Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 14:44:47 +0000
I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.

There's a swordsman who is blind. He is a physical adept, and
has bought the astral perception physad power. He has been blind
all his life (born without eyes) and has had astral perception since
it was possible (12 years according to some; fair enough.).

A few points:
Unarmed combat/armed combat is clearly purely physical activity,
and gets a +2 vision penalty. (right?)

What if he used a weapon focus?

Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
what extent? Other physad powers?

(What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 2
From: Justin Pinnow <vanyel@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:45:28 -0400
> From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
> Date: Saturday, October 25, 1997 10:44 AM

> I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.

> There's a swordsman who is blind. He is a physical adept, and
> has bought the astral perception physad power. He has been blind
> all his life (born without eyes) and has had astral perception since
> it was possible (12 years according to some; fair enough.).

Yep, fair enough.

> A few points:
> Unarmed combat/armed combat is clearly purely physical activity,
> and gets a +2 vision penalty. (right?)

Correct. :)

> What if he used a weapon focus?

The act of swinging a sword is still purely physical, even if the sword
itself is magical. One way to think about it would be to ask yourself
"would Astral Perception help the PC to perform this task if he/she wasn't
blind?". If the answer is "yes", the +2 penalty should be waived for that
activity. If the answer is "no", the penalty should still be applied.

However, obviously magical acts don't incur this penalty, even if Astral
Perception isn't necessary to perform them (conjuring, enchanting, etc.).
The question I posed in the above paragraph should be used whenever you
enter the grey areas, like the use of PhysAd abilities, weapon foci, etc.

> Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
> GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
> what extent? Other physad powers?

I think what I stated is good. I don't like to allow someone to take the
Blind Flaw and then negate all the penalities too often. The blind PhysAd
wouldn't often be without the +2 TN penalty. That's the way it should be,
IMO. The first example I can think of in which the penalty wouldn't be
applied would be when attacking a spirit in the Astral Plane (not
manifested) with a weapon focus. There probably wouldn't be many other
cases in which the penalty would be waived, but I am sure there are a few
more examples out there. Blindness gives the PC character creation points
for a reason - it's a disadvantage.

> (What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
> impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)

None necessary, IMO. Magically active beings (IMO, only the ones who have
the possibility of obtaining Astral Perception) get only +2 points for the
Blind Flaw for a reason.

> --
> Fade

Justin :)
Message no. 3
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:10:58 -0400
At 02:44 PM 10/25/97 +0000, you wrote:
>I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.
>
>There's a swordsman who is blind. He is a physical adept, and
>has bought the astral perception physad power. He has been blind
>all his life (born without eyes) and has had astral perception since
>it was possible (12 years according to some; fair enough.).
>
>A few points:
>Unarmed combat/armed combat is clearly purely physical activity,
>and gets a +2 vision penalty. (right?)
>
>What if he used a weapon focus?
>
>Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
>GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
>what extent? Other physad powers?
>
>(What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
>impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)

Well, the rationale for the +2 to physical actions when using astral
perception is that it is simply awkward to do so with altered perceptions.
Nothing seems like what one is used to when firing a gun or doing
sommersaults. But, for someone who has always been blind and astral
perception is the only way they can see, they LEARNED how to do everything
by using astral perception as sight. It seems to me they would only have
the +2 to target numbers if they somehow got back their vision and were
trying to function using normal vision. As an example, think of dual
natured critters, or PC Shapechangers. They see with astral perception
just like a perceiving adept, but they have no +2 to TN for purely physical
actions. Why, because that is their natural mode. I think it can be
argued that astral perception would be just as natural for your blind
physad as for a hellhound (or whatever). If you don't want to knock it all
the way done to no penalty, this at least seems a valid enough argument to
knock it down to +1, but I might be willing to go all the way to no penalty
if I were GM'ing (just because constant astral perception is enough of a
drawback anyway). No one who could actually see, however, would ever
become this comfortable with astral perception, so they would still always
receive the +2.

--DT
Message no. 4
From: Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 14:14:52 PDT
>I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.
>
>There's a swordsman who is blind. He is a physical adept, and
>has bought the astral perception physad power. He has been blind
>all his life (born without eyes) and has had astral perception since
>it was possible (12 years according to some; fair enough.).
>
>A few points:
>Unarmed combat/armed combat is clearly purely physical activity,
>and gets a +2 vision penalty. (right?)

Well, its not avision penalty (or melee would halve it). Its a
"distraction". But thats the penalty, yes.

>
>What if he used a weapon focus?

Same difference. He can see the focus well, but a-space is still "outof
phase"- the size of things aren't even necessarilly the same. (re "ideal
image"). He CAN the weapon focusinastral combat, and at no penalty.


>Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
>GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
>what extent? Other physad powers?

Yeah, centering. You'll need enhanced centering "combat",and
you'll have to roll 4 6's with your centering skill....
A physical orriented character with the "blind" flaw is cool if you
like "the daredevil", but unlikely in reality. I don't believe the
"blind" penalty applies to non-combat tests (astal perception does), so
you could still do athletics, danger sense, hieghtened senses, and many
otheruseful support/ scout type skills, just its harder to kick ass
yourself.
The competency edge would help. It's not often allowed for combat
skills in our campaign, but it makes sense in this situation. Maybe
home turf for a place he knows well (blindness not being as big a
disadvantage there).
You could also put a geas requiring astral perception on the other
adept powers, boosting your total number of powers.
And you can still fight just fine in astral combat (with a weapon
focus). That works on any astral presence you can reach- mages, spells,
dual natured critters, astral or manifest spirits, cyberzombies, other
percieving adepts, to name a few.

>(What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
>impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)

Percieving all the time IS risky. I'd just drop it, or go with
blind fighting physad ability and a longer weapon. Your still
handicapping the guy.
I doubt somebody born blind would ever persue the training needed
to become a good swordsman. Sure, astral sight at a young age MIGHT
allow such an interest, but it suggests so many others as well, such
as forensic magic, psychometry (yech, i know), and ward creation.
Still, not the area of most PC's concentration.

I might allow a technological adaptation to reduce the penalty, but
it would be cumbersome, unrealiable, and / or essence hogging. It would
NOT replace sight (that is against the Flaws rules), but provide similar
information (say to an encaphalon or tactical computer, or as a tactile
sensation on the skin). I'm against the spatial localizer bieng helpful
in many combat situations, though.


Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien

get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 5
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 17:15:15 -0400
At 12:45 PM 10/25/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
>> Date: Saturday, October 25, 1997 10:44 AM
>
>> I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.
>
>> There's a swordsman who is blind. He is a physical adept, and
>> has bought the astral perception physad power. He has been blind
>> all his life (born without eyes) and has had astral perception since
>> it was possible (12 years according to some; fair enough.).
>
>Yep, fair enough.
>
>> A few points:
>> Unarmed combat/armed combat is clearly purely physical activity,
>> and gets a +2 vision penalty. (right?)
>
>Correct. :)
>
>> What if he used a weapon focus?
>
>The act of swinging a sword is still purely physical, even if the sword
>itself is magical. One way to think about it would be to ask yourself
>"would Astral Perception help the PC to perform this task if he/she wasn't
>blind?". If the answer is "yes", the +2 penalty should be waived for
that
>activity. If the answer is "no", the penalty should still be applied.
>
>However, obviously magical acts don't incur this penalty, even if Astral
>Perception isn't necessary to perform them (conjuring, enchanting, etc.).
>The question I posed in the above paragraph should be used whenever you
>enter the grey areas, like the use of PhysAd abilities, weapon foci, etc.
>
>> Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
>> GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
>> what extent? Other physad powers?
>
>I think what I stated is good. I don't like to allow someone to take the
>Blind Flaw and then negate all the penalities too often. The blind PhysAd
>wouldn't often be without the +2 TN penalty. That's the way it should be,
>IMO. The first example I can think of in which the penalty wouldn't be
>applied would be when attacking a spirit in the Astral Plane (not
>manifested) with a weapon focus. There probably wouldn't be many other
>cases in which the penalty would be waived, but I am sure there are a few
>more examples out there. Blindness gives the PC character creation points
>for a reason - it's a disadvantage.
>
>> (What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
>> impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)
>
>None necessary, IMO. Magically active beings (IMO, only the ones who have
>the possibility of obtaining Astral Perception) get only +2 points for the
>Blind Flaw for a reason.
>
Sure, but for a physad, they have to pay for the astral perception power
(either 2 magic points or 3 build points -- more expensive either way).
Plus, as I already said, I think that being required to be astrally active
to see at all is enough of a penalty to warrant 2 measily build points.
Take a physad, and have +2 to TN's to everything they do, and you are just
asking for a useless character).

I would be willing to let the PC get away with no TN penalty, for the
reasons I already mentioned. Besides, the character could be really
interesting. He would be more in tune with the astral than any human mage,
it is all he has ever seen. I think the kind of character with this
background could be role played in many interesting ways, and there is no
reason to cripple the PC with a stupid +2 TN.

--DT
Message no. 6
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 23:54:59 +0200
>> (What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
>> impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)
>
>None necessary, IMO. Magically active beings (IMO, only the ones who have
>the possibility of obtaining Astral Perception) get only +2 points for the
>Blind Flaw for a reason.
>
>> --
>> Fade
>
>Justin :)
Ah. Well, the character in question was designed before the Companion came out.
So there wasn't a bonus for the blindness - it was supposed to be mainly
a style kind of thing. Does that change anything?

(Technically, no, of course, but...)
Message no. 7
From: "Mike (Leszek Karlik)" <trrkt@*****.ONET.PL>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:21:47 +0000
On 25 Oct 97, Fade disseminated foul capitalist propaganda by
writing:

> I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.

> Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
> GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
> what extent? Other physad powers?

Yes, there are other physad powers. I toyed with the idea of blind
physad recently, and guess what: use Enhanced Senses.
For .25 points, you could get ultra hearing that would help, maybe
sonar-like sense, like bats, or maybe thermal vision without normal
vision (sensing the heat differences with the skin on his forehead,
for example)... Now, he would still be color-blind, but that would
sure help.


Mike (Leszek Karlik) - trrkt@*****.onet.pl; http://www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike; FIAWOL
FL/GN Leszek/Raptor II/ISD Vanguard, (SS) (PC) (ISM) {IWATS-IIC} JH(Sith)/House Scholae
Palatinae
Why is 'ABBREVIATION' such a long word?
Message no. 8
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Astral Perception, penalties, blindness
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:27:55 GMT
Fade writes

> I am interested in hearing the list's opinion on a case.
>
> There's a swordsman who is blind. He is a physical adept, and
> has bought the astral perception physad power. He has been blind
> all his life (born without eyes) and has had astral perception since
> it was possible (12 years according to some; fair enough.).
>
> A few points:
> Unarmed combat/armed combat is clearly purely physical activity,
> and gets a +2 vision penalty. (right?)
>
By the rules yes.

> What if he used a weapon focus?
>
Same, though he can now attack spirts in astral combat without the
penalty armed as well as unarmed (manifest spirits are dual so pisk
your plane.

> Would there be another way to reduce the vision penalty? Would a
> GM's call (and cost) to say it is reasonable be fair? And if so, to
> what extent? Other physad powers?
>
The enhance aim/'swing' spell in awakenins will do the job (latter
version may be a research spell) but then that works even better on
sighted folks.
A 'allow vision' spell would do it but that kind of makes the flaw
worthless!

> (What I'm saying is, I like the idea but currently it looks hugely
> impractical. Magebait, and so on. Suggested changes?)

In this case i would feel inclined to say the penatly should be
reduced to a +1, probably +0 in melee as that the only way the
character has ever had vision (note the reduced value of blind as a
flaw for magicians is expecting mages casting manabolts which don't
suffer the +2 for perception being spellcasting!, yes i did see the
reply saying you weren't using the edges and flaws)

Given the limited ability to read etc through astral perception i
think this character has enough problems already, also he has to be
astrally active to see, not helpful for a runner trying to be subtle.
I see no reason to penalise the character with a game mechanic that
really has little bearing or reality (melee works just as well
however you can see your opponent, you can still see him and his
sword just fine with astral percpetion, ok if you have both astral
and mundane sight they may confuse each other but thats not true
here) and would just make a difficult to roeplay character to useless
to be worth the effort.

Mark

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Astral Perception, penalties, blindness, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.