Thanks for the insights and the great feedback from all of you!
This gave a lot of insight, and things to think about.

I agree that shooting on a wall to trigger an "explosion" sounds like I would like to have it working too. The description of the rules in the elemental spell section seem to support this, as they point out that the explosion of an elemental manipulation spell is physical and works like a grenade. A few pages later the rules state again that it works like a ranged attack with distance modifier 4 PLUS modifiers for sight / protection etc.

By this definition we are looking at TN12 for a target hidden behind a wall.
TN8 for someone partially concealed
TN4 for someone on the plain field

So tough call here. I think the explanation with multiple projectiles flying into the AOE sounds like what should be happeneing. Which makes the spell worse.

Initially I thought that there is no way to have combat pools in a spell. But yes, the rules clearly state, that its a ranged attack. So I fully agree that this is what should happen. In fact, spell pool should not be allowed for the attack then. Therefore you would have casting an elemental manipulation spell: sorcery + combat pool and drain: willpower + sorcery pool. This should allow for a strong all out attack - and exposes the mage to heavy return fire, Unless he wiped the opposition out (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I disagree with this house rule. Elemental manipulation spells, and especially the area ones we're talking about here, already come with MONDO drain codes. If you want to cast them with a Damage level of S or higher, you're adding at least +2 to your drain code which will be paired with Deadly stun. Meanwhile, the damage code to resist is limited to the Force at which the spell is cast (or at least that's what we all agree the most likely intent of the rules is). For most, that's going to be limited to 6, giving the spell the same Power as a light pistol. That's...not much. If someone wants to throw in every last die they can, Drain be damned, then I say let them. Otherwise, most cases are going to go exactly the way you described anyways: combat pool for the attack, sorcery pool to help avoid taking Drain.

I'm still not sure it's RAI, but I'd go with allowing combat pool. And as shev said, I agree that sorcery pool should definitely be allowed. It's (for once) explicitly written in the rules, and that would make them much more interesting. Shev mentions that Force is likely to be 6, and that's minus half impact armor… So more likely to be 5 against most opposition…

And don't forget, unlike other spells these can be dodged.

Indeed…

Actually, the last time I saw such a spell come into play, that was from a player who was new to the game and insisted on having such a tool, because he was used to some fantasy setting with mage fireballing and the like. The results were… really not in favour of using it, although the player was really not likely to want to put gloves and fear such things as drain.

Despite there being a lot of fighting, he actually only used it like twice. Because even for him, there were like tons of things to do before using such spells. He remained ready to counterspell, actually shot things or punched them in the face (was a troll), sent them some spirits to kill them, did other magic, and so on.

There were two times the spell would be useful. The first one was when trying to fireball a cafe full of fanatics. That was totally counterspelled, because there was one initiate and at least another magician inside. Really disappointing, but probably would be the same with other spells. Second time was when the players ambushed a bunch of said fanatics looking for them in some forest. The setup was actually kind of perfect. Good line of sight, the enemy mages had just been appropriately dispatched by the group's sniper, and the victims didn't have time to take cover. Fireballs are pretty big actually, like 12 m diameter if I recall correctly at F6. So I let him have a lot of the ennemies in the spell's area. I'm not sure I added visibility modifier because of the night (that's like +1 or +2 for a troll I think), but definitely not partial cover that could be argued by the simple fact of advancing in the woods. Anyway, only like 2 from the opposition couldn't totally avoid the spell. None of them were even in serious damage at the end, which was the limit to have them leave combat.

Granted, that was useful: we all know what happens in SR3 when PCs have still 2 initiative passes and one of them is a sniper and the other wielding a custom made full auto fully compensated heavy pistol plus a shotgun wielding troll to opposition WITH NO COMBAT POOL LEFT. You're looking at 6 or 7 NPCs incapacitated (Sometimes even 6 or 7 dead) per initiative passes. That's not really the problem. That went as planned, they brought the enemy where it didn't want to be, had them split and surprised part of them by setting an ambush at a place they didn't expect, and were fucking crazy professionals. They sustained some wounds though.

But the real problem is: what would have happened if the mage had casted regular manaball, or even a stunball a Serious or Deadly ? He would have downed at least half the opposition by himself at the cost of being kind of tired. A 6D stunball is drain 4D. With Totem modifier, whatever, you can totally expect to get out of that with medium stun damage.

Really, the 6th world is not about Fireballs.

It does describe under FORCE at the start of the magic chapter that the Force of a spell is the TN to resist it's effects. Given that language any roll to resist a spell effects, Spell Resistance and Damage Resistance uses Force of Spell.

Actually, on rereading the elemental manipulations, I have to say that while Fire and lightning suck, Acid seems quite overkill. It deals damage AND gives a +4 modifier to ALL tests for people in the affected area until the end of the combat turn.

I genuinely don't think Fire and Lightning suck, Getting set on fire with ammo cooking off is no fun, nor is the electrics frying in a vehicle, deck or cyberware

It would be if it was any reliable.

So let's look for the most reliable lighting people on fire. Supposing clothing are low-tech manufactured (excluding combat suits your better opposition will use then). That's Object Resistance 5. At deadly, you have thus 85% chances of setting people on fire. A deadly fireball is drain 5D at Force 1. Object Resitance 5 necessitates at least Force 2. So unless you use exclusive action for drain, you are at 6D to just set 5 people out of 6 on fire for Medium Damage ONCE per combat turn (and only at the end, and only if they don't go to the ground rolling or somtehing to quench the fire). How is that better than casting a deadly stunball at Force 6 for 4D drain? Or just serious for 2D drain? Maybe in a few chosen cases, you never know, but seriously?

And personnally I'd read "If, after applying the primary damage of the spell, anyone is left standing and in some way vulnerable to the secondary effects," as meaning people who dodged the spell don't get secondary effects. So really, that 85% chance doesn't concern many people. And if you cast at serious, because you want to use your spell pool to have more successes or whatever, and having a drain of "only" 4D, that's now setting people on fire only like 60% of the time.

So next, you could cook off ammo or wreck some basic electronics. Except, not that often. OR is now 8, which you get to 7 because of this awesome minus 1. So now, you wreck these object 60% of the time with a deadly spell. That's bad. And going to serious is giving you OR of 9 now. That's what, less than 30% chances. And now, you are casting at a minimum of Force 4, and even at exclusive for drain, that's 6D for Deadly damage and 4D for Serious Damage. And that's not even going to wreck a computer, which is OR10+. And a fucking automatically air-timed minigrenade or whatever may well be 10+ too.

You really want to compare that to inflicting +4 to ALL tests for ANYBODY in the affected area for a whole combat turn. And inserting the secondary effects (possibility to reduce armor by -1, and destroying weapons when casting at D) in the preceding paragraphs only make them acid MUCH better than the two others.

Also, ammunition cooking off isn't what a lot of people think.

(Hollywood ballistics strikes again ...)

When typical cased ammunition cooks off, the weak point in the system is the unsupported thin brass case, not the heavy bullet. The case will burst open, giving a very brief flame, but won't be substantially worse than the flame that cooked it off in the first place. The bullet doesn't fly off.

Caseless ammunition doesn't even have the bursting brass case. If it's outside any kind of serious combat armour, you've just started a fire on the outside of the armour which, again, isn't substantially worse than what caused the conflagrants to cook off in the first place.

The worst part about cooking off ammo is that it's no longer available to shoot.

Stunball requires a visible target, living, target to centre on.
Acid side effects are basically negated if you are wearing a respirator, have a cyber oxytank or tracheal filter.
I never said either were not good though.
F2 Fireball cast at Serious for a Drain of 4D will be setting most people on fire on 7s, which is good odds on 2d6 (per item worn), plus their other stuff on 10s (per item) and will require at least Body 7 to have a chance at reducing to No Damage. If you get an ammo cook off of type it counts as a hit from the weapon which bypasses armour completely AND if they are on fire they will be taking 6M end of turn 1 of being on fire, then 8M, then 10M etc until the flame is doused.

It all comes down to the tactical situation - but discounting Fire and Lightning is unwise.

My point was that whoever wrote that rule about the ammo cookoff knows less than nothing about how ammunition actually cooks off, what kind of damage results, nor even how it's generally carried by people in combat roles.

It shouldn't even necessarily apply to grenades, let alone standard cartridges. As for the caseless ammunition standard position, the whole point is that it doesn't even have a case to do any kind of driving of the bullet until and unless it's chambered, which by definition, outside the weapon, it's not.

There's so much wrong with their comprehension, it's hard to actually cover it all. Starting with the composition of propellant isn't high explosive, it's conflagrant, and for very good reasons.

Oh well ....

And invisible targets are TN12 for area elemental manipulations. There are no ways to reliably success. And they are dodgeable on TN4.

The only question here, is do you really think a target that dodged or wasn't hit by the fireball is "in some way vulnerable" to the secondary effect? The rules are badly written, but they suggest that you test for secondary only after applying primary. Applying damage means that you ticked some box on your damage conditions. Shrugging damage means you also shrug secondary effects.



True for clothes, wrong for other stuff. You need Force 4 Fireball to win against OR 8. That's now Drain 5D! Hurray for drain! And even at F2, did you think of maybe spell defense?

And very wrong to think that you launch 2d6 "per item worn". Because no one will let you roll the dice 10 times for an enemy just for clothes in winter. But that's a good question. What do the rules say?

"If, after applying the primary damage of the spell, anyone is left standing and in some way vulnerable to the secondary effects, roll 2D6 to determine the effect for any non-living targets."

Is the "for any non-living targets" linked to "effect", or to "roll 2D6". Since the second hypothesis is incredibly stupid, I think you roll only once. And then apply the secondary effect to the "vulnerable targets".



No, that's 6M every round. Cannon Companion rules don't supercede. They might be considered valid in saying you need a fire extinguisher and 2 combat turns to quench the fire. Myself, I would house rule that someone rolling on the ground, taking off his clothes, whatever, extinguish in one round if they spend a complex action doing so, but that's just me.



Yes, it comes down to tactical situation, and you have to come up with such convoluted tactical situations to have them more efficient than combat spell that they can be wisely discounted from any but the most exhaustive spell lists.

You can see the target?

If yes: Stunball or Powerball. Less drain, more efficiency.

If no: do they have spell defense?

If yes: don't waste your time: you're at a major disadvantage when compared to the opposing mage.

If no: can they access their combat pool (i. e. they are aware of you attacking them)?

If yes: you're probably wasting your time. Most of them will be able to dodge your very reduced number of success on TN12

If no: you're probably wasting your time trying to reach this TN12. But risking some bad drain, you have good chances (like 60%) of setting them all on fire. Is that the best course of action to get rid of people you obviously have the drop on?

AOE in Shadowrun is dodgeable on 6s (edited because I was thinking of wrong game with no dodge vs grenades)
The TN for targeting That piece of open air X metres away is 4. No more, no less.
Spell defense doesn't help if you (or your spell defense targets) are not the Target of the spell itself.
Canon Companion doesn't supersede but MITS Elemental Effects does.

Or to run some numbers, lets take the Combat Mage example character and give him Fireball 4 instead of some other spell.
He knows there is a bunch of ganger's hiding behind the service gantry in the cheap greasy spoon he's just walked into looking for them. But they are out of LOS. He's not concerned about taking anyone alive so he tosses a Force 4 Serious Fireball aimed a couple of meters behind the service gantry.
Our hero has Sorcery (Spellcasting) 5(7) so he decides to keep his spell pool for Drain.
He casts at TN4 and gets 3 successes.
He resists Drain at 5D - Impressive 6 success, takes Light Stun.
Now our Gangers are pretty tough at Body 5 with armoured jackets. So they are soaking at TN2 and probably want to add some combat pool, say 2. Results come in at Light, Moderate, Serious, Moderate injuries.
The Light and both Moderates also catch fire on 7, 8, 8. Serious only got a 4.
When any ammo cooks off is a little obscure, but treating it like regular explosives we will say end of turn.
Now the Gangers can act.
One may move and return fire without much hassle apart from wound penalties.
Three may want to try and put out the fires, throw away ammo, or attempt to return fire themselves.
All have wound penalties - Three in this case would have penalties for trying to shoot while on fire.

I never saw that AoE dodge is 6, and I'd like to see a reference for that. Heard it a lot, so I may be wrong but:



I looked at Cannon Companion but didn't see anything.



Sigh… It is not. Please can you read the rules, it's tiring to actually have to reference them all the time while it does seem like you're just using bad memory…



Frankly, it's really easy to find…



No it does… See above…



Yep, my bad. Didn't think about looking there. Still minor stuff. And a rare occasion where the rules contradict themselves without stating it explicitely. Both interpretation are valid.

-----

So, about the notoriously suboptimal character from the book.



No he doesn't, because without loss, as explained many times, he gets about 0 success.



No, he resists Drain at 5D - he has willpower 6 and Spell pool 5 right? That's eleven dice, let's say 12, so that he has 4 successes and is at Moderate, because you don't get to arbitrarily pull such numbers as 6 successes instead of 4 on TN5. So he is moderately stun. That sucks.



No, they are soaking TN3, because that's half impact armor. And they're using the whole combat pool, because they can't see you and are always better off doing so since if they reply they are better having the least penalty.

Anyway, you present a case where most of your targets are at moderate damages at the end. So really still able to toast you if sufficiently motivated. Those who catch fire will die, by the rules, in about 3 rounds. But you are at moderate.

ANYWAY, what could the mage do?

He could walk in where he could see them. Unless they fire at random people coming to their hide without even saying hi, he will easily cast Stunball at Force 6 (in case of doubt, walk in invisible) at Moderate Damage Damage, using his whole spell pool against their average willpower of 3. He averages 8 successes, the gangers average 1/2 success. They are all down, and he has to face Drain 2S, which he survives at light but could have done better using his spell pool more smarly.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

The TN for the Spell is 4, as an AoE Elemental Manipulation spell he can target anywhere in LOS, like say X meters away X meters off the deck, midair. That's TN 4. It even explains this in spell TNs under Sorcery - I have no idea where you are getting a 12 from as this is not Blindfiring to hit the people, you are placing your spell's central point of detonation. An AOE Elemental spell doesn't need a Target in the same way a Combat Spell does, it can Target a location - like a grenade does - only as it auto explodes midair is a valid target. If you're going to take that kind of tone I suggest you go back and read the chapter entitled Magic again, with special interest on Spell targetting and Elemental Manipulations. .

Also i rolled dice for the results for a bit of flavour - it wasn't arbitrary - the 'average' would indeed leave him on Moderate.

He cannot use Stunball without LOS to one of the targets and cannot hit any of them without LOS to them.

Dodging AoE Grenades and Blasts is +2 TN according to the SR3 FAQ that was ported to catalyst from the FASA / FANPRO/ WIZKIDS site.

Sure he COULD move to where he can see them, Assuming their hiding place is within Quickness metres - it's probably not. Assuming also that none of them is waiting from a higher initiative point to shoot the mage the moment he comes into view, with combat pool available, ruining his day, and assuming you're not having to spend a simple action to get through the door.

Spell Defense only works for Elemental manipulation spells if the target of spell defense remains a valid target for Spell targeting. IE: Lightening Bolt has a single Target which is then effected by the spell, spell defense works here. An AOE Elemental Spell does not need to target any of the characters covered by spell defense to still hit them - thus they are not longer covered by Spell Defense.

I'm sorry for my tone, and for the exasperation, because I understand where you're coming from. But unfortunately, I am right on this… Please reread the rules carefully.

Spell targetting:

"Elemental Manipulation Spells: Elemental manipulation spells work a little differently from other spells. An elemental spell creates a damaging medium in the physical world (fire, acid, lightning) which the caster directs at the target of the spell just like any other ranged attack. Because an elemental spell creates actual matter or energy, it is impeded by physical obstructions like glass and other barriers. The matter or energy of the spell hits the obstruction, and one of them has to give (see Firing through Barriers, p. 124). Because the physical com- ponent of the spell is directed and controlled by magic, it can still be blocked by anything that affects spells, including Spell Defense and astral barriers.
Because an elemental spell creates a physical medium, it affects targets in the area of effect in the same way as a phys- ical explosion or grenade. Make the Sorcery Test and compare the result to the target numbers of all the targets in the area. Targets with complete visual cover can still be affected. Targets hidden behind a wall within the radius of a Fireball spell will still get cooked, even if the caster cannot see them."

Emphasis mine on the bolded paragraph… It concerns the AOE… Sorry, but you have to beat the TN for each target.

And in case of doubt about the modifiers for the TN, next paragraph about sorcery test:

"Elemental Manipulation Spells: Elemental spells are treat- ed like normal ranged attacks (see p. 109) using Sorcery as the Ranged Combat Skill. Spell Pool dice may be added as normal. They have a base Target Number of 4, regardless of range, as long as the caster can see the target. Cover, visibility, injury and sus- taining modifiers apply. These spells can be dodged (see p. 113)."



FAQ is not cannon, not RAW, not even RAI. That's house rule.

I think we are clashing over the bolded element. The Blindfire Range Combat penalty for hitting a target doesn't apply for an AoE for example - so the TN for a hidden target is 4, however if they have cover from the angle of the blast then the TN would be going up for Cover, meaning that the blast would then not effect them - the key is "Appropriate Ranged Combat Modifiers" and in the example I'm giving the appropriate ranged modifiers are not LOS but rather LOE from detonation point.

The FAQ is an official Games Resource produced from FASA onward to clarify and confirm the mechanics of the game (like Called Shot to Bypass Armour) https://www.shadowruntabletop.com/game-reso...rd-edition-faq/

What you're describing is described for AoE blast from grenade and explosives via a totally different mechanic. The Power of the attack decreases with distance from the center and is diminished by the barrier rating of your cover. If they wanted fireballs to use this mechanic, they would have described it accordingly I think. What you describe, I have not seen anywhere else, but my memory might fail: the caster's TN raising from the target being undercover from the center of the blast effect.

The idea that there is a blast which you could take cover from is interesting. Because there are none: Fireball have a radius of Magic Meter, be there wind, for or snow. The only thing preventing them from happening is a "sealed" barrier. Interestingly, the rules can confirm that in the bold paragraph:

"Targets hidden behind a wall within the radius of a Fireball spell will still get cooked, even if the caster cannot see them."


Do they minutely describe a wall being usable as a cover from some kind of blast when you choose some angles or whatever? No. You're in the radius, there are flames everywhere. And this is from the people asking you to compute the chunky salsa effects in a game where you might very well have grenades going off in the middle of a 4x3 m2 room. If they wanted you to do that, they'd tell you.

There is no blast, and 2 out of 3 spells described in the BBB are NOT described as explosions, and nothing suggest that they "blast" from a central point. Acid Wave is a wave. Ball lightning is whatever you can imagine that to be. Only fireball is described as an explosion of flame, and that's just a fluff description.

And let's be RAW here, anyway, forgetting all these debates. The rules tell you for elemental manipulation to compare you spell test results to the TN of each target in the area. They then tell you that for elemental manipulation visibility and cover modifier do apply the next time they tell you about it. They compare them to normal Ranged Attacks, not grenades. The only time they use the term "grenade" is to say they have an area of effect, not to say they use the same rules. By RAW, TN for a fully covered target is 12, AoE or not.



You're specifically quoting an example where they contradict the mechanics of the game (called shot to bypass armour): they allow to bypass armour of a person, while the BBB specifically doesn't include that option. So that's not clarifying or confirming: that's suggesting a house-rule. A house rule by some people working at FASA, but a house-rule.

Changing the rules of the game is called an errata. If they believed called-shot bypass armor or dodging blast from grenades is TN6, they could do an errata. It's their fracking book. FAQ is, as you said, for clarifying the rules, not inventing them. That's their mistake.

Called Shot to bypass armour us introduced in Man and Machine when dealing with Armoured cyberlimbs - and by extension if logic of the rule unarmoured noncyber limbs. You can choose to ignore the faq in the same way you can ignore any rules in the books, it is still an official rules document.

As to the rest. Obviously you're convinced that things work the way you interpret them in which case, yes, Elemental Manipulations are utterly useless spells with drain costs nonsensically high for their effects. Shockingly, when I'm running them they way I have described they feel quite well balanced in their Drain values and effects Vs regular combat spells.

Nope, it is not an official rules document. I'll let you explore this very forum where it has been explained numerous time. Their FAQ actually has a very lame "oh, we're sorry, in a preceding interpretation we explicitely contradicted an example of the game". FAQs are mere opinions of people who did write the books. Erratas are corrections.

Called shots to bypass armor was introduced in M&M for exposure to chemical via a weapon. That was lame. Then, for some even lamer reason, they give you an option to bypass armor with the non-chemical damage of the weapon. But it remains an option for chemical vectors. Generalizing it has terrible balance issues due to the way damage and armor work in shadowrun.



I'm not convinced. I'm right, it's explicitly written in the rules. You had to invent a new and unexplained mechanics unseen anywhere else in the game where the GM pulls semi-random 'appropriate ranged combat modifiers'. What are the modifiers that apply with your explanations? None, but maybe you would give some, you know, because blast effect something.

The most amusing is that the FAQ actually refers to elemental manipulation in a strange way there:



Oh, a question where the guy writing the FAQ states that what follows is his "opinion". Who would think FAQs are just opinions by the designers?

That's a parenthesis, but this answer is terrible in many ways. They could have ruled two ways: either it works, either it doesn't. Both have good rationalizations: the first is RAW, the second is RAI (Manaballs affect everyone for whom you know the exact positions, you "see" through the aura of you hands, whatever). They went with "Now you should fuck the player really hard, because is having the wrong type of fun and should have guessed that what he was doing was clear rule abuse". That's awful. That's the opposite of why I like shadowrun: there are rules.

Anyway, strangely, in this question, the FAQ's god actually mention elemental manipulations, to say that they work in case of total cover. And then, they remind that blind fire is TN+8 when it comes to cover. And that's about area spells. Ain't that like, super fun? Oh, I know, it's not saying exactly "elemental manipulations is TN+blindfire when you can't see the target.".

But I'm pretty happy for you if you have fun with your own little twisted interpretation of the rules. Please don't pretend it is balanced. It makes area manipulation spells super OP, actually much better than area combat spell: you have a TN that is always 4 and ignores any kind of modifier for cover, which exists a lot in this game.

EDIT: I might stop beating this dead horse at this point: there are probably tens of such forum thread explaining, in better words I guess, what I have explained.

Though the discussion seems to be tense, I find it still very useful and helpful in the end. I would really like to give most spells a purpose - if the rules allow for it more or less - I think some ppl mentioned it already, but there is a way to reduce the drain a bit by learning the spell with a fetish or as exclusive action (modifier -1 or -2).

I wish there would be a somewhere a nice collection of rules-improvements from some SR3 gods who balance everything (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I think some people tried what you said at the time of 3rd edition to 4th. That was supposed to be called SR3 Revised or something. I remember skimming through their forums, but the problem was that people seemed to have very different opinion about what to change or not, and what to keep from SR4 (which real problem was the fixed TN (for them), but had some interesting ideas otherwise).

You can reduce the drain by learning the spell on exclusive, but the problem is that you're always looking at having the opponent facing some TN of 6 to be sure of dropping them. And the problem is that using half impact armor, even Force 6 won't do the trick… That really is a mess. And then again, you could wonder "why bother, I can also put a fetish or exclusive on a powerball…

I remember first reading how they worked, and understanding the idea of using combat pool to dodge, having them being resisted with impact armor too. And I thought why not, having a TN not based on an attribute gives you an interesting alternative mechanic, and the price (one more drain level) was okay I guess. But my main problem always was spell defense. If you decide that these are ranged attack, you can't be bad enough as to let the opponent have spell defense too!

There are several solutions here that I'd propose, and I'll try to sum up the changes to the rules that I'll apply:

- Common change to all cases: get rid of secondary effects entirely. The mechanic is clumsy and ridiculous, like in you success not having any effect on the secondary effect, that's quite lame. One could propose some stuff based on having the secondary effect apply instead of staging damages with successes or the like (to sum up, one should be very careful there, and of course at the caster's choice).

- Get rid of spell defense entirely. In exchange though, I'd apply whole impact armor to the spell resistance and forbid to use combat spell explicitely for casting. That would make them a very interesting options in many cases, and especially as some kind of last resort when the opposition has some strong magic, or way to damage enemy mages, etc. They would still be a niche, but a reasonnable option to complete a spell list.

- Have spell defense be more difficult. Like applying a flat +2 to the spell force or have the spell force multiplied by 1.5 for spell defense purpose.

This really is off the top of my head. But I'd like to know what people think if it would make them overpowered or still keep them too much underpowered.

<Deep Breath...>
ExxxX-PLOOOOOOOOOSION!!!
<Spent...>
ie: The spell, "Blast"
Or for real terror, "Elemental Blast". Those TN's are that high for a reason children.

-Tir