Mage A (Attacker) wants to cast a direct combat spell (i.e. Stun Bolt) on Mage T (Target).

Mage A is astrally perceiving, Mage T is not astrally active.

Mage T is invisible, so Mage A cannot see him physically.


Can Mage A attack Mage T with that spell?

If so, are there any visibility modifiers applied (i.e. blind fire)?

Bye
Thanee

When mage A didn't make his spell resistance, no. No he can not target mage T directly.

So he better has an indirect spell, or begins to counterspell (or destroy) the invisibility spell of Mage T.

Invisibility affects sight; astral perception is not sight. T is a valid target for A. In addition, since spellcasting is not a task penalized by the astralperception modifier, there is no visibility modifier for that.

No, i don't think so... If you see something with astral sight you cannot cast on him on the physical. Astral sight is your sense in another world. If your target is "not really there" (He is not astrally active) your spells cannot connect. And your sense in the "real" world is blocked by the spell. So you cannot connect via that either.

I really think Mage A has to take down the invisibility spell first (Spells are always astrally active), OR he can AIM using astral sight, but it has to be an indirect physical spell. (Like firing a gun with astral sight).

You can shoot guns with Astral Perception. You can certainly cast spells, as long as the LOS is not physically broken.

Of course you can (like i wrote)... but not DIRECT spells. If he could do that, he could cast manaspells out of the astral space, which i hope we can all agree on, nobody can.

He cannot enchant somebody with astral sight either. He needs to SEE him, OR have access to an astrally active aura. If the Target Mage is not active AND invisible.. you can know exactly where he is... but he is untouchable to direct combat spells.

Astral entity and physical are seperate (Only in the case of a projecting or perceiving mage they share effects.)

Ah, sorry. I see what you mean now. I misunderstood your point. Someday I'll learn how to read.

You do not have to be astrally active for a mage who is astrally perceiving to target you via your aura.

It's a tough question. One answer is that that's what indirect spells are for. Another answer is that a ruling like that makes blind mages way less appealing. Would you really rule that a physically blind mage who is astrally perceiving couldn't cast a LOS health spell on a friendly target? I would not.

Blind mages shouldn't be appealing. But that doesn't answer the question, I just felt it was important.

Yes they should. It's a cool character concept. It has fairly potent drawbacks. Like "Oh no, there's a projecting mage and he's going to pelt me with mana bolts! I better stop perceiving!" And then you're just blind. It's certainly not game breaking, and it would be fun to play.

That's *why* it shouldn't be appealing. It's all drawbacks.

runners with all strengths and no weaknesses = boring.

Psh, that's not the point. Blindness shouldn't be a reasonable (appealing, fashion-accessory) option; it should be a crippling problem to be dealt with. You don't pick it because you're *bored*.

6BP!

I even played a blind man once. Ki-mage (mystic adept). And no: Of course i couldn't shoot mana spells into people with astral sight. It really isn't that of a drawback though. Good aim and a nice, realistic force for some manipulation spells makes good combat too (Played that in 3rd ed. It is now indirect combat spells, but stay true). All other buffs/healings/perception based spells you can bestow per touch. (The spells which you have to modify for that even lose drain value.)

But remember: +2 for physical action... so you better fight at least with a sword or a staff/Naginata etc. But nowadays it is just 2 dice you lose... so you lose nearly no effectiveness.

No.

He can't cast manaspells out of astral space, because magic doesn't cross from astral to real space, not because there are any issues targetting.

I want to say there was faq concerned with targetting spells using other senses, and it was considered valid with appropriate modifiers. Astral perception is another sense, and it very clearly will "see" the invisible mage. I don't see the problem.

Yes. There are no modifiers.

Any mage can use astral perception to target. An astrally perceiving, but not projecting, mage has the choice of casting on the astral or mundane plane. The invisibility only renders the target invisible to normal sight, not astral perception. In fact both the target and the invisibility spell itself are visible to astral perception. Since the astrally perceiving mage can target the opponent, and can cast the spell, and there will be no negative modifiers for performing a magical action while astrally perceiving, the spell can affect the target.

That is true if the casting mage is astrally perceiving as a result of astral projection. However, if they are only astrally perceiving they can choose to cast in physical or astral space. An astrally perceiving mage who is not projecting can be considered dual natured for most matters.

Well, i see your point (And i am aware that i am going against the F.A.Q.... should have mentioned that, sorry *g*). But for me it is clearly an artificial created rule, created to please everyone and breaks the fluff.

It is often noted that astral sight isn't sight at all but an undescribeable OTHER sense. It can be thought of as the OTHER sight. If you "see" something in astral you don't have to see it in the real world. You do not gain line of sight on the real world, but on astral, which means you have to cast a direct spell ON THE ASTRAL... and since he isn't active, you cannot. If you were to allow line of sight through other means (senses) it would mean that people could cast through hearing/smelling someone, radar, divinations, perception spells. It just isn't consistent and you cannot just make exceptions everywhere you like because it is inconvenient for a character.

Yes, blind ghouls/others have to touch or use indirect spells, their bad.

I always took the "line of sight needed" for something else than just "knowing where he is" of course. And that is what i based my argument on. But without that one logical jump CHAOS would ensue... since you COULD just blind cast direct spells otherwise.

I agree complete, I was only reponding to Summerstorm's claim that "Allowing astral perception to target ----> allowing astral to physical casting

We've had this discussion before. The rules say "An astrally perceiving (or otherwise dual-natured) magician can cast spells on a target in either the physical world or in astral space." However, this doesn't make it clear whether that means 'direct spells at physical targets'. It could just mean 'dual-natured is dual-natured, so he has 2 spaces to act on'. The preceding and following text imply that physical LOS is required for physical targets, and astral LOS for astral forms.

IMHO line of sight is a misleading term because, if taken literally no mage could ever cast any spell on the astral plane but touch range spells. Astral Perception is most definitely not sight and as such cannot satisfy that literal condition of LOS. Line of Perception would be much more appropriate.
As for not being able to target mundane targets with astral perception, I think such an implied drastic deviation from what is actually written in the books should be mentioned explicitly.
What we have in the books

• Unless the spell is touch range anything the mage can perceive can be targeted.
• The mage must be magically active on the same plane as the target.
• Astral Perception means magical activity on both planes
• Activity means being able to cast spells.
• Unless the mage is a dual-natured critter he can only perceive the astral plane.

I just had an idea: If you actually needed mundane perception to cast a spell at a mundane target the mage could not cast any spell on the physical plane. Astral perception means that he cannot perceive the real world any more, so he won't even be able to cast touch spells, as all he could feel would be the astral "touch". This interpretation clearly contradicts being able to cast on both planes. So in conclusion astral perception must satisfy LOS even for a totally mundane target.

I think all that does is tell us that the 'perception shift' must not work as written, not that Astral Perception is being used for physical Touch spells. Is this an important use-case, though? Do people cast a lot of touch spells in physical space while astrally-perceiving? I'd be fine with that *not* working.

I'd much rather not have Astral Perception be an almost-zero-tradeoff option. I mean, why do we even have mages getting cybereyes and things? At worst, they can avoid being 'open to the astral'.

By RAW all senses are replaced by astral perception, this includes touch.
The thing is, if this does not work, there will be no casting at all on the physical plane while the mage is perceiving astrally. Or more correctly there will be not targeting. If it does work, astral perception satisfies LOS for mundane targets.

There can be just as many negative modifiers on the astral plane as on the physical. Look at Street Magic p. 114. And then there is the vulnerability from both planes. Hardly a zero-tradeoff option.

Fluff "The act of choosing a target establishes a mystic link between caster and target."

In any case, the rules don't say you cannot or that you can. I'll go with long standing tradition and previous versions, and the assumption that LOS includes astral perception as a targeting sense as a shorthand, since otherwise you could not target any astral target with a mana spell on the astral plane.

Astral perception must satisfy LOS otherwise a mage could not cast a LOS mana spell on the astral plane against an astral target.

I don't think anyone's saying that Astral Perception doesn't give LOS for astral targets.

I said 'almost-zero', and specifically mentioned being 'vulnerable' to the astral. That doesn't mean that Astral Perception isn't basically super-vision, with the minor problem of windows. The astral visibility penalties are usually less than the regular senses. Certainly better than smoke, thermal smoke, darkness, etc.

What's usual will probably vary but even without background count, the astral visibility table can get you up to -10. total darkness/blindness is -6
Heavy smoke/fog is -4, less for augmeted vision, being in the jungle (which should be crowded with living creatures) is -4 as well.

Right. Usually, you're not in the jungle. You're usually not -10. You're usually talking maybe -2 for the 'concentration' penalty (that is, the exact same as augmented vs. problems), and possibly -1 (or +1) for locational weirdness. Urban with a mana ebb would be a *bonus*, which certainly doesn't happen with smoke/etc.

Be honest, none of this '-10' silliness.

So, it will work then.

Thanks for the replies, guys!

Bye
Thanee

Correct. According to Street Magic's spell design rules under LOS, astral perception satisfies drawing LOS.

And also for the record, an astral caster can indeed use mana spells on a target in the physical plane if the target is dual-natured or a mage that is astrally perceiving.

I don't understand that statement. Are you talking about a astrally perceiving or projecting caster? In the former case it does not matter which plane is used, since both the caster and the targets are active on both planes. In the latter case he can't cast the spell on the physical plane, but since the mentioned targets are active on both planes he can still affect them. That was not the problem of the thread though.

An astrally projecting caster can target an astrally perceiving target with mana spells.

Page 191 SR4A last sentence, second to last para.

I mentioned it because incorrect statements were thrown out there regarding this also.

Astral perception makes a magician vulnerable to mana effects from the astral plane whether it is Stunbolt, astral combat, or Fear ALONG with vulnerability to the physical plane---guns, Fireball or Elemental Attack.

Okay, but the real question is if an astrally perceiving mage can target non-indirect spells at a non-astral, physical target. That is, does astral perception count as physical sight.

Unfortunately I do not have Street Magic on me or the ability to paste from pdf, but in the spell design section under LOS, astral perception is stated as a means of establishing LOS. Plus isn't this covered under the astral perception rules in SR4A page 191? magical activities are all good and physical activities take a -2 dp when astrally perceiving...

Correct.
Nope. The confusion comes from the fact that the rules only state that you can cast spells on either plane when astrally perceiving, they never say that you can use astral perception to target targets on the physical plane.

It is ambiguous on p191, as on Street Magic, p160: the fact that astral perception is LOS (which I don't think anyone doesn't agree with) doesn't mean that it counts as physical LOS. There's no reason astral perception wouldn't give LOS for *astral* spells, but it's not actually stated that it does so for physical spells (that is, spells cast at physical targets).

One problem, I think, is inconsistency. Astrally-perceiving mages are called 'dual-natured', but they're really not. Real dual-natured entities use astral 'sight' and physical senses at the same time. Mages *must* switch between one or the other. This conflicts with the rules quote that Dakka Dakka just mentioned, which is a problem (as he also explained earlier in the thread).

But, apart from that, we could propose a blind, deaf, etc., astrally-perceiving mage, still with a physical-only target in front of him. I want to *know* if he can target with astral sense alone, as if he could simply see. It's not directly, unambiguously stated, and it seems like the strong astral/physical duality in the setting would preclude it. (With, of course, the exception of 'gun-like' Indirect spells.)

But I think the reason is because you've created an artificial category that didn't exist, physical LOS. It's not mentioned anywhere in any of the rule books.

A direct damage spell requires LOS
Astral Perception counts as LOS
Astral Perception satisfies the LOS requirement.

I have a hard time understanding how it could be more complicated than that,

Don't be ridiculous. On the astral, astral perception gives LOS. On the physical, physical perception gives LOS. This is why a projecting mage can't cast into the physical. Obviously 'LOS' isn't enough for a non-astral target, because the Perceiving mage and the Projecting mage are seeing the same target.

The question, which is *not* clearly answered, is if astral perception can cross (presumably by virtue of the mage's physical presence).

exactly. Do you count him as being physically active for LOS purposes because his spirit is in his body, and his body is physically present & awake? I think so.

And I'm happy to be convinced that's the case. A sentence in the book would do nicely. :/ I'm equally happy to be shown that it's not the case, and there's a strict astral/physical delimitation, which makes sense with other setting elements, and game balance.

By definition Mana spells require LOS to acquire a target. The rules also state an astrally perceiving mage can cast mana spells ate purely astral targets. The rules also state an astrally projecting mage can cast mana spells at a purely astral target. For all mana spells with "LOS" for targeting astral perception is valid. We have a complete category of spells for which "LOS" effectively means "Astral Perception"

We also have an explicit statement that all mages using only astral perception and not projecting can cast spell on the physical or astral plane.

There is not statement explicitly stating that astral perception works as well as normal vision for "LOS" for physical spells, and one won't appear in the books now to answer your argument. However, all the direct examples and other inferences fall on the side of astral perception being sufficient for establishing "LOS" for the mystical link between caster and target for an astrally perceiving mage using a physical spell against a physical target.

It would be interesting if you could find an example where it cannot happen, or implies it doesn't happen, rather then using the absence of a direct positive statement to support your position.

The book also doesn't tell me not to drop orbital cows on PCs. So therefore I can.

Ok, I'll concede I was being a little cute there. Also the more I think about it the more I can see why it's just weird. But the difference between Perceiving and Projecting is like the difference between being caught between floors in an elevator, and having moved to the next floor. Of course you can't shoot someone when you're on a different floor, but when you're in between, you can.

Of course it gets weirder, since the floor is made of bullet proof one way glass. And you can't actually see on the floor below. So the analogy isn't perfect. But it makes sense to me?

Hm hm... I can even state for me: Even IF somewhere in the book it clearly, absolutly stated WITH EXAMPLE, that it does work, i will not allow that in my game with the words: But that is bullshit. Of course i see why people would want it to work and why rules HEAVILY imply it (I think the writers think it might work), but it just isn't really consistent. There is a hard line between the astral world and the physical one, and you have to obey the rules for transitions.

But ah well, as long as we all be fine with our rules, everything is good. (And to be honest: How often does that happen? You are astral (vulnerable, but can better see with astral than normal in a fight) and intent to use direct spells?)

Happened on my second run. Actually encouraged to happen by myself and the rest of the team. We dropped smoke down to block vision, the ork gunbunny was running thermo and the mage (my character) was running astral perception. dropped a pair of guards using manablast, and then the ork dropped some long bursts to clear the rest of the opposition, and the rest of the run was easy peasy.

No.

The reason why a projecting mage may not cast into the physical plane is because he is not active in this plane. Just think of it as a basic game balance issue: if they can't shoot you, you can't fry them.

Maybe so, Traul, but it's not explained. The blind (etc.), astrally-perceiving mage is active in the physical, but can't sense it at all. He senses it exactly as if he were projecting; that is, he sees an astral *shadow*, not an astral form. It's not clear that you can 'establish a mystical link' with an astral shadow.

Um, you *can* drop cows from space. What's the problem? This is not a question of physically-logical options that aren't explained. The topic is talked all about, but with contradiction and ambiguity. I can easily see either side being right, and I'm hardly the only player in that position.

So true.