BitBasher
Jul 22 2004, 04:47 AM
QUOTE (Apathy) |
But other than that, you're right. What is it about human nature that makes us desperately want to get everyone else to interpret things the same way we do, even when there's no chance it'll happen, and when there's no real significance to what we're interpreting anyway? |
I was in the state championships in debate in high school. I don't need to talk anyone into my point of view, I do however enjoy the actual argument.
Zazen
Jul 22 2004, 05:04 AM
I only skimmed this thread quickly, since it seems like you're all just dancing around the real question (what part of the body astral perception, which is presumably a directional sense, originates from). However, I had to comment on this particularly amusing bit:
QUOTE (Arethusa) |
So if I stand in front of a brick wall, which is both physically and astrally opaque, I can't see through it, but if I tie a brick wall to my face, I can see just fine on the astral? |
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
Essentially, yes. |
This is a pretty impressive ability. All my NPC mages will start carrying extra shoelaces so they can tie their faces to doors, walls, floors, etc. and cast spells at people on the other side.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 22 2004, 06:27 AM
Too bad walls, floors, and rooms block all of your senses then, huh? As opposed to a brick strapped to your head.
Zazen
Jul 22 2004, 01:24 PM
You mean a brick wall strapped to my head, right? That's what the quote says.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 22 2004, 03:36 PM
Then I'm just not going to respond to an idiotic question like that. If you have to ask it, you don't deserve an answer.
Apathy
Jul 22 2004, 04:49 PM
NM: I understand that you've indicated that you don't feel that astral perception is in any way related to the mage's eyes. But do you think astral perception comes from any particular place on the mage's body? or that evey portion of the mage's aura is capable of astral perception?
Asking it another way: I'm a mage, standing in front of an 8 foot high brick wall. Do you believe I can stick my finger over the top of the wall and, using astral perception, observe (and cast spells at) people on the other side?
If you don't believe that, then not every portion of the mage's aura would be capable of astrally percieving. And if it's not every portion of the aura that percieves, then which portion of the mage's aura performs this function?
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 22 2004, 04:57 PM
My personal opinion? I prefer to see it eminating from their minds and I like to use their "head" for most astral-capable characters and their "face" as the direction of the effect since the majority of other senses are located there and its just easier to describe things that way. But that's just my personal preference.
I also never said it was an aural thing. I simply stand by the fact that it's psychic in nature and that something as simple as a piece of cloth or even a helmet -- opaque or not -- won't stop it, especially if strapped around your eyes.
Odin
Jul 22 2004, 05:00 PM
QUOTE |
And if it's not every portion of the aura that percieves, then which portion of the mage's aura performs this function? |
I'd personally say that the majority of the mages aura would have to be unblocked considering thats what common sense dictates..........frankly quite a few of you seem to be grasping at the oversights of the authors instead of using your own heads instead.
DigitalMage
Jul 22 2004, 05:08 PM
QUOTE (Apathy) |
3. The crux of the question is, what 'sees' astrally? - Is it a pin-point origin sense based on where your physical eyes are located on your body, or can you see from any part of your aura? If the answer is 'any part', then I should be able to astrally look around corners by sticking my finger around the corner and leaving the rest of my body hidden.
<snip> - If my aura extends 3 inches away from my body in all directions, does my astral sight come from the edge of my aura (i.e. 3 inches away from my meat bod) or from the meat bod itself? For game simplicity, I play it that I astrally percieve from the edge of my meat body, not from 3 inches past it. I can see valid arguments either way, though.
Are these the only issues, or is there something I missed? |
I think Apathy had it back on page 3. There could be two valid interpretations, but if you go with one over the other you must expect to also allow all the baggage that goes with it.
If astral perception is not actually sight and hearing, maybe the human brain could be interpreting it as such if only to be able to comprehend it. Also regardless of whether a mage has eyes or not, maybe they "see" from their face because that is what their expectations are?
Alternatively you could state that astral perception occurs from any part of the body, and therefore that a blindfold wouldn't hinder you. Then you have to also accept Apathy's idea of an astrally perceiving person sticking their hand round a corner or over a wall and being able to astrally perceive what is behind it.
And if you do allow that, would you also allow that mage to cast spells as astral forms the other side? What about completely mundane forms (the mage is still dual natured and can perceive them via their hand)? This could suddenly become my new favourite trick!
Now if you don't allow such peeking round corners - what is the reasoning? That your hand if a limited part of your astral form? So what if you just stuck half your head around that corner or over the wall - would they not be able to perceive then?
Also if astral perception can extend from any body part does the mage have 360 degree perception now? Great in a fight I am sure! Or is it directional?
*****************************************
Also, for those people who state that astral perception can see through a thin blindfold - what thickness is thick enough to block vision? A lot of people seem to be quoting 3 inches as a range of your aura, is that the limit? If so can an astrally perceiving character walk up to a door, press their face to it and see what's on the other side (a door is less than 3 inches)? So how thick is thick enough?
What about a character who is fully clothed including gloves and a mage mask (i.e. no exposed skin), can they astrally perceive? What about a mage in one of those big sumo suits you can put on and have fights in with a box on his head?
I personally go with the interpretation that the astral senses are the astral equivalent of sight, hearing and touch and they originate from where the physical senses would not because of any biological reason but because that is the manner in which most metahumans are accustomed to sensing the world.
Although the other interpretation is maybe valid it just opens up too many cans of worms for my liking requiring numerous extra rulings.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 22 2004, 05:19 PM
QUOTE |
Also, for those people who state that astral perception can see through a thin blindfold - what thickness is thick enough to block vision? A lot of people seem to be quoting 3 inches as a range of your aura, is that the limit? If so can an astrally perceiving character walk up to a door, press their face to it and see what's on the other side (a door is less than 3 inches)? So how thick is thick enough? |
The same things that stop people from being able to cast a spell at your aura will stop you from using astral perception as far as I'm concerned. Clothing, heavy armor, and blindfolds do not stop you from being a target. Enclosed vehicles and buildings do.
Apathy
Jul 22 2004, 05:50 PM
QUOTE |
My personal opinion? I prefer to see it eminating from their minds and I like to use their "head" for most astral-capable characters and their "face" as the direction of the effect since the majority of other senses are located there and its just easier to describe things that way. But that's just my personal preference.
|
I agree. For flavor's sake, I sometimes refer to the metaphysical 'third eye' and picture it as coming from the forehead, but whatever floats your boat.
QUOTE |
The same things that stop people from being able to cast a spell at your aura will stop you from using astral perception as far as I'm concerned. |
I can see the logic in this, even if I don't always concur.
However, in my world:
- If a target has a foot poking out around the corner of a building, the foot is still targetable (although with heavy modifiers for only seeing a partial target, maybe as much as +6)
- I won't let the character with a foot poking out use perception from his foot to target others.
So, the reason your clothes don't protect you as an astral target is because your aura extends out beyond them, right? If this is the reason, then exactly how far does your aura extend? I thought a read that it stopped a couple/few inches out past your body, but I'm at work and can't look it up right now.
If this were true, then you should be able to take a 3 foot diameter medicine ball, cut a hole in it for the neck, and pop it onto a captive's head to prevent him/her from astrally percieving those things around them.
However, you might not agree with this, since the rest of the captive's body is still visble and targetable.
Pelaka
Jul 22 2004, 06:13 PM
As best I can follow if you are using your pinkie to see around corners you are doing too much. As the sense eminates from your aura you just need to get your pinkie within 3 inches of the corner to see around it.
Pel
Jason Farlander
Jul 22 2004, 06:17 PM
For the record, I agree completely with Necrotic Monkey in regards to both the origin/direction of the astral perception sense and what it would take to block that sense.
tjn
Jul 22 2004, 06:35 PM
QUOTE (Apathy) |
NM: I understand that you've indicated that you don't feel that astral perception is in any way related to the mage's eyes. But do you think astral perception comes from any particular place on the mage's body? or that evey portion of the mage's aura is capable of astral perception? |
My opinion? Neither. Again think outside the box. There is no "point of origin" to Astral Perception. It's psychic. More like:
Mage Detective: "The body's in the corner"
Mundane Detective: "How do you know that?"
Mage Detective: "I just do."
QUOTE |
Asking it another way: I'm a mage, standing in front of an 8 foot high brick wall. Do you believe I can stick my finger over the top of the wall and, using astral perception, observe (and cast spells at) people on the other side? |
With massive cover modifiers, perhaps. But that seems to be breaking the spirit of Astral Perception.
QUOTE |
If you don't believe that, then not every portion of the mage's aura would be capable of astrally percieving. And if it's not every portion of the aura that percieves, then which portion of the mage's aura performs this function? |
Again, in my opinion, there is not any one portion of an aura capable of astral perception. It's psychic. It's not directional and it's more akin to a Zen-like spatial recognition then any sense we currently have. They psychically percieve, understand, know, or "see" that the body's in the corner.
tjn
Jul 22 2004, 07:15 PM
I'm still mulling over the idea Bit tossed out earlier, so I apologize if I haven't specifically responded to that new idea Bit. It does seem to fit neatly with regard to canon however. As far as my personal view on it, nothing springs out immediate, but I still really dislike the word "see" to describe a completely psychic sense.
I do want to jump on the bandwagon with regard to Doc's definition of what blocks targeting and perception. I might want to say that anything that can be construed as being on the individual rather then seperate from the individual would qualify.
However, as the giant medicine ball over the head illustrates, it could get wonky.
Jason Farlander
Jul 22 2004, 08:23 PM
QUOTE (tjn) |
I do want to jump on the bandwagon with regard to Doc's definition of what blocks targeting and perception. |
Wait... what? Dammit, I *knew* there was a reason his posting voice seemed familiar...
Goddamn people changing their handles...
Garland
Jul 22 2004, 09:34 PM
QUOTE |
I *knew* there was a reason his posting voice seemed familiar... |
I was kind of suspecting the same thing, after I sat back and thought about it. Never shoulda bothered.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 22 2004, 09:41 PM
If you base your comments on who a person is instead of what they have to say, that says a lot more about you than it does them. Especially if your first post in a thread is along the lines of "so you're saying they can see out of their ass?"
BitBasher
Jul 22 2004, 11:14 PM
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
If you base your comments on who a person is instead of what they have to say, that says a lot more about you than it does them. Especially if your first post in a thread is along the lines of "so you're saying they can see out of their ass?" |
But if you only do that with one poster, then it says a lot about them too!
Necro Tech
Jul 23 2004, 12:40 AM
I said I wasn't but I lied. My opinion is stated several pages back so I won't repeat it. I do have to point out for everyones arguements one thing about astral perception. A spell caster who is astrally perceiving can target any thing he can see with either sense (visual or astral) on either plane. Magehood? Center against penalties and blow away everyone on the detention block.
BitBasher
Jul 23 2004, 01:40 AM
No, because you cant cast on something without valid LOS. Magemask blocks LOS.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 01:47 AM
Yep. And if you're using astral perception, you can use that instead of LOS and can even get to choose which plane the spell is being cast on, so you can still target mundanes that way.
BitBasher
Jul 23 2004, 02:01 AM
You know that astral perception and LOS aren't even the same type of thing right? Just like Inigo Montoya said: "That word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
Astral perception is using senses astrally, while LOS encompasses your field of view. It's entirely possivle to have LOS to a target without astrally percieving, and it's likewise possible to be astrally percieving without having LOS. It's also possible to have LOS to a target while astrally percieving.
I can list examples if you want.
Zazen
Jul 23 2004, 02:31 AM
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
Then I'm just not going to respond to an idiotic question like that. If you have to ask it, you don't deserve an answer. |
I do have to ask it, since you have said yes where any other person would say no. However, now that you call it idiotic, I think that your previous answer was the result of a minor mistake and you wish to correct yourself -- which you should do instead of telling me that I don't deserve to question you when you are unclear.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 02:57 AM
QUOTE (BitBasher @ Jul 22 2004, 08:01 PM) |
You know that astral perception and LOS aren't even the same type of thing right? |
And, just as I pointed out the text for Spell Targeting in the SR3 sourcebook, LOS and Astral Perception are indeed two seperate things. Astral Perception does nothing to augment or modify LOS. Thermographic Vision modifies LOS. Darkness penalties modifies LOS. Cover modifies LOS. All visual modifiers modify LOS. Astral Perception, however, does not modifiy LOS in any way whatsoever because Astral Perception isn't sight and thus provides no Line of Sight.
Later, in the very same section that talks about LOS, Astral Perception has their own unique set of rules for spell targeting. It's not a different chapter or subsection of a chapter. It's all in the same spot.
QUOTE |
It's entirely possivle to have LOS to a target without astrally percieving, and it's likewise possible to be astrally percieving without having LOS. |
Exactly correct. And you can target someone with either one.
QUOTE |
It's also possible to have LOS to a target while astrally percieving. |
That's also correct. And the best thing of all is that you can use either one of them in order to target someone. Because they are, in fact, two seperate things.
QUOTE (Zazen) |
I do have to ask it, since you have said yes where any other person would say no. However, now that you call it idiotic, I think that your previous answer was the result of a minor mistake and you wish to correct yourself -- which you should do instead of telling me that I don't deserve to question you when you are unclear. |
I wasn't unclear. I just refused to read his scenario because it was so absurd that I subconsciously assumed it was a mistake. In my reply I specified a brick -- not a brickwall -- being strapped to the magician's face. There wasn't anything unclear in my response, only my personal reading of his situation.
Zazen
Jul 23 2004, 03:53 AM
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
I wasn't unclear. I just refused to read his scenario because it was so absurd that I subconsciously assumed it was a mistake. In my reply I specified a brick -- not a brickwall -- being strapped to the magician's face. There wasn't anything unclear in my response, only my personal reading of his situation. |
Next time that happens, you might want to say "Here is the answer to a different question than the one you're asking". That way you won't again fool us into thinking that your reply of "yes" to a question is meant to answer it.
Necro Tech
Jul 23 2004, 03:57 AM
QUOTE (BitBasher) |
No, because you cant cast on something without valid LOS. Magemask blocks LOS. |
My point exactly. Very early on in the thread is was mentioned that a mage hood doesn't block astral perception (not by me obviously) and it doesn't matter anyway because you couldn't target mundanes. As you can cast spells at anything you can astrally perceive, by that arguement, a magehood isn't very effective.
I thought for a while that people felt I was saying that a blindfold stops AP, as in you can't do it anymore. Now I see that people believe that AP is omni directional and can't be stoppped by blindfolds/magehoods/bricks and is has nothing to do with LOS. As per spell targeting, you can cast spells at physical or astral targets if you can perceive them. Read back through this thread and see what that would mean in peoples arguements.
BitBasher, I agree with you from point one except for be able to perceive something without LOS. I would like an example that deals only with AP, not astral senses which includes projection (Like assensing or targeting across the planes)
Odin
Jul 23 2004, 03:59 AM
well their are obviously strong opinions how about we all agree to disagree and let the thread die considering this is just turning into a schoolyard shouting match.
BitBasher
Jul 23 2004, 04:23 AM
QUOTE (Odin) |
well their are obviously strong opinions how about we all agree to disagree and let the thread die considering this is just turning into a schoolyard shouting match. |
been there, tried that earlier, we failed

And Necro Tech, I never said you can astrally perceive something without LOS, I don't know what you mean.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 04:30 AM
QUOTE (Zazen) |
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey @ Jul 22 2004, 09:57 PM) | I wasn't unclear. I just refused to read his scenario because it was so absurd that I subconsciously assumed it was a mistake. In my reply I specified a brick -- not a brickwall -- being strapped to the magician's face. There wasn't anything unclear in my response, only my personal reading of his situation. |
Next time that happens, you might want to say "Here is the answer to a different question than the one you're asking". That way you won't again fool us into thinking that your reply of "yes" to a question is meant to answer it.
|
Considering you same the exact same mistake in reading my response, I don't think you have much room to talk.
Zazen
Jul 23 2004, 04:34 AM
How can I have answered a different question than the one that was asked? You didn't ask me a question at all!
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 04:36 AM
You read "brickwall strapped to his face" where I typed "brick strapped to his face." I read "brick strapped to his face" where he wrote "brickwall strapped to his face." Same mistake.
Necro Tech
Jul 23 2004, 04:37 AM
QUOTE (BitBasher) |
And Necro Tech, I never said you can astrally perceive something without LOS, I don't know what you mean. |
Sorry, read it again. You apparently were with me on the whole stoppage of AP with blindfold thing. You were saying that you can be astrally perceiving yet not have LOS because you vision is blocked. Got it.
Zazen
Jul 23 2004, 04:49 AM
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
You read "brickwall strapped to his face" where I typed "brick strapped to his face." I read "brick strapped to his face" where he wrote "brickwall strapped to his face." Same mistake. |
I read "yes" where you typed "yes".

You frequently inject unrelated information into a response, so I ignored the bit about the brick.
Anyway, since you seem to have made an innocent reading mistake instead of insisting that people can see through walls, there's no need for us to continue.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 04:52 AM
Then try ignoring the entire post in the future.
Zazen
Jul 23 2004, 05:06 AM
Surely you're joking?
Necro Tech
Jul 23 2004, 05:09 AM
QUOTE (Necrotic Monkey) |
Astral Perception, however, does not modifiy LOS in any way whatsoever because Astral Perception isn't sight and thus provides no Line of Sight.
|
Actually it modifies it considerably. When using AP to achieve LOS in the physical plane you ignore darkness modifiers because the astral plane is always lit up. You can also use it to draw LOS on things you can't see with your normal eyes such as invisble people. If you fail your resistance check vs invis you can switch to astral, find them and gack them with no problem. You can also use astral perception to locate hidden active foci, like inside someones shirt (or in the case a foci weapon implants, their arms) for dispelling or destroying purposes or just simple awareness that the enemy mage is loaded for bear or other large game.
Once again, I'm not saying that physical objects stop the use of AP. I'm just pointing out that it severly limits what you can do with it.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 05:19 AM
Nope, not kidding.
Necro Tech, check out the text for Spell Targeting. There's a distinct difference between line of sight and using astral perception to target a spell.
Necro Tech
Jul 23 2004, 05:33 AM
HUH? Its talking about targeting. For purposes of casting magic on other people. Which requires LOS. It says so in the spell descriptions. It says you can use AP to achieve LOS. "Such a spellcaster could cast a spell at someone hidden by an Invisibility spell, using astral perception to target their physical body, since both the spell caster and the target are on the physical plane." SR3 pg 182. The whole paragraph states that an astrally perceiving character has the best of both worlds for targeting purposes. Targeting. You can only cast offensive magic at valid targets. Valid targets are ones that you could achieve LOS on. "With spell casting, the caster must be able to see the target {also know as LOS} and must be present on the same plane (physical or astral) as the target." SR3 pg. 181. As I previously stated, spell casters can use Astral perception to enhance their targeting possibilities.
Zazen
Jul 23 2004, 05:53 AM
So even if you're answering my own question, I should ignore your entire response if it contains an unrelated or irrelevant point (which, no offense intended, is a common feature of your posts)? Presumably afterwards I should say "Why haven't you responded at all to my question?" when you clearly have.
No, I won't do that. It's ridiculous.
BitBasher
Jul 23 2004, 05:56 AM
Necro Tech I've been trying to explain that to him in several posts so far. Good luck with your run of attempts
Necro Tech
Jul 23 2004, 06:12 AM
Thanks, but I'm really done this time. I'm not even gonna look at this thread anymore. Fundamental communication errors never go anywhere but into the streets with guns and knives.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 06:16 AM
QUOTE (Necro Tech) |
HUH? Its talking about targeting. For purposes of casting magic on other people. Which requires LOS. It says so in the spell descriptions. It says you can use AP to achieve LOS. "Such a spellcaster could cast a spell at someone hidden by an Invisibility spell, using astral perception to target their physical body, since both the spell caster and the target are on the physical plane." SR3 pg 182. |
Where do you see LOS mentioned in that quote? They are talking about acquiring a target using astral perception in lieu of LOS. LOS is handled at the very beginning of that section in the first five paragraphs. Not once do they mention astral perception in reference to LOS. And it's not just because they're avoiding mentioning magic; they specifically mention spells like Clairvoyance regarding LOS. And again, astral perception is not mentioned once because it's a wholly different beast.
However, later on page 182 they talk about using astral perception for targeting a spell. You have the option of choosing to target a spell at anything you 1) see using your normal vision or 2) anything you perceive using astral perception. You get to use the best of both worlds; whichever one affords you a valid target is the one you get to use.
QUOTE |
The whole paragraph states that an astrally perceiving character has the best of both worlds for targeting purposes. Targeting. |
Exactly correct. Targeting. Which is not LOS, though LOS can be used to target a spell. LOS and astral perception are two completely independant ideas within the game, and both can be used to target a spell.
QUOTE |
"With spell casting, the caster must be able to see the target {also know as LOS} and must be present on the same plane (physical or astral) as the target." SR3 pg. 181. As I previously stated, spell casters can use Astral perception to enhance their targeting possibilities. |
And again, they use words like "see" with astral perception for lack of a better descriptive term. See != LOS. Astral Perception != LOS. Targeting != LOS. Only LOS = LOS.
Necrotic Monkey
Jul 23 2004, 06:17 AM
I love it.
When I refuse to change my opinion on a subject, I'm a pig-headed ass. When you refuse to change your opinion on a subject, you're a brilliant genius above and beyond all others. Get a life.
Odin
Jul 23 2004, 06:53 AM
QUOTE |
love it.
When I refuse to change my opinion on a subject, I'm a pig-headed ass. When you refuse to change your opinion on a subject, you're a brilliant genius above and beyond all others. Get a life. |
yeah you've pretty much summed up this entire threads theme.