May Shadowrun Chat, Clarification's Needed Options

[Fortune]

The 'official statement' has been made several times in this thread by Ancient History, who was, in this instance, posting in a official capacity. While this issue may or may not appear in a future FAQ, it is unlikely to be included in any upcoming errata, as there is no actual error to fix.

[cndblank]

No offense intended, but.... this thread proves this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the Errata or FAQ.

As a recovering Rules Lawyer this issue needs to be nailed down or it will keep coming up.

As to an error needing to be fixed, if there is no damage resistance roll for Direct Combat spells then this sentence, "Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor does not help with resistance." should be rewritten.

Saying armor does not help with resistance implies that there is a Body only damage resistance test.

Either say there is no damage resistance test or that armor and body do not help with resistance.

It should be closer to:

"Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so armor (or body for that matter) does not help (there is no damage resistance roll)."

Or

"Direct Combat spells affect the target from the inside, so there is no damage resistance roll."

The other option would be to change the Powerbolt example on page 174 to say that the go-ganger takes 8 damage.



Quote From
"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

[Synner]

There is no need for errata since the "resistance" being referenced in context is the Spell Resistance Test (which armor does not help with). This topic has been slated for a FAQ. The "official" rule is that those targeted by Direct Combat Spells do not get an additional Damage Resistance Test beyond the Spell Resistance Test.

This means that Direct Combat Spells are quite powerful, which in turn means that gamemasters should ensure they are applying all the relevant modifiers (namely visibility modifiers) to the spellcasting roll. As I've said several times now, not applying the appropriate modifiers is the single most common unbalancing factor with spellcasting I've seen at most tables. In anything but a high-noon showdown on a main street or an ambush, typical visibility modifiers in combat should be in the -5 to -7 range (Good Cover -4, spellcaster attacking from cover -1, - additional "Visibility Impaired" modifiers. Please note I've not factored in magical defenses like Counterspelling, background count, mana barriers, wards, and mana static spells). The result is that Direct Combat spells are all or nothing affairs, with most Spellcasting dice pools being reduced to 2-3 successes on average and making resistance a little more probable. If magical defenses are active, Indirect spells actually become more appealing.

Also, unless the spellcaster is overcasting (with the risks that implies), the reduced number of successes leads to less instakills and still leaves direct combat spells behind the results of a couple of bursts from an automatic weapon, let alone a sniper shot.

[Tycho]

thx Synner

[SCARed]

sure thing - the modifiers do make a BIG difference.

but on the other hand: would a damage resistance test change the balance of the game THAT dramaticly? Joe Average with his KON 3 getts approximatly 1 hit on that test, staging down the damage from the spell by one box. and even his friend Toni Tanktroll with KON 10 will most often get a nice amount of damage from a force 5 manabolt, as he will "only" get 3 to 4 hits on his damage resistance test.

i played all the time without the test (as it was always that way in SR), but the diskussion made me think about it and i tend to agree Tycho, that it would e quite nice for balancing mundanes vs. mojo-slingers.

and i'm STRONGLY looking forward for that point being clearified in an FAQ, maybe even better in an errata, as some people have a habit of ignoring the FAQ an only accept errata as part of RAW.

[Ryu]

It does change the balance depending on the power level of your campaign. Casters of manabolt 5 do care, as their spellcasting pool is likely to be small. If you can not gurantee a takedown with three complex actions, you are in a world of hurt before you are done.

[Tycho]

I don't think the spellcasting pool of a caster is likely to be smaller than the Wil of the target (unless there is a Mage with Counterspelling).

Moreover, what does the Caste of Flamethrower 5 think, he has the same casting pool and the target gets much easier tests to avoid the damage and he gets more drain. The world is unfair?

cya
Tycho

[FrankTrollman]

I don't think the spellcasting pool of a caster is likely to be smaller than the Wil of the target (unless there is a Mage with Counterspelling).

Moreover, what does the Caste of Flamethrower 5 think, he has the same casting pool and the target gets much easier tests to avoid the damage and he gets more drain. The world is unfair?

cya
Tycho

Flame Thrower is superior against unaware targets or heavily spell defense protected targets because it skips the spell resistance roll and is handled as a ranged attack.

In most circumstances, you would indeed be better off not using Flamethrower, because most of the places where it is of high utility, a handgun would work about as well. But it is a real spell that is really useful sometimes. The drain code is steep, and this channels Shadowrun magicians into using effects that look more like Akira and less like Dragonball most of the time. It's a stylistic choice.

-Frank

[Coldan]

You still get the counterspell at the damage resistence test for indirect combat spells.

[Muspellsheimr]

To resist the damage, yes. To avoid the attack entirely, no. That is why you use Indirect spells against enemies protected by counterspelling - they tend to do less damage, but also have less of a chance to be avoided entirely.