Still haven't see a rules quote saying it comes form that location. You think they would mention that contacts blinded you when you go astral perceiving, it is kind of a big issue.

The rules say that cover works the same way as it's physical counterpart. That assumes that the angle of vision would have to be the same as well. I already quoted the relevant rules section before.

You quoted nothing relevant. Unless you provide a quote that states astral perception happens from the same location as the eyeballs you have nothing. You decided to make the assumption that is where it is located, but nothing in the rules back it up. In fact the lack of mentioning this fairly important fact of a very common item runners use would indicate that your assumption is wrong. The angle of vision does not have to be exactly the same in order for cover to have the same effect. Hey feel free to house rule this and run your game that way, but it is not RAW, it is your own personal take on things that are not there.

You don't quite grasp the concept of occam's razor, so you? And you don't seem to realize that the rules don't expressivley allow you to cast throughh glasses while astrally perceiving either.

Burden of proof is a funny thing.
The null hypothesis is not the one most people favor (that would an argumentum ad populum/numerum, another logival fallacy), but the one requiring no change (or the one supported by occam's razor in the case of none available with no change). The burden of proof lies with the alternate hypothesis, not the null hypothesis.
To put this in a different wording: the burden of proof lies with the alternate assumption, not the base assumption. As the rules specifically mention that cover works the same way on the astral plane as on the physica plane (meaning physical objects provide the same visual cover on the astral plane than they would on the physical plane), even using the same table for cover, the base assumption is that the astral "vision" and the physical vison overlap. That requires the same point of origin or at least a comparable point of origin. The point of origin refers to the relative location, not a common source.


Incorrect and I already proved it incorrect.


No, it would not. It would indicate the lack of a special ruling. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


They need to be comparable and considering the lack of negative side effects the base assumption is that they fully overlap. If you believe differently, have at it, hoss, but the burden of proof is on you.


The RAW support the conclusion. I even quoted the relevant section.

For some strange reason, I keep having an image of a rubber ball and glue being involved in this thread.

So, the simplest explanation (to fit Occam's razor) is to use angles based upon real world vision in regards to cover, even though there's a very simple phrase which points out astral perception isn't sight based? Seems like the latter is the simplest explanation here.

I have to agree. If it clearly states it's not 'sight' but some sort of qusi-mystical 'perception' or 'sense' then that works well.

Quote mining doesn't help. Context is relevant. And the rules specifically mention that the rules for cover apply equally. It's not about sight, it's about angle. Also, notice that in the description of the astral plane in the SR universe, they still refer to astral "light sources".

It is amazing how you can quote one part that fits your argument, but simply ignore the other one that completely contradicts it.

To put it bluntly, astral perception is a purely psychic sense. It has no more reliance on your eyes than hearing, touch, taste, or smell does. It's a completely different sense. The only reason you see references like "light" and "vision" is because that's the simplest way to explain a sense no one actually has. And, being creatures who's dominant sense is vision, naturally that's the one we'd use to explain it.

It wasn't meant as quote mining, especially considering I didn't quote anything. Although, it probably would have been clearer if I had.

Though I have to admit, I've always used it as the good Doctor described. A purely psychic sense. Honestly, without seeing anything very specifically answering it in RAW (as in, spelling it out bluntly "Hey, glasses don't work, man") it seems like there's a lot of room for interpretation.

Sure I grasp it. And the simplest answer is if this were the rule it would be specifically mentioned not have to be extrapolated from the assumption the psychic sense comes form the exact same location as the eyes even though cover modifiers would be the same if it game just generally form your head. And no it is not the simplest answer to say it comes from your eyes because it is a psychic sense that covers all the senses and ones you no one has. It is not the simplest solution to assume a mystical sense comes from a location we know a lot about like your eyes.



No burden of proof applies to you because you are making the rules assumption based on a fairly absurd idea. It is not mentioned that contacts interfere in any way and again your assumption that the general rule applies here is bogus, because 1 it is not from the eyes, 2 general rules are reiterated when they apply to non-obvious rules if they are intended to apply there, and this isn't. All it would have taken is under the astral perception description when they mention glass to say this means wearing contacts blinds you astrally, when they don't say that if means its because you aren't blinded. Why because since they never mention where a psychic sense is located you need to know that little detail.



No it is correct, and not proven wrong.



Depends on the situation. Lack of evidence in something fully covered sure, but when details like where the psychic sense is located is not covered you kind of need evidence to prove your point.



Um comparable could be anywhere on the head, they don't need to perfectly overlap. And again the burden of proof is on you since you are the one trying to extrapolate something from assumptions to make a rule that is not stated.



The RAW supports that contacts do not block astral perception, you quoted a totally irrelevant section because it is laced with a core incorrect assumption that a psychic sense that isn't vision comes from the same location of your eyes.

Edit to add if this is an april fools gag, you totally got me.

That point isn't even being debated. It amazes me how often you (plural) bring it up, when that little fact is irrelevant to the question.



If there wasn't we wouldn't have this disuccion

@ShinobiKillfist:
Yes, it would suffice if they overlap. The further it moves away from the physical sense, the further away your additional, nescessary assumptions move away from the physical equivalent.

I am tired of rehashing the same exact argument over and over, since the two of us are simply running in circles here. We're currently in a rather elaborate case of "You! No, You!". There is no way we can settle this.
Thus, the bottom line is as follows:

-Whether astral perception is impared by physical visual aids is not covered in the rules.
-Physical visual aids are opaque on the astral plane.
-The rules for cover from physical objects on the astral plane follows the same exact rules as for physical combat.

Those are the indisputeable facts. We both have to agree on this, as those are the RAW.

The discussion we are trapped in is about the distance and location a physical object needs to have from the astral body to effectivly block "one's vision".

My interpretation required the least additional assumptions:
-Cover works the same way -> Vision works the same way.

Your version requires at least one additional assumption:
-Cover works the same way -> special rules for astral perception that have no explanation as to how they actually work -> Vision works a different way

You base your conclusion on two key factors:
1.) That astral perception is not physical visual perception (supported by the RAW) and therefore can have a different point of origin (not covered by the RAW and supported by non-SR concepts).
2.) Shifting the locus of astral "vision" from the area relative to the position of the eyes of your astral body (yes, your astral body has eyes, as is evident through the plethora of artwork in that regard) to an unspecified location bypasses the obstacle of the opaque barrier (visual aid) between the astrally perceiving character and the target.

Considering your entire argument hinges on astral perception being limited by obstacles in front of the eyes, sorry, but it's very much relevant. Nevermind that entities like bacteria -- which don't have eyes much less any other typical sensory organs -- can possess astral perception, thus driving the point home all the more. FAB strains II and III being a very notable examples of such a bacteria.

I would really like to see a age reference for the astral perception of FABIII. Not because I don't believe you, but because that is not how I remember FAB3 to work.
And the reason it is irrelevant is because the debate about astral perception is not about the physical eyes. It never was and it never will be. It is about the locus of astral vision.

Now you can plead a case that it doesn't have to be the same as for the physical vision and if you want to do that, have at it, hoss! However, you can quote "astral perception is not a physical sense" (paraphrased) as many times as you want and it it is still not relevant to the question as long as astral percpetion funtionally works the same as its physical counterpart (which is does, evidenced by the cover rules).
I cannot refute your claim that it has a different locus and therefore is allowed to bypass glasses. You can't prove it, either. And your model needs more additional assumptions than my model.

D2F, why are you being so stubborn on this? Setting aside the RAW for just a second, can you close your eyes or throw a blind fold on for a while and then form images in your mind from your other senses with a bit of imagination?

If you have to nail down one spot that is the location of the psychic sense, I would say it would be the brain/nervous system, the eyes being only one part of that whole.

If you really want to impede someone's astral perception with contact/glasses/goggles, make it someone trying to look at a person wearing stuff, but then you hit on that whole thing of auras "shining/glowing" beyond their clothing.

Heh, I just hit on thought, you know how it can be said the camera adds 10 lbs? I wonder how much "weight" a person's aura on the astral seems to put on.

But why are we bringing up the astral again? Doesn't the original idea of whether these things are interfering with a mage's sight because the implication that mages need ininterupted visual spectrum? If we are willing to accept that a mage can target with a periscope which uses a reflection (and you can go even further that seeing someone else is just seeing the light reflecting off of them), then why would seeing the interpreted visual mod ARs from the devices spectrum be any different than a mirror?

IMvHO, contacts/glasses/goggles would not block "mage (line of) sight" anymore than a reflective surface would when targeting from behind cover. Once a mage perceives a target, I would consider it targeted.

Because the arguments presented against my position so far have not been convincing. As I pointed out to ShinobiKillfist, however, I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this one (pun intended).



Do me a favor and don't go that route. The role of schemata, perception and the resulting misclaculations and illusions don't help in the question of targeting spells.
A little experiment for you:
Blindfold yourself, get a target dummy and try to hit it from afar, repeatedly. That's "Blind fire". Now try to get a better success rate by "tuning in on your other senses" beforehand. Good luck.
Btw, blind firing is not allowed for spells.


Even then, the glasses would be in the way.


To consider their goggles cover is absurd. And do me a favor and don't ask why. I don't want to lose my respect for you.


Heh, I like that, especially since the astral body (during actual astral projection) takes on a more idealized form based on their mental representation rather than their physical one. An astrally perceiving entity is a dual natured entity, though, not just an astral body riding in a physical one.


That argument stems back from older SR publications, where only optical aids could be used to target spells, but not electronic ones. The explanations as to why where rubbish, but it was a balancing decision.


Physical sight on the physical plane? No. Astral Perception, whole different ballpark. Why? They aren't transparent on the astral plane.

Just flip open Street Magic and find the entry. I don't have the book handy, but the very first line (if memory serves) tells you that it's dual-natured, which means it has astral perception. Both strains II and III are.


And, again, even creatures that don't have eyes by their very nature, are more than capable of possessing and using astral perception. Thus, quite obviously, it has absolutely nothing to do with your eyes let alone where your eyes are located. Since, you know, it's a psychic sense that is only (usually) described in visual terms due to our inability to fully comprehend a non-existent sense.

Keep in mind, also, that you're talking to someone who doesn't give a flip about "RAW" when it comes to things like this. Namely, things that aren't addressed by the actual rules, or are fuzzy and poorly thought out or described.

As a side note, there's nothing that I'm aware of that says you have to have cybereyes placed in your eye sockets. If you put them in your asscrack, are you really going to try and argue that your astral perception is now focused on your ass's perspective of the world simply because you moved your eyes there?

Er, I seem to have been misunderstood, I only brought up the use of still being able to picture/have imagery/symbols things in your mind when your eyes are closed as a way to demonstrate what I perceive in my imagination to be an approximation of what perceiving the astral with one's psychic sense must be like, not all too dissimilar to what I guess full VR must be like to a hacker in SR as well. I wasn't intending it to represent "blind fire", only the notion of that the pictures built in the mind from the data the eyes gather from the visible spectrum is not exclusive to the eyes alone. Thus being a example of why I think "psychic sense" is enough of a explanation for me as to how magic targeting goes down.

Heh, here I thought everyone was familiar with at one time trying to navigate a room in pitch dark or feel their way in a fight aka "blind fighting". I quite regularly tune in my other senses to build a picture in my mind of my surroundings in those situations. But I suppose you are referring to ranged combat, so if you will allow, I have tried throwing objects at things I have only heard or felt movement from the air before because I could not see them with my eyes due to low light or no light or no line of sight (aka behind me) situations. To hit at range in those situations, I have to picture my ranged object striking its target, just like when I practice.

And wait, what? You, some other poster from these forums, has respect for me and that respect is something that has value, so would be missed if lost? Oh my... I suppose it is telling that I am surprised, but I suppose net etiquette requires a certain amount of respect to exist between posters for a conversation of any arbitrary value to exist beyond trolling each other for the lawls.

No, that just means theyy exist on both planes simultaneously, which is why they are used for magical security. You are trying to attribute perception to a bacterium here.


Then quit arguing with me as I am only interested in the RAW. Everything else is absolutely pointless to argue. You want to argue house rules? Seriously?


The rules allow for placements on different body areas, like the back of your head o the palms of your hands. That, however, comes with negative modifiers.


The problem is that that "picture" is anything but an accurate representation of reality. The percept we create of our environment, lacking visual sensory input, is based on prototypes and schemeta that substitute the missing visual information to allow for a functioning percept. That is all still "blind fire" and as such does not provide the nescessary information to succefssfully target a spell.

I know you didn't propose that. What I am tryng to explain is why your excemple is not applicable to the situation.


Respect is earned, but in my naivety I assume that posters have earned a modicum of respect until they prove me wrong. Call me crazy



I'll leave the discussion be at this point, though. The same argument keep popping up and I am tried of rehashing them over and over again. In my previous post I listed the facts and various assumptions. Everyone can form their own opinion from that.

No, you're ignoring it because it completely and utterly defeats your argument. Being dual-natured includes astral perception. In fact, they use it to find their food sources. Despite, you know, not even having the capability of having eyes.


No, I'm here to discuss the game and to help make the game a better, richer, more sensible experience for me and the people I play with. I don't play with fucking robots. I play with people capable of formulating a thought on their own, not jacking off to the uselessness of "RAW only" crap. Acknowledging the rules is one thing (or lack thereof, which is what people like you tend to cling to as "RAW"), adhering to them blindly and without the use of a single brain cell is something else entirely, and telling people to fuck off for not adhering to them blindly is completely and utterly unforgivable.


So? Your argument says that if you put a pair of eyes in your asscrack, blammo, that must be where your astral perception is now focused. What about dual-natured beings that have eyes in even more exotic locations (such as lindworms), or no eyes at all (such as elementals and other spirits)? Why keep ignoring that? Oh right, nevermind, I already know. Because your argument is full of epic failure.

It's even more confusing because your argument also implies that if you do have cybereyes in an unusual location, a blindfold around your eye sockets should still blind you since, you know, the rules never say otherwise. 'Course, now that I think about it, I don't believe the rules ever go into the effects of putting a blindfold on someone. So hey, problem solved! You can wear a blindfold and still see just fine and dandy.

You're insulting my intelligence now. PHYSICAL bacteria don't have eyes, either and by you would still attribute perception.
Yet, you obviously don't even understand what perception actually is. What a sense actually is. Bacteria find food sources not through perception but through chemical interaction on non.conscious level. They don't have a sense because they don't have a nervous system. They are not able to create a percept in the first place, which is the basic nescessity for perception (where do you think the word "perception" comes from?).

I don't expect you to understand neurocognitive science as that is hardly relevant for an internet forum discussion, but don't insult my intelligence by arguing that bacteria have a perception of any kind. That's just infuriating. And since I don't expect you to be stupid enough not to now the difference, I attribute malicious intend to your actions.

You can disagree with me all you want, I don't care. That is your right to a personal opinion and the wondeful concept of freedom of speech, but to come here and downright insult me with this kind of argument, I take personal.


The "exotic locations" on other beings are completely irrelevant here. Yes they are, even if you kick and scream like a little fat brat in a candy store. Reason why? Because they also use a different angle for "cover" in the first place.
Now, with elementals you could have led an argument but since you can't specify their "visual locius" either, you have no basis for your argument other than "reasonable doubt". By your logic, a materialized spirit has a REALLY hard time seeing a physical target in a high background location. Where is your rules precedent for that? Oh, you have none? Gee, who would have thought... Silly me, expecting an actually substanciated argument from you.


Yeah, because a blindfold does not count as a visibility modifier. You just keep on insulting my intelligence.
You know what? Have at it, hoss! Go and scream until you're blue in the face. You're not worth my time.

That would kinda sorta be the point.

And unfortunately for you, you've clearly never bothered to read the omnipotent "RAW's" definition of dual-natured. I'll save you the time of flipping through your books. This is pulled from SR4A p. 294 where they list critter powers and define exactly what "dual natured" means: "Dual natured creatures have the ability to perceive and interact with the astral plane similar to characters using astral perception." Then you have Street Magic pp 126-127: "FAB II is dual natured" and "FAB III is a dual natured mutant variation..."

Uh-oh, Spaghetti-O. RAW 1, You 0. Sucks when someone fights fire with fire, huh? (And before you try, sorry: You don't get to cling to "RAW" as an all-mighty entity when it suits your argument, then dismiss it completely the moment it doesn't. By "RAW," FAB II and III can astrally perceive just fine. Funny how stupid the "RAW" is, huh?)


You're free to believe anything you like. We've already established that you're pretty much delusional -- err, I mean, far more advanced than any other sentient being known to man. But, uh, if simply pointing out how weak your argument actually is by listing several examples that directly contradict it is synonymous with "malicious intend," color me one malicious sum'bitch. Which shouldn't be hard since you already have.


Not to be contrary to your super-sized brain, but I'm afraid they are relevant. Especially if you bothered to look up any of the creatures I referenced. I have to admit, my feeble intellect is no match for your "cover" and "visual locus" ramblings, so I can't respond to any of that bullshit. But I'm pretty sure I know what my argument is and how it's contrary to yours. This being one of the big ones.


First, I'm not exactly sure how that's "my logic" whatsoever. What "my logic" actually said is that since elementals have no eyes whatsoever, yet are still able to use astral perception (and regular perception for that matter), your mentally defunct -- err, I'm sorry: you're mentally superior -- and completely unfounded 'argument' that astral perception is centered on the physical eyes of the subject is rendered completely, utterly, (and quite embarrassingly) moot. Since, you know, elementals and several other astrally perceiving/dual-natured beings don't have eyes.


I know! You can find visibility modifiers listed on page SR4A p. 136. I don't even see the word "blind" mentioned once. Not to insult your Godly intelligence again or anything, but I'm guessing you actually meant the Blind Fire ranged combat modifier. Which, you know, has nothing at all to do with perception by your all mighty "RAW." Nevermind, of course, the fact that your precious "RAW" even goes to specifically tell you (SR4A p. 191) that blind magicians can continue to use astral perception when blinded. Despite, you know, having their eyes covered with a blindfold. Or not having any eyes at all. Or any other definition of the word "blinded" you care to use. Not that most of those things actually stop you from using normal visual perception by the all-powerful "RAW," either. The point remains nonetheless.

But as I said, I wouldn't want to insult your grandiose intelligence by pointing any of that out. Especially since it's the single largest, most clearly defined, and blatantly obvious counter to your point in the entirety of the game.

So in summary, <shrugs>. It's not my fault you have a shitty argument that you can't maintain without flying off into ridiculous tangents that have no bearing on anything whatsoever. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out where you're coming up with this "visual locus" malarkey myself. Not that it matters to the discussion at hand whatsoever.

D2F, if I cover my eyes with glasses I cannot astrally perceive, yet if I rip my eyeballs out of my head I can astrally perceive? That is what you are arguing for correct?

If you could astrally preceive before, sure. But even with ripped out eyeballs, the glasses would still be opaque to you.

I completely agree the glasses are opaque to astral perception, but would I be able to astrally perceive anything else? You have been arguing the presence of an astrally opaque object in front of my eyes blocks my astral perception so that I cannot use it at all.

What if you put your ripped out eyeballs in a bag? Could you see though the bag? If glasses stop it, I think a bag would...

or do you need to hold your ripped out eyeballs in your hands and make them look around? Or stick them on your fingers like lil para-scopes?

What if you chuck one of your ripped out eyeballs over a wall could you astrally perceive over the wall? lol

Do you see how silly this is?

Wow...Why are you guys even still arguing with D2F on this. It is obvious all he is interested in is the RAW. It is obvious that he does not believe in interpreting rules that are fuzzy in any other way than his. It seems kinda obvious that he has never read a book outside of a SR book that deals with Astral perception or astral travel. And lastly....This debate soooo does not answer the OP's question. I only read this thread because I wanted to see how other GMs interpreted this rules fuzziness. But I got the comedy script of a lifetime.

Instead of quoting old books and stuff couldn't some one just theorize that maybe they stopped making the distinction between optics is because it didn't really matter anymore? Maybe the tech had achieved something much better than it was in previous editions. Since they do advance the tech and stuff as they keep writing stuff.

In my game I am just going to let the mages use their optically enhanced shades as normal because frankly....It Looks damn cool when the artist in our group draws everyone.


And one last thing D2F, My 4th edition book never once refers to Astral Perception as astral sight in that section. And according to the definition of Perception: the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. The glasses and the Contacts would not block astral perception.

But hey, it is your game, do what ever you want.

I still want to read how other GM's deal with the OP's question.

Not that hard to grasp, as I specifically said so. I even said that we won't meet common ground and I also said they should stop arguing with me if they are interested in arguing about house rules.


Wrong assumption. I had my fair share of an esoteric phase. Read up on astral projection, dream voyage, meeting your totem, ect. I was completely into it at that time. And I do understand where their interpretations come from.

However, those are not SR sources. SR is influenced by those sources, correct, but the ruling is not guided by those sources. They have less impact on SR rules than even the fluff sections in a SR sourcebook.

That's why I refuse to accept them as the basis for an argument. Itis literally the same as arguing that "according to Celtic lore, Banshees are spirits of dead women and are therefore not affected by nor carry the HMHVV".



"Vision" is the guiding theme in astral perception, as far as SR is concerned. That is not proof to support my assumption, but merely context. It also uses references to "ligh sources" on the astral plane, further supporting the "vision" theme.

Most importantly, however is that cover from physical objects works the same way on the astral plane. That requires a comparable relative orientation as the physical senses to remain true. Again, that is not a ruling, either, but the basis of my assumption.

There is no direct RAW reference that supports either assumption, neither yours, nor mine, nor anyone else's in that regard. Otherwise I would have simply quoted that section and be done with it.
My argument is a logical argument in nature and utilizes basic argumental logic to come to the most probable conclusion.


I let my players use it, as long as it is a visual aid in nature. That excludes things like Ultrasound and Ultrawideband radar. I don't see much of a balancing concern to not allow them to use Thermographic vision or Low Light vision, when thy could simply use astral perception for a comparable effect in the first place. It is an unnescessary hassle on the players in my opinion.
On a somewhat realted sidenote: I let them cast through glasses, while astrally perceiving as well.

Now that's comedy.

No, it's a house rule

Is it? I thought glass (and other transparent materials) were "astrally transparent" as well. Otherwise, you'd have a darn hard time building a lucifer lamp. Hell, apparently you can even make an "astral lens", since there's ways to take photos of astral impressions.

You are mistaken.

Which I have problems with as Astral Preception is a psychic sense, not a visual one. Thus visual aids do NOT block Astral Perception IMO.

Modern day psychics describe what they 'see' as a feeling or impression; some describe it as a picture in their mind or seeing with the mind's eye rather than the body's.

The descriptors for Astral Perception in SR4 all use visual as a descriptor because we are visual creatures in RL. Yet it ALSO clearly spells out that Astral Perception is NOT a visual sense but a psychic one that is perceived using the Mind, not the Eyes.

Because he can't even get that right as previously demonstrated? He only uses the "RAW" when he finds a sentence he likes. He otherwise ignores it, but still claims he's using it. Case in point: The astrally perceiving bacteria which is 100%, indisputable "RAW."

The simple fact is the rules clearly and undeniably say that you can use astral perception when you're blind. It doesn't say "when your eyes are damaged and you can no longer see." It doesn't say "when the optical connection between your eyes and your brain are damaged and you can no longer see as a result." It doesn't say "when you're blind, but only if something isn't blocking your eye sockets." It doesn't say "when you're blind, but only sometimes when it suits D2F's stupid interpretation of this rule." It says "when you're blind." Note the period. Considering that wearing a blindfold makes you blind, by definition, and that the rules specifically say that you can still use astral perception in such a scenario, somehow I doubt a pair of contact lenses or a pair of glasses are going to miraculously block your astral perception. Not that it should matter because the "RAW" tells you that you can still use it when blind.

And, frankly, when these "RAW" idiots go around demanding that you adhere to their retarded views and anyone who doesn't is utterly wrong and stupid, it pisses me off. Especially when they're so painfully and tragically wrong to boot, and/or include a "but you can do whatever you want in your games, just don't bring house rules here." Screw them.

Nevermind that it includes the equivalence of hearing, touch, and even smell in some descriptions of the rules. I know how often I use my eyes to smell people.

Go one step further with his supposition... put goggles on a ghoul. Now the ghoul is blind...

Think about that for a few moments...

Back yet? Yes? Good.

Here's the real occam's razor: Why make a magemask if all it takes to blind someone on the Physical & Astral is a set of opaque glasses or contacts?

Because they can shake their head to remove the glasses. The magemask is a little more robust, strapped on, and also makes it hard for them to concentrate by filling their ears with loud static.

(Not that I think that having glasses block astral sight is a good idea. Just popping in to answer the question.)

Because a magemask does a lot more than just prevent spellcasting. Surprised you didn't know that.

But you will note that there is nothing in the description of how a mage mask operates that indicates it blocks astral perception. It only mechanically does the following.

"Actions that a magician normally performs automatically,
like astral projection, require a Willpower + Intuition (4) Test."

Given that, someone could actually astrally perceive with the mask on.

In any case, I find the claim that the mere presence of a small astrally opaque object in the near vicinity of someone's eyeballs makes it impossible for someone to astrally perceive to be completely unsupported by RAW.

Yes, by RAW the glasses/contacts/goggles are traditionally opaque to astral perception, but that they have the power to turn off someone's astral perception by their physical location in relation to someone's eyes is totally unsupported.

It might work if the astral perceiver was entirely encased in a giant lens.

Like in the case of a magemask?

SR4A, p. 191: "Astral perception is a psychic sense that is not linked to the character’s physical sight. A blind magician can still magically perceive the astral plane and the creatures and auras within. Likewise, deaf magicians can “hear” in astral space."

There's RAW for you. Deal with it.

The main reason I'd never rule that a player was 'blinded' astrally by his sunglasses has nothing to do with the supposed location of the Astral Sense in the body

I'd never rule that way, cos it's stupid.




-karma

Well as far as the magemask goes. It stop spell casting because it blocks line of sight if I recall. Since , and correct me if I am wrong on this, You cannot target the real world from the astral unless there are specific circumstances.

Hell the static thing is just silly to me. I can meditate in the middle of a loud nightclub and do complex mathematics. Or does the static portion just give you modifiers. I forget and I am too lazy to get a book down.

As DireRadiant mentioned a short while ago, it gives you a Wil+Int (4) test to do anything requiring concentration.

Which just covers the head, and allows the wearer to do things they normally can do as long as they meet the threshold test. The mage mask does not entirely encase the mage.

"Actions that a magician normally performs automatically,
like astral projection, require a Willpower + Intuition (4) Test." Arsenal p. 66

You will note the example of astral projection.

Of course you can claim it doesn't specifically say astral perception, but astral perception is an action that a magician can normally perform, similar to how astral projection is something a magician can normally perform.

Since shifting to astral perception is a simple action, and astrally projecting requires a complex action, you could consider that shifting perception is actually easier (Though really all you can say is that it takes less time) then completely projecting.

"A Simple Action allows a magician to shift perception to or from astral
space. Actual astral projection requires a Complex Action." SR4A p. 179

I'm well ware of what a magemask can do given that I've been playing since SR1.

For what it's worth, your position on goggles/glasses/contacts is unsupported throughout the editions of Shadowrun. They simply CANNOT block the user's Astral Perception simply because they are opaque on the Astral.

To block being perceived with Astral Perception, one must have sufficient cover to hide behind AND prevents any part of you from being seen, heard, or otherwise perceived. Alternatively, there must be enough stuff obscuring the Astral Perception of the user (lots of mana, auras, lots of people, etc).

In a way, Astral Perception is much like Superman's senses. His senses are incredibly sharp. But he cannot see through lead. One episode made the mistake of putting the kidnap victim in a lead shielded room. But that didn't stop his other senses. He could still HEAR through lead without any problems. He just could not see through it.

Likewise, Astral Perception is a psychic sense (per RAW) which encompasses certain factors from all the normal senses but with an emotional slant. Thus the words on a sign don't mean much but the emotion they were written with speaks volumes.

Does a blindfold stop you from interpeting emotions? Does a mask?

Here's the explanation I gave my players when they asked about Astral Perception... The least problematic way to see (pardon the expression) Astral Perception is treat it like a visual sense that perceives Life, Auras, & Emotions rather than visible light from the EM Spectrum. It is affected by visual modifiers and the like BUT IS NOT Vision and does NOT come from the eyes but instead from the pyschic power of the Mage's mind. Thus hiding behind a wall helps to stop you from being perceived by Astral Perception just like it does against Perception (Physical Plane). Likewise blinding a person by stapling opaque contacts to their eyeballs doesn't stop their ability to astrally perceive.

One player said in return: "So it's just all the senses rolled into one, it detects life, emotion, and auras, and comes from the mind?"

If you want to block someone's Astral Perception, you need to ensure that none of the person you are attemption to block has any part of their person that is not under full cover. Toss the offending mage in a burlap bag or a locked coffin. No Astral Perception beyond the container for him unless he can poke a hole of some sort.

Don't forget though... such a container would NOT hold an Astrally Projecting mage at all. The Mage's form would pass right through the container without effort. Though he'd be unable to interact directly with the Physical, he could potentially get a spirit or two to come help him. A bound Mage is only slightly less dangerous (at best) than an unbound one. The best Mage prisoner is either drugged into a coma or implanted to ruin their Magic ability.

Here's a handy chart:

Vision = Eyes
Hearing = Ears
Taste = Tongue
Touch = Skin
Smell = Nose
Astral = Mind

Yes, cover works the same way. In SR if you are trying to perceive something in the "real" world and it is behind cover, you take a -2 modifier to your dice pool for "Interfering sight/odor/sound".

If the target (an as tral entity, present only on the astral plane) is behind the astral shadow of a storewindow, you cannot cast spells on it, because you don't see it.

The basis of my argument is the distance required for an interfering object to count as interfering. If the storewindow is 50m from you and the target is 1m behind it, he is blocked from your astral perception. Those are the RAW.
If the target is 500m behind the storewindow, he is STILL hidden from your astral perception, unless there is no roof above the storewindow.
If the storewindow is 1m in front of you and the target is 500m behind the storefront window (it's a really, REALLY large store), it would still be completely blocked from your astral perception (full cover = blind fire).
Now, if it is not a storewindow, but a steel beam that blocks LoS to the target, he would still be in cover. Cover is about LoS as much as it is about size, so the question is, at what distance do glasses (if any) become an obscuring obstacle in the LoS? That's the actual argument. How astral perception works, what organ (if any) is responsible, or how emotions are translated into perception while astrally paerceiving is not the issue. The only role they play in answering the question is how they influence the point of origin for your astral perception to validate whether LoS to the target can be established or whether it is fully or partially blocked by the shadow.
No, I cannot claim that the PoO is located at a position relative to the eyes, even though it is plausible, but neither can ANYONE claim to know where the PoO is.
However, it is relevant to know the PoO to properly assess the level of cover a target can call upon for defense.

I know a lot of people like to use the argument "well, it's magic". I don't accept "God did it" in a religious argument, either, so why would I (or anyone of sane mind) consider "it's magic" a viable, substantiated argument? It's an emotional argument, not a factual one and as such nil and void as a valid argument in ANY rational discussion.

Can I claim that my assumptions, related to the PoO of astral "vision" (related to targeting) are true? No. Neither can anyone else for their argument.
Also, astral perception is not just one astral sense, it is an amalgamation of multiple astral senses (otherwise astral shadows would be unable to block spell targeting). Neither the RAW nor the fluff contradict that. The description of astral perception includes "hearing" emotions, "feeling" emotions, "seeing" emotions (assensing), "tasting" emotions. Astral perception is a mystical reprsentation of the natural five senses in a psychic context. Not the means of perception changed, but the context (note: means of perception means the actual percept in this concext, not the physical stimuli or the reaction to them through physical receptors).

TLDR: At what distance from the astral body does an astral shadow become an obstacle for astral perception?

Enough to cover the entire body. And you provided the evidence when you said



Therefore unless it was completely in front of your entire body it would not block astral perception by your own explanation.

Also in the above you seem to want to use LoS as Line of Sight when in reality it is Line of Sense. When something not alive on the astral plane shows up as a solid object it means that you cannot sense through it. So if I hide behind a brick wall on the physical plane you cannot see me, but you can still hear me. On the astral plane you cannot sense me because the wall blocks your sensing. I could also be a mundane Troll and on the physical plane stand behind an Awakened Dwarf. You could see me on the physical plane but switch to astral perception and I would be blocked by the much brighter aura of the Dwarf.


Sure I can.



Different universal laws = not the same as the meat world. That states that astral "vision" does not come from the same area as meat vision.

Double post.....sorry

Is perception the same as line of sight? A perception test does not automatically fail if you do not have line of sight.

You say that it is relevant to know the PoO to properly assess the level of cover. Tell me, if someone had partial cover (up to 50% of his body behind something), would that change if the perceiver was a cyclops as opposed to a regular troll?

When you are trying to find something, are you standing perfectly still, or are you moving your head around, up and down, side to side? Where your eyes are at any given time is not going to be at the same place in space. How can the PoO of your "vision" going to make much of a difference if it comes from your forehead, a couple of inches away from your eyes?