 Direct Combat spells: Common misconception WRONG? |
 Oct 24 2006, 06:42 AM
Post
#1
|
|||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895  |
Has there been an 'official' full example of a direct combat spell being cast and the final result on a target? I know that the common perception is direct combat spells are an oppose test: Socery+Magic versus Body/willpoer + Counterspelling. DV = Force + net hits. Now the problem is most seem to think force+net hits are applied to the condition track. Page 123 Under DAMAGE: Damage resitance tests
Page 195
While it notes that armor does not effect, No place does it directly state that the damage value is not prone to a damage resitance test. So the spell takes effect if the casters gets one net effect, which means the target(s) take DV = Force + net hits. However like all damage the target (unless otherwise noted) gets a damage resitance test. So would roll body to soak this damage (or possibly will power). Now so far in the two SR4 games I have been involved in the 'common' perception now that direct damage get the opposed test, then land the full damage havent caused problems, but then again players nor NPC have been casting very high force overcast spells and/or honestly havent played a huge roll. However after the kill a great dragon thread I started looking, and the above references would lead me to belive you ARE supposed to get a damage resitance test and the only 'example' of a direct combat spell I can find is for the mage casting a powerbolt against a go-ganger. While it mentions being force 5 +3 for nets hits for a total dv of 8, it does NOT directly say that the ganger wouldnt get a resistance roll, but just goes to calculating drain for the mage. I have searched the rules books, (havent tried my search fu here yet) and can not find an in print PROOF which way it is supposed to be. The common preception here and my initial one would be opposed test, then target records either noting (no net hits) or Force+net hits on condition track; however, after going through the books again and seeing the references above... I am not sure that is 'as written' So not really looking for 'opinions' (well perhaps opions (not offical answers) from developers) but 'offical' clarifications. Peace |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
Posts in this topic
laughingowl Direct Combat spells: Common misconception WRONG? Oct 24 2006, 06:42 AM
Jack Kain Ok first, your miss reading some stuff.
The oppos... Oct 24 2006, 07:59 AM laughingowl As written syntaxically
You
1: Chose a spell
2: ... Oct 24 2006, 09:33 AM Fortune QUOTE (Jack Kain) Dispite the line about armor, (w... Oct 24 2006, 09:42 AM Fortune As far as a Damage Resistance test ...
There are ... Oct 24 2006, 09:46 AM Garrowolf Read the example on page 196. It shows that the re... Oct 24 2006, 09:55 AM Jack Kain In the case of direct damage spells step five is d... Oct 24 2006, 10:03 AM laughingowl "The base damage is 5 increased to 8 by net h... Oct 24 2006, 10:21 AM Narmio Pure sophistry, Loughingowl. All other such examp... Oct 24 2006, 10:47 AM knasser I'm of the opinion that you don't get a se... Oct 24 2006, 11:11 AM Jack Kain What Garrowwolf was pointing out on that page was ... Oct 24 2006, 11:15 AM Critias Toss my name in the ballot box for another vote th... Oct 24 2006, 11:34 AM Jack Kain QUOTE (Critias) Toss my name in the ballot box for... Oct 24 2006, 11:35 AM Eben McKay I think laughingowl has a point. For the sake of s... Oct 24 2006, 12:37 PM Critias QUOTE (Eben McKay) Honestly, can any of you naysay... Oct 24 2006, 12:50 PM Eben McKay I spit on tradition! Burn the houses! Oct 24 2006, 12:55 PM knasser QUOTE (Eben McKay @ Oct 24 2006, 07:37 AM)
H... Oct 24 2006, 01:38 PM rangda QUOTE (Eben McKay) I think laughingowl has a point... Oct 24 2006, 01:48 PM Wakshaani Yeah, Indirect Combat Spells aren't even *cons... Oct 24 2006, 02:04 PM Fortune As has been said, the reasoning behind the 'ad... Oct 24 2006, 02:15 PM Fortune QUOTE (Wakshaani) I think I have my second house r... Oct 24 2006, 02:20 PM Wakshaani QUOTE (Fortune) QUOTE (Wakshaani @ Oct 25 200... Oct 24 2006, 02:24 PM Fortune Much less twinkage than you thought ... or in SR3. Oct 24 2006, 02:39 PM Eben McKay QUOTE (Fortune) As has been said, the reasoning be... Oct 24 2006, 02:57 PM Lagomorph Here's what came of it when I posted about thi... Oct 24 2006, 04:02 PM Chandon Let's compare Lightning Bolt to Mana Bolt for ... Oct 24 2006, 06:48 PM kzt QUOTE (Chandon) Let's compare Lightning Bolt t... Oct 24 2006, 07:00 PM Eben McKay QUOTE (Chandon) The other change is that the targe... Oct 24 2006, 07:04 PM Eryk the Red The big difference comes when dealing with magical... Oct 24 2006, 07:20 PM knasser QUOTE (kzt) QUOTE (Chandon @ Oct 24 2006, 01:... Oct 24 2006, 07:26 PM Chandon QUOTE Of course, the interesting bit about this is... Oct 24 2006, 08:37 PM 2bit QUOTE (knasser) They're listed as Physical typ... Oct 25 2006, 12:08 AM laughingowl First:
As I mentioned several time.
I understand... Oct 25 2006, 12:40 AM laughingowl QUOTE (Narmio) Pure sophistry, Loughingowl. All o... Oct 25 2006, 12:59 AM kzt QUOTE (laughingowl)
The only one that states it i... Oct 25 2006, 01:23 AM Eleazar QUOTE (laughingowl) First:
As I mentioned several... Oct 25 2006, 01:34 AM laughingowl QUOTE (Eleazar) QUOTE (laughingowl @ Oct 24 2... Oct 25 2006, 01:50 AM Fortune So, in other words, you intend to pretty much tota... Oct 25 2006, 02:04 AM toturi Direct Combat Spells work differently from other s... Oct 25 2006, 02:20 AM knasser QUOTE (2bit) QUOTE (knasser @ Oct 24 2006, 02... Oct 25 2006, 08:23 AM laughingowl knasser:
QUOTE You seem upset by the lack of symm... Oct 25 2006, 09:04 AM Narmio QUOTE (laughingowl) A starting mage can almost 100... Oct 25 2006, 10:02 AM Eben McKay QUOTE (toturi) Direct Combat Spells work different... Oct 25 2006, 12:22 PM Fortune Well, if it is an editing mistake, the same mistak... Oct 25 2006, 02:08 PM toturi QUOTE (Eben McKay @ Oct 25 2006, 08:22 PM) QU... Oct 25 2006, 02:42 PM 2bit QUOTE (knasser) QUOTE (2bit @ Oct 24 2006, 07... Oct 25 2006, 04:08 PM knasser QUOTE (2bit) QUOTE (knasser @ Oct 25 2006, 03... Oct 25 2006, 04:40 PM Eben McKay Lightning Bolt
...Type: P . Range: LOS . Damage: P... Oct 25 2006, 04:47 PM kzt QUOTE (knasser) And thus the circle is completed. ... Oct 25 2006, 04:49 PM knasser QUOTE (Eben McKay) Lightning Bolt
...Type: P . Ran... Oct 25 2006, 05:51 PM Mal-2 QUOTE Lightning Bolt (Indirect, Elemental)
Type: P... Oct 25 2006, 06:11 PM Eryk the Red Seems pretty simple. Electricity normally does Stu... Oct 25 2006, 06:21 PM knasser QUOTE (Mal-2) QUOTE Lightning Bolt (Indirect, Elem... Oct 25 2006, 06:35 PM lorechaser Indeed. The confusion stems from the fact that SR ... Oct 25 2006, 06:37 PM Big D Err, yes you can have a (Physical) spell that does... Oct 25 2006, 08:32 PM 2bit it's not even a question, that's how spell... Oct 25 2006, 08:36 PM James McMurray It seems to me a case o fthe specific overriding t... Oct 26 2006, 12:36 AM Blade There's something I don't understand (anym... Oct 26 2006, 10:20 PM Dentris Blade: you are correct Oct 26 2006, 10:23 PM James McMurray Except that 3 hits for you - 1 hit for them is 2 n... Oct 27 2006, 12:42 AM hyzmarca For those who don't undcerstand why Lightening... Oct 27 2006, 12:54 AM Fortune QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Oct 27 2006, 10:54 AM) For ... Oct 27 2006, 01:48 AM toturi QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Oct 27 2006, 08:54 AM) Make... Oct 27 2006, 01:51 AM hyzmarca QUOTE (Fortune) QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Oct 27 2006... Oct 27 2006, 02:08 AM fistandantilus3.0 stun overflow to physical? Oct 27 2006, 02:13 AM Fortune QUOTE (fistandantilus3.0) stun overflow to physica... Oct 27 2006, 02:15 AM laughingowl WHile it is pretty clear the intent is the 'li... Oct 27 2006, 05:49 AM Critias Lightning.
Not Lighting.
Not Lightening.
Lightn... Oct 27 2006, 07:00 AM Narmio Ahh, Critias. You're such a rouge. Oct 27 2006, 09:06 AM knasser QUOTE (hyzmarca) For those who don't undcersta... Oct 27 2006, 09:33 AM Oracle "The author of this post takes no responsibil... Oct 27 2006, 09:40 AM Critias QUOTE (Narmio) Ahh, Critias. You're such a ro... Oct 27 2006, 11:37 AM toturi QUOTE (knasser) QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Oct 26 2006... Oct 27 2006, 02:14 PM Narmio QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 27 2006, 06:37 AM) QUOTE... Oct 27 2006, 03:16 PM Ophis The effect of the Lightning Bolt spell is to do E... Oct 27 2006, 04:12 PM James McMurray Ophis, the spell itself specifies that it deals ph... Oct 27 2006, 04:58 PM lorechaser QUOTE
Ahh, Critias. You're such a rouge... Oct 27 2006, 05:06 PM James McMurray If you're wanting to make a case for your view... Oct 27 2006, 05:36 PM X-Kalibur QUOTE (Narmio) QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 27 2006, ... Oct 27 2006, 06:05 PM Ophis QUOTE (James McMurray) Ophis, the spell itself spe... Oct 28 2006, 08:14 AM Magus Nope, Killing Hands and Elemental Strike as well a... Oct 28 2006, 08:36 AM Ophis So what your saying is that Elemental strike means... Oct 28 2006, 08:40 AM Magus It is a challenge, but luckily you cannot use some... Oct 28 2006, 08:45 AM Ophis Or i could just rule that Elememtal strike modifie... Oct 28 2006, 08:55 AM Fortune QUOTE (Ophis) Or i could just rule that Elememtal ... Oct 28 2006, 11:18 AM Ophis This is what i thought, Magus seemed to be applyin... Oct 28 2006, 11:53 AM toturi QUOTE (Fortune) QUOTE (Ophis @ Oct 28 2006, 0... Oct 28 2006, 01:23 PM knasser Elemental effects usually have a primary damage ty... Oct 28 2006, 02:20 PM Fortune The Secondary Elemental Effects would be the actua... Oct 28 2006, 02:25 PM James McMurray QUOTE (Ophis) Yep your right the spells header doe... Oct 28 2006, 08:21 PM Chandon Yea... the text "electricity damage is stun d... Oct 28 2006, 11:17 PM hyzmarca QUOTE (Ophis) Or i could just rule that Elememtal ... Oct 28 2006, 11:34 PM Magus So how is it? Does it stack or not?
QUOTE BBB pa... Oct 29 2006, 05:15 AM Narmio Magus, the way it says "The specific elementa... Oct 29 2006, 08:21 AM
Ophis QUOTE (James McMurray) QUOTE (Ophis @ Oct 28 ... Oct 29 2006, 08:44 AM  |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd September 2025 - 01:38 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.