Even better. Aura > brain > eyes. More power to astral perception!

Heres a fun one for you then. What happens when an astrally projecting mage is floating right in front of an astrally perceiving mages head? You say the same cover penalties apply, and astral forms aren't a cover penalty on the physical plane. So then they also shouldn't be a penalty on the astral plane either?

obviously, cover that only applies on the astral is an exception. the existence of exceptions does not, however, negate the rule. and since there's no exception listed for blindfolds, i don't see why they would be exempt.

Maybe not game-breaking. Maybe just stupid.

What is so stupid about it?

Not that anyone really read everything I wrote, but note what I was saying about modifiers on perception when using the aura as a perceiving organ.



Chris

it's only there if you assume the rule exists in the first place. nothing in almost two decades of rules and fluff has ever indicated that the aura functions in any capacity as a sensory organ. as handy a trick as it would be to be able to see around corners by sticking your hand out, you'd think someone, somewhere, in eighteen years of SR fiction, would have done so.

But the point is that the rule is there if you are working from the assumption that the aura is the source of astral perception. Personally, I don't (obviously, neither do you). But I can see how someone could come away with that interpretation without "making stuff up" from whole cloth. There's nothing in the text or fluff of the 4th edition sources to render it impossible and enough that it put that idea into at least one reader's head. And, happily, they have a rule in place for handling that particular situation if it comes up in their game.

Anyway, having read the posts rehashing these same points about a dozen times from every angle, it seems fairly clear that, while the printed guidelines help in the vast majority of cases, there's also enough ambiguity in the text to allow for, at my count, four interpretations on the base nature of how the sense works:

• The "astral eyes" theory: Astral perception (the 'visual' facet, anyway) begins at the physical location of the eyes and functions for all intents and purposes (barring specific differences listed in text) just like physical vision in another spectrum. Anything that would impede physical vision (as long as it has an astral presence of some sort) does the exact same thing to visual astral perception. Also, getting eyes installed elsewhere on your body provides you with another point to perceive from.
  
• The "giant astral eyeball" theory: The brain is the organ of astral perception. It functions basically like the previous example, only you have to cover the entire head to block perception totally. Lesser degrees of coverage impart lesser dice penalties. The field of view is still basically a very wide, forward-facing cone originating from the physical location of your noodle.
  
• The "full-aura" theory: The active aura is the "organ" of astral perception. No matter what you're wearing or where it's located, you can still clearly perceive astrally because your aura extends out beyond your physical form. All worn items are either incorporated into your aura, or simply don't count because it passes right through them. Though this reading also allows you to try and gain limited LOS by getting close enough to an obstruction so that at least part of your aura radiates through it.
  
• The "psychic point" theory: Somewhat similar to the "full-aura" theory, except there is no organ or locus for astral perception beyond the metaphysical "you" represented by your astral form. All other "psychic senses" described in the books are experienced directly within the mind, and most have no more specific point of view or origin than "the observer". Input comes from all vectors, unless you focus on a particular subject within range. As astral perception is itself a psychic sense, this model most likely applies to it as well, within the particular limits set out for the sense itself (i.e. it's susceptible to astral environmental conditions). Since the aura is only a property of the astral form, and the form itself functions only as a point of reference rather than a sensory organ, "bleed-through" is insufficient for bypassing cover. However it is also unaffected by articles placed or worn on the body, regardless of location, because there's no sensor to "cover up".

There are probably others that I've missed or haven't been concieved of yet. And I'm sure I've missed what the proponants of the various theories would consider important points. But the thing is, in 99 percent of cases they are all functionally the same and allow for the rules to be applied as written because regardless of the exact point of origin, a forward-facing field of view encompasses roughly 180 degrees of spherical arc, and the system itself isn't designed for perspective models any more complex than that. And so, if your target is completely behind an obstacle, they have full cover and you can't target them at all(a special circumstance because there is no "blind fire" with spells). If the wall (stack of boxes, curtain, whatever) obscures 50% or more of them, they have good cover and you lose at least 4 dice from the spellcasting test. If it's between 25 and 50%, you lose two. And then you throw in the real "visibility" modifiers listed on the table in Street Magic.

The only real difference comes up when an object that would normally be much too small to provide cover might do so virtually, due to perspective (e.g. a blindfold or other head-covering). And there we get to the heart of the four theories I highlighted. Each uses the exact same text to either allow or disallow this particular situation based on an understanding of the text colored by personal preference. Whichever one you go with depends entirely on what you (or your GM) thinks makes the "most sense". There's no real "proving" them without official input via errata, FAQ, or an unofficial official post. And I seriously doubt anyone is really looking to be convinced of a theory other than the one they've already settled on as working for them based on the speculations of people no more authoritative on the matter than they are.

i've never claimed that the eyes are the organ of astral perception. i have claimed that the location of the organ for astral perception is the same as the location of the eyes.

i'm not making up astral organs. "organs" is simply the term people have been using in the most recent pages of this thread to describe the thingy that does the perceiving. you didn't yell at anyone for using the term "organ" when they were talking about using auras to perceive, Funk.

as for not saying anything in support of my view, there is the simple fact that all of the fluff describes astral perception in terms of vision. no mention is ever made of significant POV differences between astral and physical POV.

i have not ignored the shapeshifter/drake argument. i've answered it twice so far in this thread. nobody responded to my answer.

mfb, thats because an aura is a single object. So is the brain. "Where the eyes are" is not a specific "thing" that could be argued to be what does the astral perception, because there isn't anything there, unless you say the eyes are, in which case you are ignoring the fact that it says there is no link between physical eyes and astral perception.

(Sometimes I'm sorry I even ask questions on this forum.)

Everybody: thanks for your enthusiastic input! I got a lot of good feedback and everyone made excellent points. But we've been repeating the same arguments for the last 6 or 7 pages. Can we please just let this thread die? Nobody's going to convince anyone else, and it's annoying to see people say the same things over and over and over and...well, you get the point.

i can accept being told that i'm "making stuff up" by thinking that the astral POV is located in the same spot as the eyes. what i'm having trouble with is the fact that other concepts, like the concept of an omnidirectional sense that can pass through objects, or the concept of a third eye, or the concept of the brain as a sensory organ, are not being held to the same standard.

and, again, the text says that astral perception and sight aren't linked--it doesn't say that there are no similarities.

And its equally silent on similarities besides how the brain interprets it in terms of the normal 5 senses.

Just to remind you - all of you - about a rule of science and logic:
The absence of evidence against does not imply a positive. Vice versa holds true.
Remember to apply Occam's Razor whenever possible.

Some of you seem to realize this, some don't. Just giving you a heads-up from the science division.

Okay, applying occam's razor. As few assumptions as possible.

Things we know:
Astral perception is possible.
Astral perception is psychic.
Astral perception is not linked to the physical organs.
Physical cover works equally well on the astral due to astral shadows.
Normal vision POV is within the eyes.

Things we don't know:
Where the astral POV is.

As far as a logical arguement goes.
Psychic means: "of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental (opposed to physical)." dictionary.com
Perception means: "1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. " dictionary.com
Synonyms for mind include: "Brain is properly the physiological term for the organic structure that makes mental activity possible (The brain is the center of the nervous system.), but it is often applied, like mind, to intellectual capacity"

Definition of vision: "the act or power of sensing with the eyes; sight." dictionary.com

Normal visions POV is located within the eyes, because you sense visible light with your eyes.

Astral perception POV logically is located within the brain, because you sense astral light with your brain. (Because astral perception is a psychic sense).

the logical disconnect there is the assertion that because "psychic" sometimes means 'mind-related', "psychic sense" must refer to the brain. there are a number of other possibilities, the most obvious one being that when it talks about psychic sense, it really is talking about your mind--not the physical organ that houses your mind but your mind itself. it should be noted that your astral form does not have a brain, yet you are able to see while projecting--even when you're looking at stuff that your brain could not possibly perceive.

here is my logic: astral cover is noted in the rules as being determined the same way as physical cover. to me, that means that in any situation where physical cover applies, astral cover also applies. there are obvious exceptions, such as cover imposed by astral forms, but those are exceptions--they don't make the rule stop being true. in order for astral cover to apply whenever physical cover applies, the astral and physical POV must be in the same place. that place is the eyes.

in addition, astral perception is noted, in both the rules and the fluff, as working similarly to physical sight. there are differences and exceptions, but where differences and exceptions are not described in the rules, it is illogical to assume they exist. it is stated that astral perception is not linked to physical perception, but it is not stated that the astral POV is in a different location from the physical POV--specifically, nowhere does it say or even imply that the POVs are in different locations. such a difference in POV location would be a notable aspect of astral perception--it's something that someone, in eighteen years of SR rules and fluff, would have commented on. for these reasons, it's illogical to assume that the astral POV is in a different location than the physical POV.

See: "to perceive with the eyes; look at." dictionary.com
Hear: "to perceive by the ear" dictionary.com
Smell: "to perceive the odor or scent of through the nose by means of the olfactory nerves; inhale the odor of" dictionary.com
Taste: "the sense by which the flavor or savor of things is perceived when they are brought into contact with the tongue." dictionary.com
Feel: "to perceive or examine by touch" dictionary.com

Notice similarities between all of these? They all name the perceiving organ. Astral perception is a psychic sense. Which relates it to the mind. I'll accept that your astral self while projecting doesn't have a brain, it only has an aura. Thusly, your aura must contain your "mind" and must then be the method of astral perception.

to nitpick, "touch" is not an organ. there actually is no touch organ, just a network of specialized nerves.

your point doesn't prove anything. the fact that four out of five sensory definitions on dictionary.com include the sensory organ does not mean that "psychic sense" equals "brain". it means, at best, "mind". and in SR, "psychic" might be more accurately equated to "astral", since the astral is where the mind/soul are generally considered to reside.

I'm of the opinion that you "see" in astral space using your aura.

Therefore anything that wants to block your perception must block your entire aura.

Fairly simple.


-karma

skin is an organ, but it is not the only organ that you can touch things with. your eyes, for instance, can feel touch.

mfb, your position is equally unsupported by the rules or the fluff. You assertion that because cover works the same that the POV must be the same is incorrect. Cover requirements are: Partial: at least 25% of the target's form is obscured. Good: At least 50% of the target's form is obscured. And Target Hidden: Can't be seen.

None of those are a reference to the POV. If from the POV, the target has 25% of himself covered, he has partial cover. It doesn't matter whether that POV is from your meat eyes, the cyber eye in your hand, or from your aura, he has partial cover the same.

they're all references to POV. if 25% of your target is behind a wall, but you're also behind that same wall, then your target has no cover. the target has to have 25% or 50% or 100% cover from your POV. and when you're wearing a blindfold, everything has 100% cover from your POV.

Yes, but there isn't any reason to assume that astral POV is the same as physical POV. The methods for determining cover utilize % of target covered from POV. Not "From where your eyes are". Thusly, your interpretation that the astral POV is located the same as physical POV has equally as little backing in the rules as the assumptions that the brain or the aura is the location of the astral POV.

it has backing, Tarantula: it has the fact that in eighteen years of SR fiction, not one single author has ever mentioned a discrepancy between the location of the astral and physical POV. vision is how humans gather the vast, vast majority of information, both on the physical and on the astral. any discrepancy between them would be--and are, in the rules--notable. the rules give information on how to handle things like light level and cover, but never once to they mention anything about the POVs being in different locations.

i don't believe that human tactile nerves react to IR light. they react to radiant heat, which as i recall is a phenomenon that accompanies IR light.

The exact mechanism of temperature perception aren't 100% nailed down yet, but yeah while the afferent sensory neurons responsible for temperature perception are not stimulated by IR in the same way as the photoreceptors situated in the eye, they do react to the way IR warms them and the surrounding tissue. Which allows you to ascertain the direction of a IR Lamp with closed eyes. Thats what I meant with detect.

But I'll stop dragging this further OT, and leave you to discuss of the finer points of the physics of astral perception, without further snide remarks.

He's been saying the same thing for pages now (not that I disagree with mfb's take on things). The snide comments only serve to keep it interesting for him.

mfb, claiming that it has backing because it hasn't been mentioned is not backing. Its like claiming that because the rules don't say that you can't ice skate then you can.

My claim that its POV is not based in the eyes is because the rules describe it as a psychic sense that is not linked to physical sight.

it is backing, because such a difference would be extremely noticeable by anyone who uses astral perception. no where in the rules does it ever state that Ares employees walk on their feet instead of some other part of their body, but we still assume they don't because if they did, someone would have said something by now. if nothing else, it would show up as a modifier in astral combat, since a dual mage trying to fight an astral spirit would suffer a huge blow to his hand-eye coordination. it'd be like fighting while looking through a periscope.

And whats your refutation for my rules standpoint that says it is a psychic sense not linked to physical sight? Because the book didn't say it wasn't where your eyes are? Isn't "not linked to physical sight" enough for you?

it's not linked to physical sight. it simply has certain similarities to physical sight. other similarities include the fact that it provides a clear spatial understanding of one's surroundings, and the fact that it is completely blocked by obstructions, rather than being merely impeded (the way sound or scent are).

So does ultrasound, radar sensors, and echolocation. Is your claim that those methods are off a reference point of the eyes? No. They aren't located in the eyes, radar and ultrasound are headware. Sure, they might be wired into the optical nerves to send their data to the brain that way, but their POV isn't located at the eyes. (Unless its computed and changed after data is received to appear as though it was, something magic can't do). Echolocation is based in the ears. You still have a clear spatial awareness (which is blocked by obstructions). In fact, echolocation seems to be a lot more like how astral perception is blocked, in that any object (clear or not) blocks perception, the same as it blocks echolocation.

By this, I mean, if you have a glass case with a jewel in it. You can look inside and see it. If you are blind however, you can perceive, and see a glass box in the middle of the room, probably with some greedy attached to it. Or, you can echolocate, and know of a box in the middle of the room. Neither one tells you whats inside.

So, because astral perception has similarities to sound (particularly echolocation) why not base it the same as echolocation, within the ears?

Yeah, ok.

all of the senseware you mentioned is specifically noted as being located somewhere other than the eyes. no such notation is made for astral perception. all that is said is that astral perception is not linked to physical sight--which doesn't, as i've demonstrated, preclude them from having similarities.

No, but astral perception is described as being a psychic sense.
Sight is a visual sense.
Hearing is an auditory sense.
Touch is a tactile sense.
Smell is an olfactory sense.
Touch is a tactile sense.

Why should astral perception being a psychic sense be tied to where these other senses are?

Edit: And where does it say the things required for echolocation aren't located in the eyes?