I wanted to start off slow, but this discussion has progressed quite a ways in "broken rules", so I'll kinda jump into it at the risk of sounding crazy.

My main concerns are with bone black makeup and FAB, but if anyone else has ideas about how manatech could be used, feel free to share!

Here's the thing: bone black makeup and FAB should make you aware of spells, spirits, auras, and all other inhabitants of the astral plane to varying degrees. In some cases, these technologies should even allow you to distinguish between a spirit, and, say, an aura.

Here's a short post that I was about to put into "broken rules", just to start us off:

I always treated the mana/astral detection tech as a way of cutting security costs.

It's expensive to have astral security up all the time. Either wage-mages or spirits hanging out guarding stuff.

So for less-critical areas, a cheap easy way of detecting astral signatures that shouldn't be there is nice. You can position mundane guards to watch the detector, and if it goes off, they call the mage on staff. That way you can have just one or two mages in your security team overseeing multiple facilities. When the wagemage gets an alert call, he spins up a spirit quickly and sends him on ahead, following up in person if necessary.




-k

I'm not actually sure to what extent you can say that auras, spells, spirits, projecting mages, etc. have different 'levels' of strength, size, whatever. We do have the Force stat for many kinds of astral phenomenon, although I don't know if spirit Force, projecting mage Magic, spell Force, etc. are comparable.

I'm also not sure if any of the manatech provides a variable (strength-proportionate) response, even if the first issue were resolved. We don't have anything even as good as the PKE Meter from Ghostbusters, and that was pretty imprecise already. (We *do* have a BC meter, but it's only for BC.)

Obviously, I do agree that the leeches, etc. are effective detectors for areas when *any* astral presence would be suspect. But they don't give any information besides 0 or 1, absent or present. Don't forget, also, that *everyone* has an aura; it's 'astral forms' that are active on the astral. Spells also have auras, so an invisible person would have the spell aura… but that's not helpful for manatech, because they already have an aura for being alive, and manatech can't tell the difference (can't even tell that there are two auras there).

I was thinking more along the lines of:
You have a sneaking suspicion that someone is trying to make their way through the gate of your facility, but they have some heavy stealth up (or they're in astral form). You throw a sack of FAB out towards the gate and let it spread on the wind. A small area of FAB browns slightly, but you can't tell a shape. This indicates either a spell or an aura, so you take a shot into the midst of the browned spot. Turns out you hit a guy in a full chameleon suit.

Sounds like a good way to go through expensive FAB. If you control the gate and you're looking for a chameleon, you should just use UWB radar, or thermal, or ultrasound—cheaper and more reliable. Especially since it *only* works on astral forms, not auras.

If you actually suspect an astral form (spirit or mage), then they can just fly in from above at like 500m/turn (I forget the actual speed), and through walls. Which is why they have those nifty (but pricey) biofiber/leech walls. Or the Awakened Ivy, whatever. FAB is indeed another option, though.

That's part of it. This would be left up to the character's intuition. As in: "wow, that's a lot of brown for just an aura. Is it a weak spirit? Maybe it really is an aura, but the individual responsible is under emotional stress. Then again, I can't see anything else, so maybe it's an invisible person, and the aura is larger because of their spell."

That would only really work in foveae or in space. Mana isn't just found in spells, astral forms, and (to a much lesser extent) auras; mana is freaking EVERYWHERE. That sort of use of FAB would turn up false positives more or less constantly.


5000, actually, although they have to know where they're going at that speed.

Depends. A cloud of FAB II will limit that speed to 100 m/turn.

Which is hella fast! But I meant you'd have to put the cloud in the right place. It can't cover the gate and the sky at once, unless you're using much more expensive FAB.

longbowrocks, I might have edited out from under you there: FAB does *not* detect auras (spell, person, or otherwise). Even if it did, I still have no idea if there's an 'amount' effect, if a person + a spell is 'bigger' or 'stronger'.

If's it's a guy in a chameleon suit, there's a really cheap and easy way of detecting him.

It's called a door.




-k

However, auras are a disturbance from their surrounding ambient mana. Plants and such will have less in the way of auras than people, so no worries there. I think the only things exceeding an aura in force would be spells, astral forms, and positive BC. Since positive BC is more of a wide area of effect, auras would be fluctuations within the BC, and thus detectable (to a lesser extent than usual I admit).

Speaking of background count, do they have Rush Limbaugh in the future? My party and I could probably generate a substantial positive BC by listening to him over our commlinks during a run.

It's important to focus on the rules. FAB only detects astral forms, period. That's spirits, projecting mages, and anything Dual-Natured (though they're already physical so it's not a huge deal). Other manatech does detect other things: GloMoss is specifically described as generating many false positives, because it detects "active foci, spells, mana barriers, dual-natured beings, and mana anomalies"… but not other auras, in case it's relevant.

I want to again say that it's tricky to make assumptions about relative 'strength' of 'mana disturbance' between plants, animals, humans, etc. There is *some* guidance for this in the fluff, but everyone needs to be on the same page; that's what the rules are for.

That's what we're arguing, or at least what I'm arguing. The rules don't discourage this interpretation, and the FAB detects an astral form because it has mana/life force, not because they're called astral forms.
Likewise, magnetic compasses sense north because it's magnetic. not because we called it north.

Ah. You're wrong. FAB explicitly detects only astral forms. You propose an interesting house rule, but not an interpretation.

You're also wrong about how the FAB works. The presence of the astral form (a real thing, on the astral plane) *kills* the FAB (or pushes it out of the way, for FAB II). Auras do not do this, because they're *not* a 'physical' thing on the astral plane; for example, they can't push astral forms (which FAB II is).

keep in mind what sort of things might give those false positives so you can gauge the actual frequency:
"triggered by authorized spellcasting, patrolling spirits, and temporary background count."

I didn't say GloMoss was worthless. I said the book mentions false positives, because it detects things besides just astral forms. GloMoss might help you spot an Invisible infiltrator, yes, but see my earlier comments about alternatives. The GloWand is an even handier version, like a metal detector wand for spells.

Astral forms are (again) made up of the same stuff as auras. You might argue that auras are too weak to kill the FAB, but it can't be said that the situation is completely different.

This is like the difference between mist and water. Would you say that mist can push a waterwheel? No. If mist is passed over flame, will it douse the flame? Possibly.

No. Astral forms are forms on the astral; auras are lights. It's the difference between a brick hitting you, and a hologram of a brick. These are the hard facts of the setting. I see what you're saying, but it's not interpretation; it's house rule.

I don't have Attitude, so I dunno what the specific rules are for the Bone stuff. Leechbands/leech constructs (Arsenal) also only detect astral forms.

fine, we can use the hologram metaphor.

On the other hand, I am seeing the fluff about astral forms being "astrally real" as I peruse the core book in more detail. Ah well, I'll give this another shot tomorrow.

It's an analogy, and it's not relevant to bring in other aspects. The point is it's the difference between 'material' and 'immaterial'.

So, anyway, what are we talking about in this thread? You haven't mentioned the bone stuff, and I dunno about it, so that'll have to wait.

The manatech I'm aware of falls into a few categories. First, there are things that detect astral forms (and sometimes other things): FAB, leeches, (GloMoss). Then, you've got passive defenses: Ivy, Biofiber, (Haven Lily). Finally, active defenses: Guardian Vines, FAB III. What else? Manatech's not my strong suit. It doesn't seem like the Lucifers are good for much (to a mundane, anyway), and the Quicksilver photo is more investigatory.

Exactly. That's one of the reasons why a spirit has to push through an FAB II cloud, but a mundane can just walk through it: astral forms are solid and cannot pass through one another, while auras are completely insubstantial on the astral.

IIRC for what follows:
Even using astral perception, when trying to beat someone using Infiltration requires Assensing (the astral Perception skill). When detecting Astral Forms that are not Infiltrating using astral perception, they are immediately noticeable (no need to roll). Everything else still requires an Assensing test.

It's my understanding that the GM has considerable leeway for that opposed test, though. And we're talking about physical infiltration, not astral, right? You'd expect a certain level of unfairness there.

In previous threads, we've discussed the many factors that can improve/penalize astral perception, but the basic idea is that they need a reasonable ability to infiltrate in a way that's relevant to astral perception. Right? This can be hiding behind objects or among other auras, mainly; a person in an area that should be empty would be obvious.

I agree that Infiltration should do *something*, but Assensing DPs aren't like Perception DPs; it's a big deal to go from 'probably obvious' to 'you have to beat his Infiltration, and he wins ties'.

Are you referring to this?
"Like physical perception, a character using astral perception
should not need to make a test to see things that are immediately
obvious (and since astral forms are bright and vibrant, this means
that most astral forms are easily noticed). An actual test should only
be called for when an astral being is specifically trying to hide,"

I didn't find anything more relevant than that in the core book.

Are we discussing RAW or RAI?

To me the RAW is clear: It doesn't matter how it is done: the GM could apply a "object stands out in some way" modifier to the infiltration roll or what have you, but at the end of the day, the character gets his infiltration roll and Assensing is still required to oppose it. Furthermore even if the character is not infiltrating, Assensing is still required to detect auras, although the threshold for detecting something so obvious (as you put it) may well only be 1.

No, 0. That's why it's weird to jump from 'obvious' to 'hard', just because the person uses Infiltration.

I'm not strictly talking about GM fiat. There are a bunch of modifiers in the book, positive and negative.

It looks like auras in general are immediately obvious, although I don't see anything that explicitly declares that.

What I'm curious about is where it says that infiltration works against astral perception. I guess it makes sense since you can hide behind things, but at the same time sticking to shadows and whatnot isn't going to help.
By the way, where does it say that auras can't be seen through solid objects? Is this an extension of the fact that many barriers are opaque?

Infiltration does not make it explicit that it works against astral perception or that astral perception works against it. But infiltration is what is used to get around undetected.

All barriers are opaque. There's a weird sentence in Street Magic semi-contradicting this, but not clearly.

Ah, sorry, I meant wards. Then again, I'm not sure which part of the book should be believed.
The general case:

Or the more specific case under wards detailing wards to be a subset of barriers:

I was referring to barriers (walls, doors, cars) on the physical plane, actually. But yes, AFAIK it applies equally to astral barriers. I don't see how those two quotes are contradictory.

If all wards are mana barriers (as the quotes above seem to suggest), then alarm, masking, and polarized wards are also mana barriers. Thos types of wards are transparent.
They're all on page 125, but here's one:


Ah, I forgot to mention how the quotes are contradictory, sorry!
The first says that all mana barriers are opaque.
The second says that all wards are mana barriers. Not all wards are opaque. Therefore not all mana barriers are opaque.

I get you now. Yes, those wards are exceptions. The bit on p194 must be referring to 'mana barriers', the result of the spell.

So you're going with quote 1? I guess that makes sense, since a barrier isn't really a barrier if it doesn't stop someone. Then again, what would we call polarized barriers in that case?

edit: I mean polarized wards. WARDS!

edit again: or are all wards barriers? Dang.

Heh. They're all astral constructs, but they're distinct. Mana Barriers (meaning, what's created by the spell Mana Barrier, the mana version of the Physical Barrier spell) are definitely opaque and 'astrally physical'. Wards are not Mana Barriers, though they are mana, and they are 'barriers' in some way. Mana Barrier vs. mana barrier, right? The bit on p194 *is* unclear, because it's definitely talking about all kinds of mana barriers, contextually. AFAIK, though, wards *are* opaque (at least, they provide a vision penalty equal to Force) and physical ('astrally'-speaking), unless otherwise noted. If a ward is specifically not opaque or astrally-solid, then that's a specific exception.

It is a mistake in RPGs to use too much logical extension, categorical reasoning, etc. That's not ideal, but it's what we have.

Kind of unclear what we're arguing here, so I'll just reiterate my side:
My perspective is that all wards are mana barriers, and some wards are not opaque (additionally, no barrier is opaque to its creator). Thus, not all Mana Barriers are opaque.
I am aware of the spell of the same name, which muddles things slightly.

Rules you may be worrying about:

• If a mana barrier is not opaque, simply don't apply the rules for its opacity (perception modifiers and the like). That doesn't change the fact that it's a mana barrier.
• Just because a mana barrier is transparent doesn't mean it doesn't resist entry. That is specific to the rules of its type.

This whole argument started with my statement that not all mana barriers are opaque.
In your own words:

So it's a specific exception. An exception to the rule that mana barriers are opaque.
Thus, "not all mana barriers are opaque".
It won't break the rules, since there are provisions for these wards, so there's really no reason to deny that mana barriers can be transparent.

Let me just say that I'm not trying to twist the rules right now (as I frequently am).

You're right, I already explained that there are exceptions. I already said, ignore categorical reasoning. All mana barriers are opaque, except for exceptions. These include the creator, anyone he authorizes, etc. Advanced wards are explicitly exceptions.

Alarm Wards: "Instead of being solid and opaque like a typical astral barrier, alarm wards are specially camouflaged to blend into the local astral space."
Polarized Wards: "Polarized wards, however, are only opaque from either inside or outside the ward, much like mirrored glass."

And so on. This isn't a hard concept, man. If I say that no cars can fly, except for flying cars, everyone understands that.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the problem with my statement if it does not bend, twist, or break the rules, and for all intents and purposes, is RAW.

What problem? You asked if there was a contradiction in the rules. There's not. All mana barriers are opaque, except exceptions.

Sorry, I just realized this may be a language barrier thing. Unless you're from Seattle, WA or something, in which case you're just weird.

In American English (I make no claims about other dialects), these two statements are equivalent:
"All mana barriers are opaque, except exceptions."
and
"Most mana barriers are opaque."

So what's the problem? Everything in the book is subject to exceptions, even the 4 IPs rule. It's the implied suffix after every sentence. You acted like there was a rules problem, so I was helping you see there wasn't.

I was about to quote the same bits for my argument.
"Instead of being solid and opaque like a typical astral barrier, alarm wards are specially camouflaged to blend into the local astral space."
"Though a masking ward acts as a mana barrier like a basic ward, its main purpose is to conceal magical activity on the astral plane."
"Aside from being transparent or opaque depending on viewing direction, polarized wards function as basic wards and block unauthorized spells and astral forms."

Here it is:
"By the way, where does it say that auras can't be seen through solid objects? Is this an extension of the fact that many barriers are opaque?"
I said "many barriers are opaque" so no one would correct me using advanced wards as an example (since I meant mana barriers).
The point I was trying to make was that I didn't see anything about auras not being visible through solid objects on the astral plane. I figured that since your standard mana barrier was opaque, maybe solid objects were treated in the same way.

Ah. Then my first answer was the one you wanted after all. I was referring to solid physical plane objects when I said, 'all barriers are opaque'. I can see how my word choice confused you. Walls, doors, and windows *are* called 'barriers' by the book. What a mess we made.

I don't think there's an emote for how hard I'm laughing right now.

On the plus side, my post count got a pretty boost.

I *did* point that out earlier, though. As in, the *very* next post.

You mean the one where you said this?
"But yes, AFAIK it applies equally to astral barriers."
As in: "all astral barriers are opaque"

They are, except for exceptions.