What if you would want to do exactly the same spell as you just described, but to displace the vision of a target grog ?
The RAW does not answer this. So you either join those who says this mean the spell as you described is not allowed, or should be changed to concur with the RAW. Or you think like other people, like me, who try to think of a way to allow hermetic magi to do such a thing.
I think the simple solution is to do as you just did: you count a +3 "range : sight" for "how far can you transport your vision", and a +4 "Target: Vision" for "transporting your vision". This approach has the benefit of solving most other problems described in this thread: WoMS should be Target: group for dispelling a bunch of spells "blown be the breeze"; StDI should be Target: Vision and level 35 (this is, afterall, a powerfull scying spell). Also, Prying Eyes should be (let's say, in an hypothetical, upgraded, Ars Mag 5.5) Target:Vision, level 15 spells.
So I disagree with Cuchulainshound on this: Summoning the Distant Image is not a similar spell to yours, because what you want to do is "transport" your vision to another place : you don't want to see another place.
As other have said, the RAW does not answer this directly. My take would be: no. I take the rule that "Magical enhancement of the voice does not increase this range" to mean that you need to use your own normal voice as the extent of the range. I apply the same logic to sight, for rule balance reasons: you can affect only things you can see normally. So no Pilum of fire with range:sight through a Summoning the Distant image spell. Muto Vim metamagic is there for you if you want to extend the range of your spells. YMMV.
See 2, so no. But YMMV, and if you answer Yes to question number 2, then I would say you need to answer yes to number 3.
The question "Can you extend the range of a Sight spell by extending the range of your Sight" has long been debated in my group. In the end, we came to the conclusion that answering either "yes" or "no" can cause problems, though answering "no" causes far fewer, particularly in terms of game balance.
Our current interpretation is: you can cast a range "Sight" spell if (at least part of) the target is in your line of sight: i.e. there exists a straight line, unobstructed by solid objects, from your eye(s) to the target. So:
You can cast a Sight spell in total darkness, if you can perceive your target in other ways (e.g. by sound).
Similarly, you can cast a Sight spell even if the target is invisible, or too small to see, as long as you can perceive it.
You cannot cast a Sight spell through a clear glass window.
You cannot cast a Sight spell "around a corner" by looking through a mirror.
You cannot shift your vision into a king's throne room 7 leagues away, and cast your Sight range Pilum of Fire on the throne.
What you are describing is more commonly refered to as "line of effect", not line of sight. Line of sight means you can see the target. Line of effect means that, as you said, "there exists a straight line, unobstructed by solid objects, from your eye(s) to the target."
So line of effect means you can shoot a target with an arrow even if you can't see them (dark room, blindness, etc), and line of sight means you can cast sight range spells on someone even if you couldn't hit them with the arrow (crystal ball, pane of glass, mirror, etc).
This distinction is crystal clear in D&D, though I'm less sure about Ars.
To me Sight is the odd one. All the others seem to me to involve a method of transmission toward the target: Personal - already there, Touch - via touch, Voice - via sound, Arcane Connection - via the link between them. I'm not sure what any of the rules for the others would imply about Sight.
The subsection "Magical Senses" on page 113-114 that you refer to is about "spells that grant magical senses to a person".
Here I'm commenting on Pralix's "InIm25 Change of Perspective" spell. His spell is about making the target see (normally) as if he were elsewhere than usual (his head's eyes, of course). I understand his idea as being different than granting a magical senses, which to me would be more like seeing in darkness, or being able to detect magic. I further complicated his idea (the "...of a target grog" part) to bring to light how and why the RAW doesn't not answer how to translate into rules Pralix's idea.
So no, to me it does not fit neatly under that bit on page 114, sadly. But if you are meaning that, with the little home ruling I propose, it fit somewhat correctly, yeah, all does fit neatly then.
The thing is that Pralix idea is so normal (for me, YMMV) for a mage to be able to do, that there ought to be some basic rule covering this. We try to make our home rule to fit withing the RAW as closely as possible, whenever possible.
You can also see this as a comparison to the already existing spell ReIm25 The Captive Voice (p. 146). But instead of capturing the voice, Pralix's idea is to "capture" (or displace) the hearing of the target. But I prefer to see those reverse Captive voice spells as Intellego, and not Rego. You could also, probably, see a Intellego Mentem or Animal spell to see what another creature is seeing. But I think Imaginem ought to be able to do such thing, if not only because a maga should be able to displace her vision behind, for exemple, a wall. This last exemple is a good one, because it is almost what Prying eyes do, but not if the room behind the wall is too large, or not a room. This is so counterintuitive... There ought to be a spell enabling a mage to see behind a wall that he touch, whatever is behind this wall, or the rules are badly designed (in this particular instance). The small tweak I propose fix that too.
I'm not sure I correctly understood what was meant by this then:
I understood this to be the desire to move another person's POV, which would admittedly not grant him another sense (since he's still using his vision) but does signficantly alter his sensory ablities. While I still hold that the above-mentioned bit about granting senses is the most appropriate, upon further re-reading I agree that it is not as clear-cut as I recalled it to be.
I would however still most humbly point to said section of the core rulesbook as the most relevant item available.
@Tellus: Thank you for your question, it give me an opportunity to for me to be more clear about what i'm trying to say.
In short, you understood correctly: I agree with all you said in your previous post. As you say the bit on p.114 is the "most relevant item available".
Maybe the reason you are not sure you understood be correctly, is because I didn't made clear where is my main point.
Here is ExarKun answer to Pralix, which is the answer one could find in the core book:
This answer is closely related to spells such as Summoning the Distant Image or Prying Eyes. Those spells use the Range as "where you put your sense" and the Target as what you will be able to see. Hense this thread's discussion about the difficulty of using Range:Room to see something in a forest, for exemple, and for the non-existence for a "zone"range (ExarKun seems to suggest that "group" would do it for a target outside a room, but there are problems with this idea I can't discuss here and now).
But this last answer (ExarKun's and core book) ought to be wrong. It's wrong because it does not do what Pralix first wanted in his spell suggestion. The best way to do it is the same as Pralix's design in his first post, for reasons explained in previous posts here. This last bit is my main point.
I assume (tell me if I'm wrong), that you agree that much with me, given what you just said in your previous post. You are right in pointing out that Pralix's suggestion make good use of page 114 rules.
Further, my main point lead me to conclude that there is a few spells in the core book (E.g.: Prying Eyes, StDI,..) that are correct regarding the RAW, but that, by the RAW, does someting different from what should be correctly expected from their own description. (E.g.: WoMS works only if cast in a small enough room!) So there ought to exist a spell (as I suggested in one of my previous post) that do exactly what their description mean to do. And for that, you need to disregard those first core book's exemple spells. And construct your own, using p. 114's rules, amoung others. To me, doing this (the "disregarding") is making a (albeit small) house ruling (but YMMV, this isn't that important).