Direct vs. Indirect Combat Spells, Forgive a Newb Question Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Outline Switch to: Standard Switch to: Linear+

[BlackHat]

So, I don't play a lot of magicians, but I found myself recently looking at the spells again.

I think I am missing something pretty basic, but I'm not sure what. I figure somebody here can help me out.

Despite my favorite mage character being a fire-specialist, I found myself wondering why anyone would ever learn an indirect combat spell? The drain is 2 points higher. The target gets more dice to resist (first with reaction, then if there are any hits left, with body + 1/2 armor + elemental resistance armor mods, as opposed to only rolling body with, say, powerbolt). The elemental side-effects are nice, but most of them (except maybe fire) don't seem like they would come up that often - certainly not enough to make up for 2 points of drain, and giving your enemy about 6-12 extra dice to resist with.

Street magic confirms that someone thinks that elemental affects are worth +2 increase to drain, and having to be "indirect" (which seems to suck) - but I am not really seeing that much of an advantage to indirect combat spells. It seems that if you're interested in your combat spell dealing damage (as opposed to knocking your opponent down, having a small chance of stun, or making his ExEx ammo go off) you're much better off just using powerbolt.

Am I mad?

ô.o

[Abschalten]

No, you aren't going crazy. Most of the time it is a bum deal to use an indirect combat spell over a direct one. However, there are times it is more advantageous to use indirect spells.

The first one is against targets with lots of counterspelling protection. If you use a direct combat spell (single target or area effect) then there's a good chance it'll just get swatted away. Meanwhile, indirect spells don't get that same treatment. They're defended against like normal ranged attacks. If it hits, THEN they get the counterspelling protection added to their Body+ half armor damage resistance test. The result is usually that they get hit but reduce the damage. But that's preferable to having your spell take no effect anyway.

Additionally, indirect spells have some sort of physical medium that travels between you and the target. If you kinda know where the target is, but he's invisible, then you can still cast a spell towards him and have a chance to hit. Likewise if it's an area effect indirect spell, you can hit targets around corners. Try doing that with a manaball (hint: you can't.)

Finally, some of the indirect spells have secondary effects. Setting off Ex-Explosive ammo, creating slicks of ice, exuding choking (concealing) smoke, zapping with electricity (and using the electricity attack rules), etc... all of these can be used in strategic ways and create effects that direct combat spells just can't do, since you're just channeling invisible, destructive power into your target.

[Tarantula]

Likewise if it's an area effect indirect spell, you can hit targets around corners. Try doing that with a manaball (hint: you can't.)

Well, not without mirrors or other toys.

[Abschalten]

Well, not without mirrors or other toys.

True enough. My mental image was casting on the fly down a hallway and trying to hit some guys hiding just around the corner. I wasn't thinking about alternate methods of gaining LOS. Even so, I think casting through fiber optic toys and mirrors gets you something like a -4 pool penalty to spellcasting attempts.