And, there are some differences in this edition regarding projecting magicians -- specifically, "manifesting" magicians, who are projecting in astral space and making their presence known on the physical, are now vulnerable to mana spells cast by magicians who are only on the physical plane. As far as I know, this is different than past editions.

This seems to violate the rule as stated above, but, well, there it is. Thankfully, it's a one-way affect... the targeted manifesting magician can't fire back with mana spells. I hope. :/ Still, it's weird.

err, wtf is that about?

i want a text quote please

Yea, the one way thing makes no sense... but... think... do you REALLY want mages to be able to pop out of astral space (at 3 passes a turn) as a surprise ambush, lay down some mana balls, and escape back into the ether before a retaliation can be mounted? Yikes!

Then again... astral mages can summon spirits, which can then materialize. But at least you can fight a materialized spirit. A non-mage character has ZERO chance of harming a manifest mage (as per the text, the manifesting mage is immune to damage from physical sources).

Really, I was quite surprised to see this text in there. This is new to Shadowrun, and would seem to have some pretty big possibilities.

The specific quote for that is this:

Gramatically, "these targets" would refer to "targets that the caster touches" -- which would mean any target that the mage touches is valid for any spell. Though, there is enough ambiguity to say that "these targets" refers to "targets of spells that can only be cast on targets the caster touches." This is less gramatically sound, in my opinion, but not outside the realm of possibility. So... ask your GM.

But really, this isn't the constitution or anything, and I hate having to analyze the "original author's intent" to such a detail. I wish that a good number of places in this book where more explicit.

Welcome to the Sixth World, Chummer. Magic is power.

Or they can manifest instead. The book says that many spirits prefer manifesting instead of materializing "if they need to interact with a physical person". However, the very next sentence says that they must materialize to use a power on a target that's solely on the physical plane, so it's not entirely clear what "interactions" they would simply manifest for.

Note that this limit on how a spirit can use its powers strongly supports the "one-way" view of manifesting.

I don't know about you, but I would have been entirely happy if it had simply been "any character not on the astral plane has zero chance of harming a manifest mage." Making them vulnerable to mana based effects cast from the physical plane raises too many ugly questions.

Talk Threaten Intimidate Point the Way

Those would be the obvious choices, yes.

Get a closer look (avoid astral->physical perception penalties, can see detail).

Vs. a mage tossing Mana spells? Can't see it. It's more protection vs. Adepts that are unable to go dual, mundanes with big freakin' weapons, mages that don't Banish and only have attack spells that are Physical, and from physical environments that are "unhealthy" for the spirit such as on the docks for a fire element.

He can cast spells on targets in any plane because he can see targets in any plane. The rules assume all characters are sighted, and that paragraph was obviously not written with blind people in mind. It's a general case, blind mages being an exception.

I disagree. He can cast at targets on either plane because, while astrally perceiving he's dual natured, and therefore exists on both planes.

If astrally projecting mage manifests, he is visible on the physical plane, but still only 'exists' on the astral plane. He can't target physical-only stuff (mundanes, street sams, drones,...), and mages that are not astrally percieving can't target him. As soon as the physical mage starts astrally percieving, he exists on the astral, as well as physical planes, and both mages can target one another.

Just my opinion, but interested in hearing arguments against.

Then how do you explain "Manifesting characters and spirits, however, are vulnerable to mana-based magical effects on the physical plane." (p.184, SR4)

The "on the physical plane" says to me that if you're on the phyiscal plane and want to cast a mana spell at a manafested being, you don't have to do anything extra special like turning on astral perception.

Not sure if you were asking me, or someone else.

I would not allow a blind(or blind-folded, or eyes-closed, or in absolute darkness without vision enhancements, etc.) mage to cast a LOS spell of any type, unless he was astrally percieving. So if you're a blind mystic adept who didn't buy astral perception, you're restricted to touch-range spells.

[Edit] Just had an interesting thought... I guess the only way the guy above could effect people he couldn't see, and wasn't touching, would be to have an elemental area-effect touch-range spell. So I touch the ground and cast Toxic Wave, flooding a [magic rating] radius area with Acid, which would then damage me at the same time as everyone else in range.

Boy, that's sucky...

That was my understanding. You have to use a mana spell because he has no physical form, but you can see him visually (physically) and target him accordingly. His manifested form is a valid target for spells on the physical plane. My argument is basically predicated on my belief that the aura of a mundane, viewed on the astral plane, is not a valid target for spells on astral plane, which is the blind magician's only method of targetting.

I see where you are going with this, however when your are Astrally Preceiving you don't actually see with your physical plane sight and visa versa. It isn't overlayed.

So you indeed "see" physical plane things from the astral (read the sidebars 166, 167) and simply need your meat body touching the mana stream on that side to get the spell to the physical plane target.

As for whether the aura can be considered "seeing", first it satisfies the natural vision requirement for LOS (hearing physical nor astral does not). Second check out Ritual Spellcasting. Yes it is a different (but related) skill, but it is clear there that LOS from astral to physical works.

P.S. At this point some cheezy argument could be made for a Astral Projecting mage to use their limp body to hit physical targets, but i wouldn't buy that since they have no control over their physical body and therefore cannot use it as their body for or casting/summoning. While they are out the meat isn't them. It only works for Ritual Spellcasting because of the group (the spotter doesn't get to contribute dice).

I'd probably allow him to target points in space for elemental AoE spells, as well as using touch range spells normally.

Here are some quotes to back up the argument to follow:

I don't deny that you can "see" things on the physical plane with your astral sense. I'm merely asserting that they are not valid targets for spells cast on the astral plane unless they have an astral form, which is different from a person's aura. I further assert that since a blind magician can only "see" targets with astral perception, he must be considered to occupy only the astral plane for the purposes of targetting spells. As an astral caster, he can only target astral forms. Neither Joe Mundane's aura nor Joe Mundane himself is an astral form; thus, he cannot be targetted. If you allow an astrally perceiving mage to use astral perception alone to target J.M., you must allow a projecting mage to do the same.

edited for clarification

Emphasis mine.

If spellcasting wouldn't be visually based, these modifiers would be senseless.

Spellcasting is visual, but astral perception is interpreted by the brain as a visual sense. Astrally perceiving magicians can use it to "see" and target astral forms. This doesn't affect my argument against blind, perceiving magicians casting direct LOS spells at mundane targets.

Unfortunately none of those actually address the situation of a dual natured caster.

First LOS: If you see the target with your own sight you have LOS ("If the caster can see the target, regardless of distance, it can be aff ected.", page 195). The dual natured creature looking through astral can see the physical target via astral ("Things that exist on the physical can be seen and heard from the astral, though any non-living objects appear as gray, faded semblances of their physical appearance.", page 167), so there is LOS.

Now onto transmission:

Now is the dual natured caster on the physical plane while viewing through the astral?

So indeed they are on both at once, as one.

Now onto that quote you took from page 173. Your use of that quote is assuming an OR between being a astral entity and a physical entity. Why do i say that? Because if we read it as you do then a dual natured creature could cast NEITHER on physical nor astral because as we saw above they are both astral and physical at once (and there is a mirror statement above your quote physical can only cast on physical). Then immediately below it states that:

Note that it does NOT state that astrally preceiving cannot cast physical spells on the physical. In fact the first sentence can be read to say you can do it! The target, selection method left open, can be hit on by a spell either on the physical or astral, physical or astral viewing mode of the caster left open. A lack of physical presense is what causes the only type of specified invalid target to be an invalid target.

The only possible argument i see is that viewing of the target is part of the spell instead of just part of the process. However while the targeting is part of the grimore description, and certainly part of the overall process, there isn't much in the way of textual support that target selection is actually part of the spell itself (the transmission, as described bottom left page 167).

Does it leave some wiggle room? A little bit i guess. *shrug* But not much. Well we have seen wording flat out not match intended rules (firearms recoil anyone?), so it could. Doing so would involve reversal of the explicit allowance in SR3 of astral precieving casters targeting on the physical plane via astral perception. Sure there are a few other sutble changes from SR3 (ditching Exclusive actions for example). All possible? *shrug* But barring explicit Fanpro statement otherwise it is a real long stretch.

Just establishing the concept of astral forms as distinct from auras.

He can see the target but not, in my opinion, in a manner that allows him to cast spells at it. Remember, all the spellcasting rules are written with a fully-sighted character in mind.

Of course he's still on the physical plane, and of course he can still channel mana on that plane. I'm just asserting that before he can do so, he must have LOS to the target on that plane.

The quote is relevant because I stated that the blind magician can only target through the astral plane, so he should use the targeting rules for astral beings, at least for direct spells. Here's the exact quote, in fact:

My argument hinges on how he targets his spells and whether this precludes him from casting at physical targets, not whether he can channel mana on the physical plane.

I agree, an astrally perceiving mage can cast spells on the physical. However, he must have LOS to do so, and I'm arguing that LOS on the astral plane to a mundane aura does not count.

I assume you're referring to p. 173, where it states "An astral target can only be affected by mana spells-even if the magician is in the physical world astrally perceiving-as it has no physical presence." My argument against the blind magician targetting J.M. was never based on what plane he occupies. It was based solely on whether he can use astral LOS to target the spell in the first place.

I don't believe targetting is part of the transmission at all. I believe that before you can cast the spell, you have to target, and you can't do that in this specific situation.

If SR3 explicitly states that astral perception alone is enough to target mundanes, without any physical LOS, then I suppose I'd grandfather it into SR4 and allow it. From my reading of the SR4 text and my understanding of the spellcasting process, however, it shouldn't be. It's not even necessary from a game mechanics perspective. The blind mage has plenty of options without using direct combat spells on mundanes. As I said, I'd allow him to cast the indirect combat spells using astral targetting. That's not part of my argument; I'm just mentioning it in passing.

edit: I think we've pretty much exhausted the ability of the rules to support our interpretations. At this point it can only degenerate into "Yeah huh, nuh uh, yeah huh, nuh uh..." Agree to disagree?

I guess I just don't see how you are disagreeing with this single line. A blind astrally perceiving character (who can see exactly as well, or as poorly, as a fully sighted astrally perceiving character -- they see exactly the same thing when perceiving) can "cast spells on a target in either the physical world or in astral space."

That seems to pretty directly state that, well, an astrally perceiving character can cast spells on targets in the physical world.

Blind or whatever doesn't even need to come into the equation.

The SR3 rule are fully explicit in it....ummm page 182, bottom right. But there really is no need to grandfather at all. What SR4 did was cut out a bunch of text, but didn't fill in all the exceptions to cover off people reading in stuff that isn't there....which is what you are doing. An excellent example is this part you mention about LOS:

WTF??? Umm, i showed where astrally viewer actually sees things on the physical plane. It actually explains it literally as such, which is the requirement for LOS. Then you make up this opinion based on....sweet fuck all. There is no place that says you need LOS on the plane you are casting on, nowhere.

Oh, another example is:

So now because the guy's eyes don't work, he no longer has dual status and is astral only? Eyes that neither him nor any other astral preceiving mage even use when viewing astral?

Don't get me wrong, that's only a sample of the illogic i see in your post. No real need to go on though, because yes indeed it would seem hopeless for us to come to agreement if you insist on such madness.

They see as well as the fully sighted character on the astral plane. The fully sighted character can also see on the physical plane, which is what allows him to cast spells on targets in the physical world. He has "physical" LOS as well as "astral" LOS.

One could argue that he sees the shadow of things on the physical plane. A normal astrally perceiving character sees the actual object and its astral shadow simultanously, which is what allows him to cast spells at targets on either plane. All the paragraphs, everything you could possibly quote about what astrally perceiving characters can and cannot do, are describing a fully sighted mage using astral perception. Blind mages are an exception.

Basically, I'm drawing a clear distinction between physical LOS and astral LOS. You are not. That's really at the heart of the matter.

I'm not saying he lacks dual status; I'm saying all his targetting must be done astrally, so why not use the rules for purely astral targetting. Rules that would prohibit him from casting direct spells at mundanes. Seriously, are you deliberately misinterpreting just to score another point or do you honestly not understand my point of view?

Astrally perceiving mages see both planes, so they're certainly using their physical eyes. They see both planes, they occupy both planes, they target both planes. Except the blind ones. They only do that second one.


----------

I leave my post in for archival purposes . I just reread the description of astral perception, and it appears to be different from SR3. It does, in fact, completely replace your visual sense while in use. I was thinking of it as an overlay, like AR. Obviously, astrally perceiving mages who aren't blind can still cast spells at mundanes, so blind ones can as well. In other words, I was wrong. Ick, three words I hate to say.

Is that like space madness?

No.

P. 182

Edit -- Ah... you found it at the end of your post. Well, I'll leave this up then so people have the page reference.

I didn't notice if this was mentioned already (because I usually read forums while astrally perceiving):

Has anyone seen mention of astral sight being unable to read text anymore? Can our projected ghosts read street signs and computer terminals in SR4, just at a -2 penalty?

Haven't seen anything in the rules about being able to read normal physical writings or not while astral percieving.
I would say that the ability to read in this manner would be dependant on the importance of the document or item in question. The more important the item the greater an astral impression that the users imprint upon it, and the easier it is to read.

No, it's like Frank madness.
P.S.

Only they are a fairly common exception. At least that's a what a ghoul told me.

In SR3, Astral Perception didn't disable your normal perception but overlayed it - so a Mage still in his meat body could read.

I mean you couldn't read with your astral sense. Anyway, allowing flat text to be read from the astral plane is a pretty big change, from a game mechanics as well as an IC perspective. Since there's no mention of the essential nature of the astral plane changing since 2065, I'm going to assume you still can't. As for a projecting mage not being able to read flat text, wel, that's one of the downsides of projecting. Working as intended.

Meh. If you could read it with your meat eyes (assuming they worked ), I'd let you read it with your astral "eyes". It's practically a nonissue, since printed words are so much more common.

I was under the impression that you could "read" -- but you would only get emotional content. That is, last quarter's expense to stock correlation report would look like a blank page, but poetry imparts its feelings.

Maybe I'm just making this up though; I haven't looked that recently.

So far as I know, SR4 doesn't mention written words specifically, so it's probably just a GM call. And SR4 does now talk about strong emotional content being left on otherwise inanimate objects -- so if last quarter's report was extremely stressful to the person handling it, you'd be able to tell that (with a sufficiently high assensing test)

But what I suggest does seem to fit the vague description given:

That implies that you can't understand spoken words (only their emotional content -- at least, "indistinct sound" implies that to me), and I'd just apply the same to written words.

Precisely!

To me, it looks like an astrally-projected magician can only perceive the emotional content from items and persons but can also get access to the mundane content by simply manifesting or switching back to normal sight.

Note that while astral perception seems to be mostly a visual perception, it also encompasses hearing, touch and taste. As such, "astral perception is a psychic sense that is not linked to the character's physical sight" - p.182.