Tarantula
Jul 8 2007, 10:27 AM
In the example, it says the drawer must be open for him to review the contents of it. Not that he had to have looked into the drawer.
Rotbart van Dainig
Jul 8 2007, 10:35 AM
Just the actual rule is more limiting.
Talia Invierno
Jul 8 2007, 11:50 AM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jul 8 2007, 10:21 AM) |
| QUOTE (Tarantula @ Jul 8 2007, 08:13 AM) | | Does it say "only from your perspective you had."? |
Yes it does.
|
No, it doesn't. As long as we're dealing with RAW, those words appear nowhere in the description of the power.
The only specification is that "[t]he adept may not interact [with] or disturb anything in the recalled scene". Thus, if a drawer was shut, the adept may not open it in the reviewed memory. (The word "review" is used.)
Another few words that are used in the description of 3DM are "ultra-clear detail". These words are not used in the description either of ESM or EM. If that's not a powerful distinction, why are the sales of HDTVs going through the roof?
Rotbart van Dainig
Jul 8 2007, 12:12 PM
Look, it was already pointed out:
| QUOTE (Buster) |
If this line was trimmed, everything would make sense:
| QUOTE | | The adept may not interact or disturb anything in the recalled scene, he may only review things he actually saw or sensed, even if only incidentally at the time. |
If you erased the phrase I bolded, the power would then give you the ability to see the briefcase under the table, see inside the open drawer you didn't look in before, see someone hiding a gun behind their back, see the guy hiding under the desk, etc.
|
Talia Invierno
Jul 8 2007, 01:22 PM
And yet to specify what was sensed is not synonymous with "perspective".
The concept of review carries with it the idea of going back over things gone over before -- to learn, not only to see again. It doesn't have anything in it at all of same perspective.
Crusher Bob
Jul 8 2007, 01:41 PM
Sigh, t might help to re-clarify the power to review sensations, from which you may derive new perceptions.
Where sensation would be stimuli received by the body, and perception would be congition of the significance to that stimuli.
Talia Invierno
Jul 8 2007, 01:51 PM
(? are you pointing out that perception and perspective are not the same thing? It's a level of misunderstanding I'd not considered.)
Vaevictis
Jul 8 2007, 02:02 PM
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| QUOTE (Tarantula @ Jul 8 2007, 08:13 AM) | | Does it say "only from your perspective you had."? |
Yes it does.
|
Let's look at what it says:
| QUOTE |
| (...) may make a Magic+Perception test to call up the "stored" memory and walk through the "scene", exploring it as if he was walking through the location for the first time. The adept may not interact or disturb anything in the recalled scene, may only review things he actually saw or sensed, even if only incidentally at the time. For instance, the adept cannot review the contents of a drawer unless it was open when the adept memorized the scene. |
1. It does not say anything about restricting your perspective.
2. It does say the adept may "explore it as if he was walking through the location for the first time." The implications of the italicized portion, to me, mandate the ability to change perspective.
3. Interestingly, if you accept the change of perspective thing, it may also allows you to see parts of an object in the scene you did not see the first time, provided you did sense other parts of the object.
(If you look at the specific wording in 3, "review things he actually saw or sensed, even if only incidentally at the time." If you observe the emphasis as bolded, you may draw the conclusion that a partial observation of an object would allow a full observation of an object later, subject to the inability to interact with the scene. ie, if you only saw the front of an object, you could in 3DM move around to see the back, provided the back wasn't obstructed by something.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.