From:	Dave Sherohman <esper@*****.IMA.UMN.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Dual-nature question
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 1994 19:11:03 CST

From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin%SUPERDEC.UNI.UIUC.EDU@***.spcs.umn.edu>

> On the same topic of using different senses, how about ears? It
>DEFINITELY is different for them, not hearing the actual conversation but he
>(oops) hearing the meaning. Makes a difference, wouldn't you think?

Nope. Astral perception is properly referred to as assensing (yes, the term
is taken from the main SR rulebook; I didn't make it up myself). Examine
this word, please: a-sensing. Without sensing. Astral perception does not
use any of the physical senses. There is no astral sight (though it is most
commonly described in terms of sight as that is the closest equivalent for
mundanes - trying to accurately describe astral perceptions to a mundane is
like trying to explain the difference between red and blue to a blind man).
There is no astral hearing, touch, taste, or smell.

> Oh, and I agree that you don't need eyes to see in the astral. Of
>course, it's the only way you are going to be able to use LOS spells, but oh
>well.

Astral, not physical, LOS is required by spells. For the sake of simplicity,
FASA defined glass as being transparent to astral energy and mirrors as
reflecting it so that they would (normally) be the same thing. But not
always - for instance, your blind mage will never have a physical LOS, but
would have no special difficulty establishing an astral LOS.

> How about this...would a blind mage in astral get the +2 penalty for
>perceiving? I wouldn't think so, they're not looking in real space...

I think they would. Remember that the +2 _only_ applies to purely physical
activity - spellcasting isn't affected by it, but you can't aim a gun
effectively with astral perception. Actually, I'd probably make it either
+2 or +(Normal penalty - 2), whichever is worse because, as you stated, he
wouldn't be looking at the physical.

esper@***.umn.edu