Guys! Help me out with a question which cropped up during a game a couple of nights ago.

If you cast Control Action or another mind control type spell against a target, and the range is LOS, is your dice pool to cast the spell modified by lighting modifiers (low light etc.)? And can you use non-cyber vision enhancement aids to compensate for the lighting conditions?

I realise that you can't cast a LOS spell at a target if you aren't in their physical vicinity, and if you can't see the target. But are my friends right when they claim that you can't use i.e. a pair of contact lenses or glasses with thermographic or low-light vision to assist you seeing your target? And are they they right that your spell casting pool is modified by the lighting conditions (assuming you can't see the target on the Astral plane)? I can get why you need to be able to see the target, in order to target it, and I can get why it might play a role if you are using a spell that somehow "shoots" from you, and needs to "hit" the target. But a mental spell? Something that lashes out against a person's mind?

I've been looking for some sort of rules that support a ruling either way, but I haven't managed it yet. What's your oppinion, and can you point to a place in one of the books that deals with this?


/Kyrel

You cannot use "Non-Natural" aids to lighting to cast a spell, otherwise Magicians could just cast through a 'Trid display on a phone call. If the Magician in question has Bioware/Cybernetics that helps them see, then that is considered "Natural" as they paid for it with Essence.

The "Line of Sight" has to be the light that comes reflects off the person and hits the magician's eyes, without electronic filtering. That means Night-Vision Goggles are No-Go, but Fibreoptics are (As the light is just bouncing around a bunch of mirrors in a Kevlar-protected cable.).

Kind of makes Troll and Dwarf Mages have a major advantage, eh?

Low-Light would make the Non-Low Light/Thermographic Magician have "Less Range", but other than that, there would be no dice pool modification. If I were GMing, I'd rule for a Perception Test to make out the figure in darkness to allow the spell to happen in the first place.

Yes, this makes Magicians powerful. That's why the first rule of combat is "Geek the Mage."

Yes. All those enhancements are electronic. If they worked, cameras would work too, and you don't want to see where that leads: micro drones used as spotters for the F12 Manabolt

Yes. That's only fair: anything based on sight is subjec to the visibility modifiers.

It is all written in the magical section of the book, in the detailed description of spellcasting.

Be a meta, get cybereyes, or a Detection sustaining focus.

"If they worked, cameras would work too, and you don't want to see where that leads: micro drones used as spotters for the F12 Manabolt devil.gif"

Traul. I've already agreed that the idea of sitting across town and targeting a person through a camera (dronemounted or whatever) is stupid and neither do nor should work. But my argument is that when you are in the same place as the target, and are able to see it with your own eyes already, what the hell is the problem with improving your vision by using technology to refine your picture of the taget? Especially when you can use the exact same technical aids if you have them as a 'ware implant!

I realise you can argue that it's a game balance thing, but consider the situation from a point of logic for a moment. I can see him already, hence I can target him. If I put on these goggles with an ultrasound enhancement I can see him clearer, but now suddenly I can't attack him, despite being able to do it if I don't put on the goggles!? It isn't making bloody sense. Especially when I can use the same technology to improve my vision and target him, provided that the technology has been implanted into my eyes, rather than being in a pair of glasses I put on.

There is nothing to argue here: it is all written in the rules, it is cristal clear and it has been a milestone of the setting for longer than I have been playing (so SR3 at least, which makes me still a kid on these boards ). I was merely trying to sugar-coat it with fluff, not to argue anything. You might not like it, but that does not change anything to the fact that you friends are dead right.

You're arguably right Traul. From a rules perspective the general consensus seems to be what my friends claim, and peace be with it. The "fluff" part for why it supposedly work like it does, just doesn't make any bloody sense to me, based on a logic perspective. And I find that annoying.

But anyway. I have my answer, so thanks for the quick replies

The logic is that the 'Ware was paid for with Essence, and is therefore "Living," for all intents and purposes, while the technology is not "Living", so it cancels out the ability to spellcast through it. Sorry if that grates, but it has been a standard of the game since first edition if I remember correctly.

After all, if it didn't, then all you'd have to do to permenantly prevent a magician from ever casting a spell again (Without assensing) is take out their eyes.

"Did you sterilize the spoon?" "I spit on it and wiped it clean with my shirt." "Close enough."

If you're in a position to remove a mage's eyes, you have all the options you need anyway.

Indeed, once captured, the possibilities are limitless...

Very true.

"Man, why does my Hoop hurt so much... And what's this? A card? 'From Bubba the Love Troll'? OH FRAGGING HELL!!!"

The cyberyes become your eyes when their implanted meaning they directry interact with your visual cortex, the gogles on the other hand draw a picture into a monitor in front of your eyes no different then a matrix camerafeed.

Logic is a funny word, which is often used as "see I am right".
But magic has his own rules so you have to use "logic" on them.

The magic rules say: Magic can only be targeted by natural vision (or tech paid with essence for).
This is a statement of the rules.
So the logical conclusion is: If you have a contactlinse(electronical) between you an your target, you can not target it with a spell.

From a logic perspective, based on natural science, magic should not work at all.
So take your pick.

Irion, pls. don't come with the "there are dragons and magic in the game, so no other forms of natural laws or things you'd considder common sense can be expected to hold true...". It gets old real quick. At least with me.

Anyway, based on RAW a Mage or Mystic Adept basically can't make use of any kind of technological device that goes in front of their eyes, unless they want to remove it every time they have to cast a LOS type spell. In other words no Smartlinks, Imagelinks, or any type of technological visual aids can be used, unless they want to remove said aids, before they can cast any LOS type spells. I'm not sure that is Rule As Intended, but I'll agree that it's a possible interpretation based on RAW.

Thats definedly RAI, magic cannot be cast through camera feeds(nor any other electrical images), its really that simple.

No, you just can't use those things *to establish LOS*. If there's no 'real' vision hitting your eyes, then you're right: you can't cast. But if you're just wearing AR contacts, you can *see* through them. You just can't use the augmented senses for LOS.

@Kyrel

I am not doing that.
All I am saying is: If you talk about MAGIC (not secondary magical effects!) then it is useless to fall to natural science.

So yes it is harder to ignite a bottle of petrol then to ignite some wood. It is magic.
Yes, you are not able to cast through googles.
Talking about natural science it does not make a difference if you are looking throug some camerafeed or some googles with visionenhancements.
Both cases you got photons to electrical signals and back to photons. (put simple)
So If one wont work the other wont work either. (So if you accept the basis, a scientific approach will grant you the same result.)

But yes you could use the enhancements to find your target (perception), but you have to target without.

@Yerameyahu
Thats actually up to the GM. It is not said how they work. So it is possible, that they block LOS. If you look at some vision enhancements it is quite probable.

Possibly. The existence of optical versions of these things is long established, and there's no reason to assume that glasses or contacts (or even goggles) block your natural vision. If contacts blocked a troll's thermo, I think we'd have heard about it by now.

In a very violent and destructive manner.

And then a sniffer of Port to relax.

Yerameyahu nailed it. You can't use anything but natural vision (or essence paid) to establish LOS. It doesn't mean that natural light doesn't necessarily pass through.

Take contacts at a low-light situation. Our human mage has contacts with low-light on them. Well, they can't target with spells (except Indirect Physical spells) because the low-light reduced their NATURAL sense to -6 (blinded), but they could still see the person with the low-light vision enhancement alone, it just wouldn't establish a link. Now someone turns on the lights and makes it a regular light situation, the natural light will pass through the contacts like casting a spell through ordinary glass and allow LOS spell-casting.

Similarly, an Elf in low light with contacts that see low light would be able to spell-cast just fine since low-light is a natural sense of theirs.

I just think it's needlessly punitive to mages (and non-human metas) to assume that all vision mod devices block natural vision, and a bit counterintuitive.

Agreed. Though it should be within reason too. Contacts and glasses are fairly easy, but a full combat helm with a tricked out view screen the GM might rule that there is no "natural" light getting in and that the entire thing is armored with sensors providing a view, etc.

That is a possibility, yes. Even with great 'bulletproof glass', you can certainly do better with data-only feeds (rigger cocoon versus windshield).

@Irion.
You probably didn't. My appologies on the accusation, but I get a kneejerk reaction whenever someone even begins talking about how you can't apply logic to any situations that involve magic or fantasy monsters in a game.

Anyway, while I agree with you that it's somewhat difficult to apply natural law and science to the concept of magic in the game, in my perspective, that's not what I was doing earlier. Ignoring RAW for the moment (since that issue has been settled already), we both agree that a mage has to be in the same vicinity as the target, in order to establish a "link" through which he can work his magic. If the mage isn't in a situation where he would be able to see the target and draw a direct line to him, then he can't cast spells at said target. When I read the rules, I'm left with the impression that the point of this fact, was specifically to prevent mages from casting spells at people through a drone or security camera they look through from across town. There's a very good game balance reason for why this rule is a good idea.

Though I don't think that it is RAI, I'll also conceed that if a mage is standing in pitch black darkness, and can't see his target 5 feet in front of him, then he can't target him, despite wearing i.e. thermographic contacts, and thus allow him to see the target. I don't believe it's RAI because I view the concept of targeting magic as the same thing as targeting any other weapon you hold in your "hand". To shoot at someone, you generally need to be able to see them and draw a straight line between them and your weapon (indirect fire and special type weapons excluded).

However, where my chain comes off is in the situation where the mage can see his target clearly with his natural vision, but because he's wearing a pair of glasses with a build-in image- and smartlink then he suddenly can't cast spells at the target. Balancewise I don't see any reason to prevent mages from using vision enhancements. I'd consider the situation equally silly if street sams couldn't fire a gun if they were wearing hardliner gloves, or a Face couldn't use Con or Charisma when talking to someone over a comlink. (And before anyone says I can't compare the mage situation with the situation in my examples,then yes, I do know that I'm using silly examples here, but exaduration hopefully helps getting the point across).

Nothink stops you from casting spell while wearing glasses, their still glasses after all not monitors even if you have imagelink in them.
You just cant use the image provided by the image link to target, but i see that as being more of a virtual HUD adding thinks in your field of vision not completdly replacing it(ie. you see what you would see with out the imagelink, plus addition stuff that the link adds there)

While I agree that this would be a much more acceptable way to do rule it, strict RAW would arguably mean that even when the mage is in regular daylight, and can draw LOS to his target with his natural vision, he'll still technically be looking at the target through a piece of vision enhancing technology, and thus he won't be able to cast spells at a target, at least not without taking the tech off first (or perhaps just turning it off).

But again, I do considder the very strict RAW interpretation to be somewhat idiotic, especially since it just seems needlessly punitive to the mages, and arguably makes it very impractical for such characters to use any form of tech that covers the eyes.

@Mäx
It aint possible to get thins like low light vision with "glasses". You would need somekind of "monitor". (Look up nightvision googles on wiki or just google it)
There is just no way not to break LOS.

Some would be possible like image magnification. So yes, they are monitors of some sort.

@Kyrel
First, I dislike argumentation based on "natural science" in a roleplaying game. The main reason ist, they mostly are not based on anything near natural science.
Espacially when it comes to magic. (And I am not talking about ignoring the theory of Relativity, i am talking about ignoring Newtons laws of movement)
So the wording "natural science" is mostly just an empty shell, which actually means: I want it this way, but I have not any sort of real argument.

Second, I will make the effort to talk it through but I guess you won't like the result.
Mostly because there is no way of making for example Infrared visible without breaking line of sight. It is physically impossible. Your eyes cant "see" light of this frequence. And the only way of changing it is absorbtion/emittation processes, thus disabling LOS.



The Problem is: With what are you shooting? If you stick by this analogy and magic would be shot out of your Eyes (like the bullet is shot out of the weapon), would glasses interfere with the "magic bullet"?I guess so.
(btw: To shoot at someone you do not have to see him or her. There must be a line from the point of your gun to the target, without any obstacles.)


Magic is a very big plus. So as a magician there should be some minus.
So I do. So we can confirm we agree to disagree on that point.

Well they have, from the mage point of view, equally "silly" limitations.
The streetsam needs a gun and ammonition to use his skill and the Face needs to be heard and/or seen.
No mage needs a magic wand or the target must see and hear him to be affected.


Well to end the argument: This is the result of the means necessary to establish this vision enhancements. They have to break LOS. And since they have to break it for all the light...

You could argue, that there might be a possiblity to turn the "goggles" of, so they become just transparent. I would agree with that (well actually i am unable to think of any, but what the hell). So if you hit the "off" switch you are able to cast again. If I have the say. (RAW you are not and the physic would (I guess) march in the same direction)

Why would they have to "become" transparent? They probably already are transparent and the additional imagery is just displayed in an overlay or HUD. Don't think of these as current night vision goggles where a thermographic camera + monitor is strapped to your head, but more like something out of a FPS video game where you just have a targeting reticule (or whatever) superimposed on your vision.

Lastly if you're ever in this kind of situation just turn on your astral perception. It's better than any vision enhancement, you can be in a pitch black, thermal smoke filled room fighting an enemy wearing thermal and optical camo and still see them perfectly clearly. They'd have to release a cloud of FAB into the room to try to stop you.

@Lanlaorn
Can't tell you.
The point is, I can't tell you how it could be working. And if you have something like flare compensation, it is going to be even more unlikely.

So yes, smartlink might be thinkable. But even here I can not guess the how.

Even to have this stuff in a contact linse is beyond me.

Indeed. Some of you are simply not being creative enough. AR means additional information is *added* to what you see, via DNI/trodes, or via some kind of optical overlay. Yes, *real* 2010 night vision is a separate scope, but 2070 vision enhancements obviously are not. As long as you don't use any of that additional information, your mage LOS is fine.

Irion.

1st. I can't get the multiquote thing to work just now, so bear with me...

As you say, let's agree to disagree on some of these aspects and just move on. My original question is well over and answered anyway

I partially agree with you that in some situations it's impractical to discuss a game world in real life scientific terms, because, as you say, the game world isn't likely to be designed to live up to this level of consistancy anyway. And I do agree with you on that, to a certain degree. I.e. I might not expect E=MC^2 to be true in a game world, but I would expect an apple to fall towards the ground if dropped, unless it was under some special in-game effect, in a liquid, or in a weightless environment.

I'll agree with you in the issue of a line being drawn between the gunmuzzle and the target. Incidently we then just happen to disagree on where the line should be drawn between, when it comes to magic. You say the eyes of the mage specifically, I see the power of the mage more as an emination from all of the mage, or from a selected bodypart, i.e. a hand or the eyes. You take the eyes very litterally, I considder it less so, and see it more as an indication that the target has to be visible to him, and within visible range. Since we are talking about a non-existing phenomenon and no "ultimate truth" here, we're unlikely to get any further.

Your argument that humans can't see into the infrared spectrum I'll buy into. Good argument, and one that'll support the situation that you can't cast a spell at a target you couldn't see without technological assistance.

At the end of the day, I suppose the argument comes down to what you put into the description of a mage needing to see a target without technological assistance, and not being able to cast spells at someone through a monitor and camera. I'll buy that if the mage couldn't normally see a target with his unaugmented eyes, then he can't cast a spell at it (though then implants with the same ability don't make a lot of sense, except from a game balance perspective...). But I'm not convinced that it was the intention of the rules that a mage shouldn't be able to wear any form of tech that enhances their sight in some way (i.e. AR and Imagelinks), without it preventing them from casting a spell.

Anyway, it's unlikely that we'll be able to get any further with this. We agree on some of the stuff, but our interpretations of a couple of key issues that don't have a single answer (without the developers giving an definitive answer), seem to differ.

Thanks for the civilized debate though

Nothink stops you from targeting while wearing enchament, you just cant use the data provided by those enchament to target a spell, using your natural vision works just fine.

You can cast indirect spells though, right?

@Kyrel
Well I get we can finish this, because we tend to agree in mostly every point.

And this is always a hard to determin. There are a lot of things which are clear by Raw but seem to be just wrong. (Type O-cells, which are just too good)
I guess I tend to look at it this way, because it is simple. You can not and off you go.
If you start to mix it, it gets a bit difficult. You have seen him with the vision aids, but can you target him without?



Well it is the magical essence stuff. I see it as a bit of pixidust, which makes all the crazy implants work the way they do.

At what point does distance become a factor when casting a manabolt? If you have normal vision, no binocs or other optical enhancement, how far can you cast? If you see a dot three miles in the distance, can you blast it just the same as if it were standing next to you?

I know previous versions of SR placed a 100M x Magic Rating maximum distance for some things magical. Is there anything like that in SR4?

I would say (for an explanation) tht if you can see him fine with the enhancements (Say Lowlight) but not with natural Sight, you suffer the vision modifier for targeting with normal vision when Lowlight would negate it... which is indeed how it works... That, or you just switch to Astral Perception and you use that (which suffers no inherent penalties, but may still suffer vision modifiers based upon what is going on in the astral)...

There are published Ranges for Detection Spells...

Normal Detection Spells: the Range of the Sense is usually Magic x Force Meters...
Extended Range Detection Spells (with more Drain Naturally): Range is Magic x Force x 10 Meters...

I've wondered about the range of attack spells, as well. Should there be some kind of Perception test for magical sniping?

Since someone asked, I don't believe you can cast indirect spells through non-essence'd tech either. They both require 'natural' LOS, I thought?

Well, we always have a Perception Test for such things (likely opposed), with the attendant modifiers thrown in... You can't target what you cannot see after all...

Yes, but whats the rage penalty for spells? I don't recall one. It makes sense logically and should mechanically as well, but I don't recall listed vision penalties for distance. There's listed for use by the type of weapon you're using, but that's not vision, that's the accuracy of the weapon.

So, I'm not really sure how to handle it off the top of my head.

Well, there *are* range penalties for Perception tests; the bad news is, it's only '-3, object far away'. That's a little vague, and crazy people might argue that it's already negated by '+3, actively looking'. So, not super-helpful there.

One method (not playtested) would be to simply apply Perception and Visibility penalties in the same way that Cover is applied, to the resistance test. Would this work/do anything? If that's overkill, maybe only apply the 'far away, -3' as a Cover-type modifier.

Why would you apply range penalties to spells, aside from indirect combat spells you're not actually aiming anything. It doesn't matter how far the target is, if you can create your mystical link by looking at him that's it, the spell is going off.

I can see it for indirect combat spells since you're actually shooting a lightning bolt or whatever in their direction, but honestly I wouldn't do anything further to discourage indirect combat spells. The huge drain hit and having to deal with armor is already a harsh price to pay for what are usually minor elemental effects.

Their aplying it to a perspection test to see the target, not to spell casting test.

Exactly.