 Manaball resistances, How many do you get? |
  |
 Feb 24 2006, 05:10 AM
Post
#1
|
|||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832  |
In reading over the direct combat spells last night, it appears that direct spells don't have any kind of damage resistance roll. the passage in question is this:
So from this passage, it appears that if you don't resist the spell fully, you get no chance to stage the damage down. This is the only combat action where you get no opportunity to stage the damage down. An example would be like this: Fire a 5P gun and a force 5 spell Get 3 successes on both rolls Target gets one test to resist/dodge Target faces 7p from both He now can use body/armor to reduce damage from gun but not from spell Has any one else noticed this inconsistancy? Or have a better reading of what the rules say for this? Or created a house rule? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 05:30 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
I think you're reading it right. It worked that way in SR3, as well.
The balancing factors are that spells cause drain and casting a spell requires a complex action. Thus, it's not so much a single force 5 spell vs. a 5P gunshot as a force 5 spell vs. two 5P gunshots. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 06:33 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 19-July 04 From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901' Member No.: 6,496 |
In SR3, the resistance roll WAS the staging roll. There was no chance to avoid it at all (barring magical aid of teammates). So this is actually a bit of a step up in that you have a chance (albeit small) of completely "evading" a spell on your own.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 07:45 AM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253 |
Actually, you can fully avoid the effects of the spell (i.e. not even take the base damage) if you get more successes on your resistance roll than the mage gets to hit you. The mage needs at least one net hit (after the resistance roll) to effect you with direct magic. On the other hand, indirect magic (elemental manipulations), as they create actual physical explosions, do not suffer from this problem. edit here's the quote, p174 of sr4
|
||
|
|
|
||
 Feb 24 2006, 08:22 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,448 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
And don't forget, that you (technically) get more dice to resist (Body or Willpower plus Counterspelling (without Counterspelling magic is extremely nasty for sure, but that's most likely how it is supposed to be)), than you get to dodge a bullet (Reaction only).
Of course, you can boost Reaction better than Willpower usually... Bye Thanee |
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 09:36 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
And there is still damage resistance after the reaction (+ possibly dodge) roll.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 10:31 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
jacked in Group: Admin Posts: 9,448 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 463 |
Yeah, that makes the two roughly even (with Counterspelling at hand), which is what I meant to say. :)
Bye Thanee |
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 03:58 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 932 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orlando, Florida Member No.: 1,042 |
Just to throw a little light, an example of how I understand it:
Magician throws a force 5 mana bolt and scores two hits. Target rolls his Willpower + Counterspelling (if any) and scores one hit. The magician takes the base damage, which is same as the force, adds his net hits to it, and does 6 damage. But if the target had rolled two hits or more, the magician would have had no net hits, and done no damage at all. And keep this little factoid in mind about the ever popular mana bolt. The force is not only the base damage, but a limiter on how many hits can be achieved on the spellcasting test. So the maximum possible damage of a manabolt is force x2, meaning that a force 4 manabolt has no chance of incapacitating a metahuman. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 04:17 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Yes; direct spell resistance rolls are basically "dodge" rolls. You can reduce the DV, but if you get enough hits you negate the spell effects upon you altogether. There's no "soak" roll.
Indirect spells get the normal dodge-like roll as well as a soak roll. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 04:20 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
edit: This post is crap, ignore it. I posted without thinking.
So force 4. Max successes 8. Assume no successes on the resistance test. 8 net successes. Add net successes to the base damage of the spell, which is 4, right? 12 damage. Am I doing this wrong? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 04:23 PM
Post
#11
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
Base 4 DV + 1 DV per net hit, maximum 4 hits meaning a maximum of 4 net hits. So 8 DV maximum. 8 DV is only reached if the target had no hits on their resistance roll, each resistance roll hit reduces that maximum even if it does not negate the spell. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 24 2006, 04:26 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Oh, I was thinking max successes was twice force. Nevermind, I'm retarded.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 04:29 PM
Post
#13
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Absolutely. Now, depending on how your GM interprets the "casting multiple spells simultaneously" option, you might be able to incap a single target by throwing two Force 4 Manabolts at him at the same time. You'd still have to split your casting dice between the two spells, and the drain would go from 2 to a 3 on each spell. But, if the dice gods are very kind to the mage, you're looking at a maximum of 16P damage done in one complex action for the price of soaking 3 points of drain twice. Bump it to Force 5 if you can for a little extra damage at no additional drain, by the way. Of course it means your target is all the more likely to just outright resist your spells completely. If you're a beefy mage throwing, say, 12 casting dice normally, then you're looking at casting with something like 6 and 6 against the target's Willpower. Your odds are still pretty decent of getting one net hit but not near as assured as if you had just cast the one Force 5 and relied upon net hits to stage up the damage to something respectable. Of course, throwing two spells at once also means you have two chances to use Edge. It also means the target likewise has two chances, but usually PCs have more Edge than NPCs. Usually. So, the moral of the story is that if you're pretty sure the target has a very very low chance of resisting your casting even at half your normal dice pool, doing the "semi-automatic" trick and firing off two spells at once might be useful. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 05:16 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 371 Joined: 10-January 06 From: Regina Member No.: 8,145 |
Interesting little fact: the minimum damage a Direct Combat Spell can do is Force + 1. Since the Magician needs at least 1 net hit for the spell to take affect at all so the damage will always be at least Force + 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 05:30 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Just to clarify and curb anyone's misconceptions or inclinations to jump on me: Casting two spells at once is more like using two pistols at once than it is like pulling the trigger twice on a semi-automatic. Dual-wielding requires you to split your dice pool, while firing one gun per Simple Action does not split your pool. So, when I said casting two simultaneous spells is likened unto shooting a semi-automatic, the metaphor was very loose and shouldn't be taken too seriously. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 08:26 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 19-July 04 From: N 42° 43.799'. W 84° 27.901' Member No.: 6,496 |
And here I was, about to get a gas vent for my team's mage. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 08:49 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Well, I've known some troll mages that coulda used them after a particularly large bowl of soychili. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 08:56 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Keep in mind, too, that guns have nifty little things they can do like autofire, which (combined with some venting) let you jack up the damage being done essentially for free. The ranged combat penalties apply to both equally. Firearms also have the added advantage of being able to fire through walls, with AR going a long way towards cancelling out some of the penalties for doing that.
Besides, after you cast a spell, you've got to either clean up your signature or use... whichever metamagic makes you harder to track, I don't remember the name. A gun you can strip down into it's 6 major components and discard all over town. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 10:30 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
Oddly enough, when he became a liability that's exactly what we once did to our rigger. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 10:45 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
To an extent, ranged combat penalties (especially visibility penalties) are worse on mages since they have to rely on natural, optical, and cybernetic vision mods. Mundanes and even shooty adepts get to use those nifty contacts and goggles to give them every vision mode imaginable. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 10:47 PM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 98 |
Asides from having no essence loss, and the option of magesight goggles, is there anything a set of goggles can do that your cybereye can't?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 10:59 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Well, for mages, the essence loss is the big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 11:07 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,635 Joined: 27-November 05 Member No.: 8,006 |
It is a fairly casual thing to remove them and leave them at home. Not so much with cybereyes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 24 2006, 11:14 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,651 Joined: 23-September 05 From: Marietta, GA Member No.: 7,773 |
I dunno, I suppose if you bought two sets of optical drones (one with legal enhancements, one the smartlink) then you can have modular eyeballs.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 24 2006, 11:25 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Hmm... casting spells through optical drones.
Note: There's no way I'd allow it as a GM, but it'd be funny (and completely broken) if it did work. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 3rd May 2025 - 05:47 AM |
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.