All dual natured does is give them the same level of access to the Astral as they already have on the Physical. Note, it does talk about 'interact with the astral plane in the same way as characters using astral perception'. It doesn't say they get all the penalties for physical actions while astrally perceiving. It only states they what they can do with the Astral (ie: interact in the same way as astral perception).

I would hope it would spell out that they would be subject to the penalties. If it doesn't and should, then we have a horribly incomplete book...

Then again, I always ran it as they could see / interact with both planes at the same time. Much like if you are in low-light conditions and you have LL and Thermo vision mods. You could use both to get a better picture. In the case of DN, you'd see physical and astral as an overlay. Made it simple and easy to use while gaming. None of my runners at the time cared.

i said nothing of the sort. what i said was that no author has yet addressed the issue.

i will ask you the same thing i've asked everyone else who's said what you're saying: where in the text does it say that you can see through something simply because it's inside your aura?

i was amazed when this idea came up the first time. the fact that it's come up twice in one thread has seriously diminished my faith in humanity. for the love of mike, any moron can fold cloth so it's thick enough to block your vision.

This creates another little odd problem.

What about a blind mage that can still use astral perception as his eyes is of no use anyway for astral perception? Since normal sensory organs like sight does not count would a blindfold impede a blind mage?

I’m in that odd position that I agree with both sides in this discussion but I would like to see what can be done.

Would it be that the blindfold is just symbolic?

Fair enough, I'll buy that explanation. It is also a good balance. I stand by my earlier point that humans are people of habit and "looking" in one plane or another wouldn't change HOW they do it. And I usually treat astral perception akin to that of Augmented Reality or ultrasound, it's an overlay upon your normal vision for simplicity.

It doesn't. No more than the text states that blindfolds block Astral Perception.

But there aren't any rules that explicitly state the clothing you are wearing blocks or otherwise impedes your astral perception either.

So by virtue of it being clothing, you suffer no penalties.

Same justification you used to claim that blindfolds work (lack of rules stating otherwise).

Just to better understand your position, darthmord: Do you think that a blindfold doesn't block perception because it's within your aura, or because it's clothing?

• If I shove a mage in a sack, the sack isn't clothing, but it is within their aura. Can the mage percieve through the sack?
• I can imagine someone wearing an especially bulky modified diving suit that extended beyond their aura, while still being clothing. Could the mage percieve through it?

On a different (but related) subject, why'd they change the rules so that you can no longer percieve through transparent objects (like glass)? I really dislike this new ruling. Was there a balance problem with mages percieving?

My knowledge of RAW for SR4 is much weaker than was for SR3, so I need to ask if this is specifically addressed in SR4, or if it's your interpretation. From what I remember of SR3, clothing did not prevent a character from being seen, because the aura extended past the clothes (thus making Sec Guards in Full Body Armor still targetable). I don't remember them specifying that clothing did nothing to prevent you from seeing out (say if, for example, you pulled your jacket over your head.) Is it more clearly defined in SR4?

I'm well aware of that. You have to be able to perceive the aura in order to cast at the target.

It's just that a shiny piece of plastic will work fine as a mirror in the physical AND astral yet that same plastic transparent is fully opaque on the Astral.

It's not logically consistent with itself, especially in the face of the game world being based on the real world.

You know what else people don't have to undress totally to do? See with their EYES.

So, where does the assumption that you are seeing with your aura come from in the "don't need to undress to percieve" equation?

The fact that Astral Perception is specifically noted in RAW as NOT being tied to any physical sense / perception organs. It's fairly clear about that in SR4 / BBB and Street Magic, especially with examples of blinded / deafened mages still being able to astrally perceive without issue.

So if you aren't using your eyes or ears to perceive on the Astral, what are you using then?

Couple that with the fact that mages don't currently have to get nude to astrally perceive... means clothing is no bar to astral perception as I described above.

====================================

Here's a nice tidbit of info on Astral space, perceiving things, and astral shadows... from Augmentation of all books.

Kind of implies that your aura / form can push right through it... if you were one to call a blindfold an astral shadow.

yes, there are. clothing, like any other physical object, has an astral shadow. astral shadows impede astral perception. there are no rules explicitly stating that the astral shadows of physical objects lose their power to impede astral perception simply because you happen to be wearing them. what the rules state, on page 112 of SM, is that your aura can outshine the clothing that you're wearing. in other words, the visibility if your aura through your clothing is a property of the aura, not the clothing. the clothing impedes astral perception, but the brightness of the wearer's aura is such that it is visible even through that impediment.

You apparently take it to mean that, barring any requirements to conform with differences in local physical laws, a situation that provides cover on the physical provides the same degree of cover on the astral. And that's a logical reading within the 'astral eyes' context.

To my understanding, however (admittedly, colored by my notion that we're dealing with a fundamentally different process that, regardless, ultimately renders similar results), it's an imperative, rather than a declarative, statement. I think it's telling the reader to use the criteria presented on page 140 to, well, determine what cover applies on the astral, rather than saying "the situation is identical, barring specific exceptions" (why not just say so, otherwise, y'know?). Of course, I also happen to see cover cover more as a concept (stuff in the way) rather than a specific concrete situation (this stuff, exactly this much in the way).

However, I won't disgree that clutter != cover. Otherwise, there'd be little point in there being a separate 'shadow clutter' modifier on the astral visibility table. Though it does bring to mind the question why they're separated. If cover already applies, dumping the clutter modifier on top of it just seems excessive. And if there are enough astral shadows in the way to affect spell aiming with the same degree as cover (also up to a -4 mod), why isn't that just considered cover (as it's physical-world counterpart would be)? Ah well.

As for the clothing does/doesn't impede astral perception thing - well, again, depends completely on your reading of the text. Because you subscribe to the 'exact astral analog' concept, gloves will (and should) dull astral "textures" (a respirator would block astral "scents", earplugs stop astral "noises", etc.), just as a blindfold would block "visual" sensations. There's no explicit rule saying so or describing how much of a penalty is appropriate, but it's definitely consistent within the conceptual framework.

But when you're working from the idea that the sensory data is directly experienced 'psychically' (whatever that ultimately means) without actual sensory apparatus, a lack of listed impediments from the stuff you're wearing elsewhere (or even hints of same) indicate that it applies equally to all assensed data (including visual) - meaning that it doesn't affect anything. Again, there's absolutely no support, but it's conceptually consistant in the given context.

My suggestion and companion flaw interpretation:
Blind mage get's +2 p, right (I'm 2nd ed GM)?
Topic author mentioned he want to create blindfolded mage.

GM should negate's blind bonus for special advanteges for THIS character only:
he can see through his eyeband (interpretations: it melts wth his aura or whatever) and gets +2 (if somethig else block he's vision he can't see it).

If he want to cast spells using body (how he perceive? Like bat? sonar like perception? How it should work in astral? Will it work if normal mage install UV implant?)...
That's good question

Since you are so absolutely certain you are *that* right, then please provide the Book, Page, Paragraph, and Sentence indicating where it states definitively that clothing being worn by the Astrally Perceiving mage blocks his Astral Perception.

Note, I'm not accepting interpretation as you are making a declaritive statement about clothing. So kindly provide the declaritive proof.

I'll also take a moment to remind you of how my handle is spelled. Stop dropping the 'r'. Other folks have no trouble keeping the 'r' in place. You've done it repeatedly throughout the thread.

There, clothing is opaque on the astral and prevents targetting.

The rest of your statement makes no sense. There is not statement anywhere that worn clothing stops astral perception just as there is no statement that worn clothing stops normal perception.

This is because clothing is not worn in such a way to block vision, because that would be stupid.

Clothing is however a non-living, non-magical (usually) physical object, and thus falls under the normal rules for astral shadows.

This does not mean that the logical conclusion is that you are perceiving using your aura. Perceiving using your aura results in many bizarre things, such as astral perception through thin walls without projection, the ability to use your hands to look around corners, greatly negates the usefulness of magemasks and also results in a point of view shift, all things that are likely to have been mentioned if this were the case.

Many of us build quotes manually. I know that I spelled Caine's name with an extra "z" in it for a long time, I just mentally added it and didn't notice until someone pointed it out to me. It happens.

This is true, and with some words/names people expect them to run a certain way. I only realised you were darthmord when you pointed it out just then, in my mind I was certainly thinking darthmod.

But it says "...sticks its head through", not "...sticks it's aura through".

The only way I can stick my head through the armored plating of the drone would be if I were projecting, so I assumed that this quote was only applicable to a projecting mage.

Interesting note: this also implies that the projecting mage is percieving with it's astral 'head'. There's no mention of the mage being able to stick their astral hand through, or astral 'generic body part'. It's certainly not conclusive, but implies (loosely, I admit) that the head, or some specific part of the head, is the seat of sensory input for the astral form.

since you asked so nicely:

clothing, including clothing worn by the a mage, is made up of physical objects and is therefore opaque to astral perception. now, show me the exception to that rule--show me book, page, paragraph, and sentence where it says that clothing worn by a mage doesn't block his own astral perception.

i have already proven that clothing worn by an astrally perceiving mage blocks his astral perception by showing that all physical objects--including worn clothing--have perception-blocking astral shadows. you need to show me book, page, paragraph, and sentence where worn clothing is specifically excluded.

re: your name, my bad. at any rate, this argument devolved into ridiculousness and repetition about ten pages back, so i'm dropping it.

Like all things in all parts of the RAW, it seems still open to interpretation in both directions.

• It doesn't specifically say sticking a foot through the drone won't work.
• It doesn't specifically state that the back of the head will work.

...but for me, it's close enough. As I said in an earlier part of the thread, I don't have a problem with eyes vs head as being the perceiving POV. As long as there's no peeking around corners with your toe or seeing through walls with your interpenetrated aura.

Requiring pillow cases over heads to block perception vs blindfolds is a trivial matter in my mind, and the eyes and the head are close enough that POV isn't substantially different.

I might care about 360 degree vision, except that there are no facing rules anyway, so it would be abstracted away regardless.

Act as if you haven't done the same thing for the countless number of pages of this thread all you like. You spewing out the same, tired diatribe that has -no- solid backing in the rules is no different than anyone else doing the same thing. No matter how glorified and righteous you think your opinion is in your own head.

We have. Repeatedly and exhaustively. Your denial of those facts and solid backing by the rules as written is no more greater than the denial others have of your theories and house rules.

Which is exactly why I gave up posting regularly in this thread. You go on with your constant repetition, everyone else goes on with theirs. You, of course, try to pretend that your view is the only sound one regardless of how ridiculous and contrary it is to both the exact text and the spirit of the actual rules, while most everyone else (myself included) point to the actual rules and even admit that it's not spelled out in detail, but is pretty damn clear in context.

You're free to interpret it however you want in your game, and to rationalize it however you need to in your head. That doesn't make it right. Not by a long shot. Especially when you get ot the point of stomping your foot angrily and demanding people give you quotes that they've been giving you for pages and pages of this conversation that you're denying like a two-year old toddler and then complaining because they're giving you exactly what you keep demanding.

It lists what is permitted. Sticking the head head through provides LOS. Thus, the head is the perception point for astral perception. It doesn't specify eyes, thus it is not exclusively the eyes. It doesn't specify foot, thus it is not the foot. It specifies head. This would include any part of the head.

The biggest upside to this is mages with contacts/glasses/goggles can still perceive and act just fine. Blindfolds do nothing, yet magemasks are still useful. Wow, it even is consistent with how the world is described.

the hell i have. yes, i'm basing my conclusions on a few small points. that's because i find these points to be the most relevant ones to my argument. that's completely different from what you and others are doing, which is to ignore the points i make. i have provided a response to every single point anyone in this thread has made. if my responses have been unconvincing, fine--disprove them. but don't tell me i haven't been responding when you don't even have the common courtesy to read the responses i've posted.

Not bothering to repeat myself every time you reply with the same tired, unfounded response is not the same as not reading what you have to say. Nor does you replying with something mean it's been successfully and completely retorted, no matter how much you think of your own opinion.

I also haven't said you haven't responded. I've said you keep responding with the same unfounded house rules and weak arguments you have since the very beginning. The rules are blantantly clear; Astral Perception is not linked to physical sight -in any way- and is -completely psychic- in nature. Apparently, that's not good enough for you. They have to write something asinine like "duh, that means it's not linked to their eyeballs, eye sockets, or anything even remotely related to physical sight (just like we previously said) in any way, shape, or form."

Translation: Whatever.

To be fair, specifically stating that you need to stick your eyes through would be an awkward turn of phrase. I know where I constructing the same kind of statement I would most likely have used head, and gone with the implied assumption that you mention sticking your head through, because it means you are sticking your eyes through.

But this thread is really over (I hope), I don't agree that it is the entire head or anything, I primarily was posting because the whole clothes don't block astral perception line of reasoning was something I felt I could not let pass.

Actually, no you haven't. No one has made any mention to a point I have brought up repeatedly that falls into the category of disproving the Astral Perception = eyes argument.

Astral Noise is a visibility modifier when perceiving, noise affects your ability to perceive on the astral (including targeting). And since noise cannot possibly be explained or sensed with your eyes then that means that in the astral you are not perceiving with your eyes. How does that not prove that the Astral Point of View is not based in the eyes?

Isn't noise a 'visibility' modifier when it comes to things like Ultrasound Vision?