Blind Magi any concept in mind

I was reading the flaw Blind.

"you have little or no Insight. Using Missile Weapons is futile, reading is impossible and Navigation in unknown territory is difficult to say at least.
Blind Magi can detect target by other sens and thus are less limited than people trying to use missile weapons.
However blind magi cannot aim spell without magical Aid"

Now base on that what do they mean, is there spell than can help to see or to aim, any idea.

More over so far didnt see any blind magi concept, and i was wondering about it

Since the magi can learn from reading he has to learn from Vis so free study should be an help.
But for the rest im curious of your ideas and opinions

There was an item in MoH (page 31) called the Dico Calculus that allows a blind magus to read.

can be used to magically see, read and aim. Look at ArM5 p.144f InIm5 Prying Eyes and modify appropriately.

The classical old blind NPC magus will often see through the eyes of his grumpy familiar (via ArM5 p.105 Shared Senses), who resents to be used for hours as a reading aid.

Neither of these solutions does allow a blind magus to benefit from T: Vision or cast R: Sight spells, though. Quick orientation may also remain a problem.


Blind magi using magic to overcome their problems will eat a lot of warping. The way to sidestep this is to have a familiar and enchant the bond with powers, which explicitly do not cause warping.

Technically, Muto Corpus magic can grow a magi temporary eyes, which doesn't violate essential nature any more than a Dwarfed player using MuCo magic to get bigger. Technically, this could be considered Scrying, same as any other sense-enhancing magic - the Order seems to be rather hardcore about the rules on Scrying, almost any use of magic to pry into another magi's life is labelled Scrying, so your only defense is that observing a magi in 'public' is not prying.

The most commonly useful spell for a blind magus is Eyes of the Bat InAu25, which lacks detail but works in darkness and is spherical in effect (based of hearing). Intellego Imaginem spells can be used to great effect, for example, you might be able to feel and interpret the visual species hitting your skin with the right magic (Houses of Hermes: Societas has more rules for this sort of magic).

I would note two things.

First, there are many, many different types of blindness, and a solution to address one may not help to address another. For example, you could see, but be so shortsighted as to be effectively blind. This is one of the very few cases in which One Shot's suggestion would, as far as I can tell, help:

The way I read the guideline is "Use one sense [that you already have] at a distance [even if beyond its normal reach]". So, if you had lost both your eyes, an InIm spell based on that guideline wouldn't allow you to see -- any more than a ReTe spell to "wield a sword at a distance" would allow you to wield a sword in the absence of any sword. On the other hand, if you were so very shortsighted as to be effectively blind, the guideline would help.

The second observation is that a Flaw that does not cause appropriate inconvenience is not a Flaw!

Or at least not as valuable a flaw. Still, if a magus must take years of work to overcome most of the deleterious effects of a Flaw, then he has been appropriately inconvenienced. If he steps into a foreign Aegis, though, he'll likely be completely helpless unless he has massive penetration on his spells. Similarly if his familiar is killed, far worse for him than the average magus. Being dependent on magic to overcome physical shortcomings is its own inconvenience.

I agree. That's why I was being vague. Though if blindness could be obviated by a simple spell that could be cast spontaneously without fatigue (and note that if you keep it "up" less than half the time it won't even warp you!)... I'd probably consider it insufficiently inconveniencing.

For a magus, Blind means that you need to deal with your blindness, not that you can't see, and it creates vulnerabilities and weak spots (like an enemy Aegis). It also provides your enemies with a means of hitting you for breaking the Oath if you're currently in bad odor with the Tribunal. (A reasonable Tribunal would consider a magus who brought a scrying charge against a magus who was just regrowing his lost eyes to be extremely petty. Not all Tribunals are reasonable.)

You are certainly entitled to read any book in any way you like.

You also are entitled to read this spell in any way you like. You even can add in [unless you are blind].


Instead of using Eyes
iWas imagining like one of the character in avatar the last airbender "Toph" Who could see through her feet by recognizing Vibration
I guess an InTe

I don't know "Toph" - but perceiving weak vibrations in the ground via InTe is certainly possible. It is also very limited, as this way one cannot even detect a solid wall.
Intentionally causing vibrations first and then doing some kind of processing of their reflections hardly is a medieval concept.


Consider these two core rules

So using T: Vision spells does not solve the problem. Things like Eyes of the Bat still work, though.

A blind person standing inside the room would see nothing, so this spell would allow a blind person to see nothing. The critical sentence is not the one One Shot underlined, but the next one. This uses the level-1 guideline, which shows us the most likely intended interpretation of the guideline. This seems to match ezzelino's interpretation much better than One Shot's. However, even severe nearsightedness would not be solved with this guideline because you'd just be extremely nearsighted elsewhere.

That sentence applies only if "the room is unlit or poorly lit" - so in our case is irrelevant. You read something into it first, to get it out as your result again.


No, I think it quite clearly shows the intention. They didn't cover every single scenario. The intent that your vision is not improved, just moved, seems pretty clear. Similarly, how do you interpret the next part of that? Are you saying that if I have a spell enhancing my vision so that I can see very fine details, that only works if the room is unlit or poorly lit but not if it's well lit? Or maybe an example of its application was given to guide everyone, showing that this spell does not enhance your vision at all, just move it. Interestingly, that is what the guideline says, just at a distance, not enhanced.

For a related argument, why are you letting someone use a base 3 (at best) guideline as a base 1 guideline on top of a base 1 guideline? It's base 3 to enhance a sense. You're allowing the base 1 to both move and enhance the sense.

You guess at intentions instead of reading a text.

That is open to interpretation. You can read:
(1) "If the room is unlit or poorly lit, you can only see as much as you could if you were inside"
(2) "but magical enhancements of your senses do apply".
In any case plain, boring grammar enforces, that the if-clause applies at the very least to the first part.

Well, it doesn't. You read your intention into it as well.

No. Prying Eyes just says, that - perhaps even without the condition - "magical enhancements of your senses do apply". It doesn't do such enhancements to your senses - like viewing in semi-darkness - itself.

Summing up: You wish to read something into ArM5 that feels internally consistent to you - but which is just not written there.


But now you contradict yourself to hold your position. You claimed this spell lets you see even if you cannot. Now you claim it is not enhancing a sense, which is ezzelino's and my stance. Is vision not improved when going from being blind to being able to see? Remember, seeing more clearly over distances is an explicit example of enhancing a sense.

No. Vision is not improved in the sense of

Vision is used at a distance in a quite restricted way (by R: Touch, T: Room), namely "you can see inside a room, as long as you can touch one of its walls". If you are outside of any structure, seeing within a T: Boundary requires a ritual, and not having to stay within some 50 feet of that boundary requires R: Arcane Connection too. Then you need to boost it further to D: Year to make good use of your Vis, and the resulting InIm45 Ritual allows you for a year to rather freely see what's within your covenant's Aegis.


(Edited to make it better.)

No, really no. Cast the spell at R: Personal and T: Individual to put the location for your vision on the tips of your eyes (or eyelids and close them if that feels better with the guideline). According to you this allows you see the room as if you were a person with normal vision standing wherever. But you're a blind person. Your claim is that this does not enhance your vision? Really? Oh, because it's R: Touch. No, that argument simply cannot hold. Because it's T: Room. No, that argument simply cannot hold. This spell is neither. Now you can see. At D: Concentration it's InIm2.

Similarly, if you don't need the sense, then you can use InIm2 to give yourself a bat's sense at D: Concentration. Really?

No. With R: Personal you are limited to T: Individual (see ArM5 p.111) or sense Targets (see ArM5 p.113f). A blind person cannot benefit from a T: Sight effect, as this "is subject to the same limitations as the mundane sense." See also .
Your InIm T: Individual spell only shows the targeted individual, and - because ArM5 is friendly - some pace around it (see e. g. ArM5 p.131 The Eye of the Sage). This might be sufficient to read, but it doesn't allow to control a typical experiment in the lab. To watch all of your lab with InIm, you need to use a R: Touch and T: Room version.[sup]*[/sup] Going beyond watching stuff in a room or structure requires T: Boundary, and on we go with .

For a more precise definition of images, see HoH:S p.61ff. So you have to decide, whether a bat's sense is perceiving species, or rather boundaries of air like ArM5 p.127 Eyes of the Bat.


[sup]*[/sup]: OK, unless you convince your troupe to allow your lab to be your talisman, hence part of yourself while you touch it.

Well, if you are extremely nearsighted extremely near to what you are trying to observe, you should be just fine, right?