May Shadowrun Chat, Clarification's Needed Options

[Muspellsheimr]

Could you provide an example of how interrupts work, if you can stack hem, and how many future actions you can borrow, as taken from this thread? Basically, can a martial artist keep borrowing future actions ad infinitum with counter attack and similar moves, and what happens if the combat ends and the martial artist is still about 36 actions in the red, does he have to stand still and do nothing for 2 minutes?

A character only has a certain amount of actions per Combat Turn; using an action as an interrupt - for Full Defense - takes up one of those actions. If a character has used up all of the actions they have available during a Combat Turn, they cannot "borrow" ahead to the next Combat Turn.

This directly contradicts the RAW - SR4 pg.138 "Characters may go on full defense even if they don't have an action that pass, sacrificing their first action of the next Combat Turn instead.

Is this going to be changed in a future errata, and if not, what is the official stance on borrowing actions? I have, in related threads, suggested allowing a single borrow, or up to (Rea / 2) round up, and until an official statement that conforms with the RAW is made, is what I will be using in games I play, if the issue ever arises.

litte rulequestion: Is it right, that I get a Damage Resistance Test (without Armo), if I get hit by a direct combat spell and fail the Spell Resistance Test?

Yes, that is correct.

Could this be clarified further? It has been my impression, and that of everyone I know (through Dumpshock and RL), that against Direct Combat Spells, you "dodge" with Attribute + Counterspelling, and it is all-or-nothing. If you are hit, you take full damage with no further resistance, if you are "missed", you are unaffected.

According to RAW, "Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance". This could be read that you receive a Damage Resistance test in addition to the Spell Resistance test, but also could easily be viewed as stating armor does not help with the Spell Resistance. As Indirect Combat Spells specifically references resisting the damage if you are hit, it is reasonable to assume the second interpretation of how Direct Combat Spells function.

There have been a few errata's for the main book for some time now. Has it ever just became an idea to just rerelease the main book with all the corrections and just simply name it a 'Special Edition' or an 'Updated Edition'?

All new printings of the core book feature all the errata so far. The current errata (v.1.5) on the website corresponds to the Fifth Printing currently on sale.

I would simply like to point out that I have a hardcover copy of the Fifth Printing, and the changes in the book are not reflected in the errata available on the site, and am curious when the errata will be updated.

Further, on the firearm charts of the Fifth Printing (page 309), Sports Rifles and Sniper Rifles are listed under Machine Pistols, and Shotguns are listed under Submachine Guns. Hopefully this, and similar errors, will be corrected/avoided in future printings.

How do you see movement powers of spirits be used in SR's daily life? are carriers and other big ships under their influence as a rule, and big civilian airplanes as well?

I've been meaning to get to that in a FAQ. Basically there are limitations to the power and it's effects on massive objects (and technological ones to boot) should have limits.

Can we get any further clarification on these restrictions posted here until they make it into the FAQ, and will they be included in an errata?

[Adam]

I would simply like to point out that I have a hardcover copy of the Fifth Printing, and the changes in the book are not reflected in the errata available on the site, and am curious when the errata will be updated.

As was mentioned in the chat, errata 1.8 will come out after Unwired is 100% final and sent to press, which should be within a couple weeks. Peter misspoke about 5th printing being equal to errata 1.5.

[Muspellsheimr]

Thank you for the prompt reply. Any chance we could also get one involving Interrupts and Direct spell resistance?

[Fortune]

litte rulequestion: Is it right, that I get a Damage Resistance Test (without Armo), if I get hit by a direct combat spell and fail the Spell Resistance Test?

Yes, that is correct.

As I said in another thread, I can pretty much guarantee that this is incorrect.

The only explanation I can think of concerning the interupt question is the technically Full Defense is not a Maneuver, and that particular ruling only applies to actual Maneuvers.

[Adam]

Thank you for the prompt reply. Any chance we could also get one involving Interrupts and Direct spell resistance?

Peter Taylor is your guy for rules questions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

I would agree that Full Defense is an exception, if not that it was specifically referenced in saying you could not Interrupt if you had no action's left that Turn. If it is indeed an exception, interrupts will probably be house-ruled by the majority anyways, as it puts even more importance on having multiple passes.

[Ranger]

According to RAW, "Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance". This could be read that you receive a Damage Resistance test in addition to the Spell Resistance test, but also could easily be viewed as stating armor does not help with the Spell Resistance. As Indirect Combat Spells specifically references resisting the damage if you are hit, it is reasonable to assume the second interpretation of how Direct Combat Spells function.

My original interpretation of Direct Combat spells was that you do get a damage resistance test. The only time you don't is when the rule specifically states that you take damage without resistance. For example, when trying to survive in the wild using the Survival skill, the rules specifically state that, "If the test fails, the character suffers Stun damage based on the harshness of the environment (DV = threshold x 2); she may not resist this damage" (SR4, 118). All other times, it's implied that you do get to resist the damage. Although Direct Combat spells do not specifically state that you do get a damage resistance test, nowhere does the description state that you do not get a test.

I have since changed my interpretation based on what others told me, but some part of me still thinks that you should get a damage resistance test. That would make Direct Combat spells a little closer in line with Indirect Combat spells in terms of power. That is, Direct Combat spells wouldn't be so far superior to Indirect Combat spells for pure damage purposes.

[Muspellsheimr]

I do agree, on paper, that you should get a damage resistance test after the spell resistance. I have not played with this, however, and so cannot say for certain how it would work.

Going by the wording of the RAW, it is unclear precisely how it works, and leads to the interpretation by a great many people that you do not get the damage resistance. There is also to consider that for Indirect spells, you dodge the attack as you would any ranged attack, and only get Spell Resistance if you are hit, for resisting damage. This also leads to the interpretation of Direct spells allowing no damage resistance, because damage resistance & spell resistance are considered the same, and you used your spell resistance to try and avoid it altogether.

If I were to house rule it (I don't GM, so I can't, exactly), I would say you get Willpower to "dodge" the attack, and Body + Counterspelling to stage down the damage.

[Ranger]

I do agree, on paper, that you should get a damage resistance test after the spell resistance. I have not played with this, however, and so cannot say for certain how it would work.

The first few times I used Direct Combat spells, I did allow a damage resistance test. This gave the target's a fighting chance. Whether you think that's a good thing is entirely up to you, of course.

I have yet to play another session with the rule that Direct Combat spells do not allow a damage resistance test, so I don't yet have first hand experience as to if that's too powerful.

Looking at the spell design rules in Street Magic, there is no drain modifier for Direct Combat or Indirect Combat spells, which implies that they should be about equal. Not allowing a damage resistance test for Direct Combat spells makes them much more powerful in most situations.

I do agree that the wording isn't the best. Just a few more words in the book would have eliminated this debate. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Ancient History]

I'm going to step up and apologize here for the confusion; those questions were answered in a rush and not in as detailed a manner as I normally prefer, hence the poor wording and confusion. Mea culpa. I'm sorry it's taken so long, but I really wanted to make sure these were correct this time!

Re: "Borrowing" actions
This came up when writing the section, and again during playtesting. The intention was never for players to stand around for two minutes after combat is finished, nor to squeeze the equivalent of six Combat Turns of actions into a single turn. Except where explicitly stated (the quoted Full Defense, p.138, SR4) a character cannot borrow actions from future Combat Turns.

Re: Direct Combat Spells
Under the current rules, characters do not receive both a Spell Resistance Test and a Damage Resistance Test when targeted by Direct Combat Spells; Direct Combat Spells are simple all-or-nothing affairs. The answer given in the chat was a mistake on my part based on an earlier version of the rules.

[samuelbeckett]

Thanks for the clarification Ancient.

Regarding the interrupts, this ruling effectively means that Finishing Move is impossible unless you have more than one IP, and that Riposte and Throw become more conditional with only one IP i.e. you can only Riposte if attacked before using your action in that Combat Turn, and you can only Throw if you triggered Full Defense normally using your action from the previous Combat Turn, and you are attacked before your action in the current Combat Turn (not after your action in the previous Combat Turn, as that would require borrowing into the next Combat Turn).

This means effective use of those maneuvers is only really possible with magical or technological boosting for more IPs.

At least it should provide an answer to the numerous 'interrupt' threads floating around, even though I presume most people will be houseruling to allow maneuvers to at least borrow one action ahead into the next Combat Turn.

[Ancient History]

This means effective use of those maneuvers is only really possible with magical or technological boosting for more IPs.

Or by spending Edge to boost your IP, which requires a bit of prior planning.

[Ranger]

Re: Direct Combat Spells
Under the current rules, characters do not receive both a Spell Resistance Test and a Damage Resistance Test when targeted by Direct Combat Spells; Direct Combat Spells are simple all-or-nothing affairs. The answer given in the chat was a mistake on my part based on an earlier version of the rules.

I take back my thoughts about Direct Combat spells, then. They simply are that powerful.

[hobgoblin]

always have been, always will be...

[Tycho]

Re: Direct Combat Spells
Under the current rules, characters do not receive both a Spell Resistance Test and a Damage Resistance Test when targeted by Direct Combat Spells; Direct Combat Spells are simple all-or-nothing affairs. The answer given in the chat was a mistake on my part based on an earlier version of the rules.

How official is your posting? (no offense, but some time ago in an other topic you said to me, that your answers are not official) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/twirl.gif)

As I am the one who asked this question, I know the wording is really unclear, but in my opinion direct combat spells are much too powerful, if the damage can't be resisted. I mundane character has very little to no chance to resist the spell, the mage has easily double dice to roll and I think a damage resistance test is just fair (and without armor the is only little chance to soak all of the damage).

And I don't think the rules are really clear about this:

Damage Resistance
Unless otherwise noted, a character rolls Body + armor to resist damage.

it is nowhere said, that you don't get a damage resistance test if you take damage by a direct combat spell, so in my opinion you get one...

Direct Combat Spells:
Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.

Here it is unclear, which resistance is meant, but in spell resistance there is no armor rating anywhere, so why write this sentence, if not to describe the mod (no armor) for the damage resistance test?

I would like to hear Peter Taylor on this topic, if he is the one to decide in rule questions.

In my opinion, damage resistance an direct damage spells will be good for the balance between mundane and magic-users. I really don't know any mage that uses indirect combat spells, because the have more Drain, mostly less damage because the opponent has 2 Tests to avoid damage. So everybody takes manabolt and without damage resistance it is really a 1Spell - 1Hit(and mostly dead) show against mundane.

cya
Tycho

[Coldan]

Well, I think it is the same point as with the manifesting mages before the errata. You could argue that he can use mana based spells an the physical plane, while he can be affected by them.

Now we have got the same point again.

DAMAGE RESISTANCE TESTS
Unless otherwise noted, a character rolls Body + armor to
resist damage. In some cases another attribute may be called for;
Willpower is often used in place of Body, for example, against
certain Stun damage attacks. Th e exact armor that applies is determined
by the type of attack (see Armor. p. 148).

Direct Combat Spells: Handle these as an Opposed
Test. Th e caster’s Magic + Spellcasting is resisted by the target’s
Body (for physical spells) or Willpower (for mana spells), plus
Counterspelling (if available). Th e caster needs at least one net
hit for the spell to take eff ect. Direct Combat spells aff ect the
target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance.
Direct Combat spells cast against nonliving objects are
treated as Success Tests; the caster must achieve enough hits to
beat the item’s Object Resistance (see p. 174). Net hits increase
damage as normal (the object does not get a resistance test).

As you see, there is no point in the explanation of the direct combat spells, that you can't make any damage resistence test. So you can make the test only without any armor rating. If there shouldn't be any damage resistence test, you will have to add a sentence to prohibit the damage resistence test. I think this is one more point for the errata 1.8.

Coldan

[RunnerPaul]

How official is your posting?

It's as official as the incorrect answer he gave in the May chat. Neither has appeared in a FAQ or Errata. However being non-official doesn't negate the fact that this time, AH is correct.

[Tycho]

I see no prof in the rules, neither for one side nor the other. So either way it should be included in the Errata or FAQ and for so long there is no correct answer to the question, unless one of the developers determines this problem. If you have a logical explanation, why there is no damage resistance test, i would like to hear it.

cya
Tycho

[Ryu]

But there is proof. If the caster has one net hit on the opposed test, the spell takes effect (causes damage). You need to find a quote that gives you a damage resistance roll for this occasion (which does to my knowledge does not exist). Compare the description of indirect spells.

[Tycho]

no, because I get automatic a damage resistance test, if I get damage. There must be a quote that denies me the damage resistance test, which is not there...

see:

DAMAGE RESISTANCE TESTS
Unless otherwise noted, a character rolls Body + armor to resist damage.

The Spell resolve in a Effect: The Effect of a direct combat spell is: You get x Damage.

But as mentioned in the rules: If you get Damage, you can, unless otherwise noted, make a Damage Resistance Test to avoid the damage.
and it isn't noted anywhere, that the damage of a Direct combat spell can't be resisted.

cya
Tycho

[Muspellsheimr]

Yes, it is poorly worded. But then so are many things in SR4. Regardless, AH was the one who answered the question during the chat, and later clarified on this thread it was a mistake based on earlier versions of the rules. While I do agree that Direct spells are to powerful, as of the current version, they do not allow a Damage Resistance test after the initial Spell Resistance.

[Ryu]

I understand that rule to mean that if you get to resist, you usually roll Body+Armor. Else they would have written "If a character is damaged, he resists rolling Body+Armor (unless otherwise noted)."

[FrankTrollman]

no, because I get automatic a damage resistance test, if I get damage. There must be a quote that denies me the damage resistance test, which is not there...

This is not correct. You get a Damage Resistance Test against a weapon's damage code. A Direct Combat Spell isn't a weapon and doesn't even follow that flow chart. It just fills in wound boxes. It doesn't have a pointer to the Combat rules, because it doesn't follow those rules. An Indirect Combat Spell is resolved as a ranged attack, so there's an attack roll, a defense roll, and a damage resistance test. A Direct Combat spell is not and does not. It just has a spellcasting test and a spell resistance test. That's sometimes better and sometimes worse, mostly depending upon how much Counterspelling the enemies have.

-Frank

[RunnerPaul]

If you have a logical explanation, why there is no damage resistance test, i would like to hear it.

Do you also let spellcasters take a Damage Resistance Test when they still have boxes of damage left after their Drain Resistance Test? The example given for handling drain in the book does not indicate that you should, and yet, there is no specific disclaimer that "This damage is applied without a Damage Resistance Test." It seems clear to me that both the Drain Resistance Test for the caster and the Spellcasting Resistance Test for targets of direct combat spells are merely specialized forms of Damage Resistance Tests, and that allowing the generic form afterwards is not warranted, but as always, play how you like.

[Tycho]

@RunnerPaul:
I get your point and it makes me think.

I mostly try to get along the rules with common sense and if you had already a Drain Resistance Test, you clearly don't get another Damage Resistance.

In the case of the direct combat spell damage I don't see a clear solution, but I lean to the Damage Resistance Test (reasons are above) Either way I would like to see it in an Errata or FAQ for clarification.

You get a Damage Resistance Test against a weapon's damage code

I also get one, if I fall from a building/get hit by a car/etc. so you get a damage resistance test, if you get damage, there are some exceptions, but the paragraph Damage Resistance Test is clearly not only for weapon damage.

It is right, everybody should play the way he likes and I will, but I would like to hear an official statement, because I often GM and play on Conventions, where I need to know the official rule to prevent misunderstanding between players and GM.

cya
Tycho