that means you can cast on them).

The big issue is that a vision aid cannot electronically process the image and re-display it back to you. If it does, it's useless for spellcasting unless you paid essence for it. This is why your favorite trid camera that you carry around will not work for spellcasting but your cybereyes do. Same reason why electronic binoculars do not work for spellcasting yet optical ones do.

[Bearclaw]

Define Line of sight, please. I am not aware that there is a definition that does not require the observer to register anything with his eyes. As such a blind man would have line of sight just like a seeing one.

Line of sight requires sight, that is why it is not called potential trajectory of photons.

Line of sight is exactly that. A condition in which you can see (not see, but can see) the object in question. If you are in the middle of a circle of men 4 meters across, you can center a stunball on yourself, and KO everyone, even if your back is to them. You can only see about half of them, but you have a clear line of sight to any of them. The same is true in the reverse. You are counterspelling. You are the center of a force 6 stunball, and your team is spread around you within 4 meters. Your counterspelling dice will protect them. Even if they're invisible, because there is nothing blocking the mystical connection between you and them. It's not a question of photons travelling, because you are not shooting photons. It's a question of a clear path for the magic to travel.

This was kind of explained in earlier versions Magic in the Shadows, but I can't provide a quote.

[Bearclaw]

Which is a problem for the current rules. A blind mage can't cast (ranged) spells without astral perception, for example, nor can he use astral perception to cast through mirrors, windows, etc.; if you say 'potential LOS' is all that matters, it changes many such aspects of rules. (Which, again, is why allowing negators is just so much simpler. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

Is there a quote that says blind mages can't cast spells without using astral perception? That would probably change my thinking.

[Mordinvan]

So can you keep spell defense up on an invisible team mate?

Are you using astral sight, or normal vision? With Astral sight, yes, with normal vision, no, unless you manage to resist your own spell.... that last part I'm guessing at.

[Mordinvan]

I just happen to think that's stupid.

There's plenty about the SR4 magic system which is 'stupid' in my opinion, so I guess we can agree on that.

[Mordinvan]

Is there a quote that says blind mages can't cast spells without using astral perception? That would probably change my thinking.

How about a complete absense of rules for how blind mages could cast with the exception of usual astral sight. All blindfire rules in the core book are for firearms, as the stat the attempt links to is intuition instead of agility, if you carried this through for magic, a mage would also use intuition as well, which could lead to interesting effects on the force of the spells they would be throwing, as well as the fact cyberware doesn't cause intuition loss.

[Dakka Dakka]

Line of sight is exactly that. A condition in which you can see (not see, but can see) the object in question. If you are in the middle of a circle of men 4 meters across, you can center a stunball on yourself, and KO everyone, even if your back is to them. You can only see about half of them, but you have a clear line of sight to any of them. The same is true in the reverse. You are counterspelling. You are the center of a force 6 stunball, and your team is spread around you within 4 meters. Your counterspelling dice will protect them. Even if they're invisible, because there is nothing blocking the mystical connection between you and them. It's not a question of photons travelling, because you are not shooting photons. It's a question of a clear path for the magic to travel.

What you are referencing is not line of sight but line of effect. Line of effect is only ever relevant in case of indirect combat spells. The rules state that you must see the target(s), not that you must theoretically be able to see them. Also by your interpretation, cover and visibility modifiers would be irrelevant. That is explicitly not the case.

This was kind of explained in earlier versions Magic in the Shadows, but I can't provide a quote.

I'm pretty sure the way targets are acquired has not changed from previous editions (except for the thing about grounding).

@Blind mages:

A metahuman spellcaster can target anyone or anything she can see directly with her natural vision.

What can a blind mage see? Nothing. That is all he can target with his vision.

The above quote also contradicts centering a stunbball on the caster and affecting the targets behind him.