 Area effect spells and line of sight |
  |
 May 4 2006, 10:11 PM
Post
#76
|
|||||
|
Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263  |
Please report to the Drop Bear thread immediately, brother. :rotfl: |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
May 4 2006, 10:14 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 515 Joined: 19-January 04 Member No.: 5,992 |
O SHI WIRE FRAMES AND BATTLEMAPS.
Admittedly, I like battlemaps. It's just that for stuff like SR? You don't really, well. NEED them. Or if you do, you're going to have to have a damn big one. Miniatures? When I played back in my non-sucky location? We used glass beads that we bought in bulk from craft stores. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 10:28 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I still like battlemats for SR, but more for describing the area and getting a go tactical grasp for the situation. I'm a little weak on building a model out of someone's verbal description. Being a good tablemate by waiting my turn to ask the GM clarifying questions doesn't help that at all.
I just would rather not use the squares to any particular scale or doing a D&D 5' counting march across the mat. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 10:30 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 515 Joined: 19-January 04 Member No.: 5,992 |
I like the idea of using tape measures, but, honestly, I can't think of too many situations where it'd be all that important. Distances can certainly be abstracted. The bigger ones, I think, would be the location of guys relative to other guys.
Especially when dropping magic or grenades or explosives or wide bursts or pretty much anything that involves multiple target hitting. |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 10:33 PM
Post
#80
|
|||||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
If you want to answer it. :)
So what you're saying is that people don't just look at stuff? because that would require facing rules? I completely agree that there's no mechanic for it, but there shouldn't have to be. If someone isn't looking at you, they don't see what you do. Who needs rules for it? All you need is way to determine which direction they're looking (i.e. their facing).
Or, oh, I don't know... not be seen?
When did I say I handled it differently? I gave a few examples and questions. I never said they were exclusive situations. And I go back, for the third time, to the question you continue to ignore: if someone cannot possibly move their head, can you walk up to them unseen? If so, from which direction? If not, why not?
Like I said, I'm glad it works in your games.
The examples used could all also apply in a shadowrun game witht he exception of the errant mention of flanking rules. Instead of making it so that the character doesn't get a spot check because of where he's facing, he would not get a visual perception test. It isn't the D&D rules themselves whose lack of facing causes problems, it's any system that doesn't have facing and suddenly finds itself needing to know where someone is looking. Adding facing to a game comes with it's own set of problems, but does manage to solve the ones it's meant to solve. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
May 4 2006, 10:45 PM
Post
#81
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
I'm saying in the SR rules there are no descrete facing rules. What you are doing by defining the person as facing one way is making up the descrete facing rule. Yes a character could be facing one way a whole IP as an IC fluff description. Repeat, as an IC fluff description. As i've mentioned. There just are no rules for a character that *could* turn their head for facing fixed that way. So using that state as an input for mechanics is unsound with no rules basis. This is exactly the same as you are doing in D&D. Creating a mechanics state for a normal character that simply does not exist in the rules. DOES NOT EXIST. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 4 2006, 10:57 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Um... I already know there aren't facing rules. that's what we're talking about. Something not existing in the rules doesn't mean it can't exist in the game, at least not most games I've played. especially something as simple as looking at stuff.
But if it works for your games, like I already said, that's great. And for the third time you ignore that there are times when the rules themselves (via whatever system your using's ability to paralyze someone) may require you at some point to need to know which direction someone is looking. Ah well. I figured I might have an interesting discussion but instead apparently found someone who only replies to things they feel they can "beat" and ignores the rest. Have a nice day. :) |
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:00 PM
Post
#83
|
|||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
There are rules for it. It's called a perception test. Casting a spell requires a perception test. I can cast a spell with myself as the center and affect everyone around me provided I get enough successes on my perception test to overcome any modifiers or opposed tests. RAW. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 4 2006, 11:10 PM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Can you provide a page reference where it states that you can cast spells at everything around you? My book says you have to be able to see your targets, which generally requires looking at them, which can only be done i the direction your eyes are currently facing.
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:14 PM
Post
#85
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
The first paragraph of the Spell Casting section, SR4 page 173.
|
|
|
|
|
May 4 2006, 11:19 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
I'm 15 miles away from my book. Is it a large section or could you paraphrase? If not, that's cool. :)
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 12:15 AM
Post
#87
|
|||||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Lordy man, you claim with sarcastic certainity what -your- books says but you don't have it? You seem to have a hard time following post to post. I shudder to think what your memorized version of the rules looks like. :P What -your- book reads:
Then later in the AoE section:
I could copy and paste the whole rest of the book, but as discussed previously with Apathy there is no where that states that a instantaneous momement requirement. So basically anything they can, as in they have the possibility of seeing, becomes a target if it falls within the AoE discussed elsewhere in that section. Including the caster, explicitly mentioned, which i believe was the original question. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 5 2006, 12:53 AM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You find it hard to believe that I can remember the general rules but can't remember what paragraph X on page Y says? Okely dokely.
It also doesn't state that it isn't an instantaneous moment. You use your house rule, I'll use mine. :) |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:03 AM
Post
#89
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Not making rules up isn't a "house rule". :rotfl: You are making up rules, i am not. The thing about looking around is just -explaining- how the abstraction that is already in the rules as written can map to an IC explaination of what is going on. It still stands that: 1) you are making up rules, and thet making up rules to deal with those made up rules 2) the facing rules you are making up aren't required because the rules have abstracted away any need to worry about facing P.S. It's not so much your memory, it is just that you didn't actually understand and store the meaning of what the hell you read to start with. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 03:09 AM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
The rules do not state how long it takes to target someone. I opt for an instant. You opt for a whole turn (or at least long enough to look all around you). Since we're both using a rule that does not exist, we're both using house rules. When something does not exist in the RAW and you choose how to handle it, you're using a house rule.
I think I've held my posts to the rules as much as possible. When I don't remember a rule I tell what I do remember, and state that I might be wrong (usually via an "IIRC"). You instead like to make up rules and then claim you aren't. We both chose different paths in life. I disagree with yours, but it apparently works for you. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:12 AM
Post
#91
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
As much as possible while you are making up extraneous rules. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Give it up mental midget. Good night. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2006, 03:30 AM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Ah, the old "I'm beaten so I'll toss one last insult and flee" maneuver. I was wondering when you'd fall back on your old standby.
Good night! :) |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:37 AM
Post
#93
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i rarely get a chance to laugh as hard as i have while reading this thread. i'd like to thank you both.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:42 AM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
You're welcome. :D
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:56 AM
Post
#95
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
so, can we say that for simplisitys sake:
if you can draw a line between a person inside the area of effect and the caster, and not get a blind fire because of some physical object blocking the path (thereby eliminating the hand and AR trick, alltho the looking thru a keyhole trick can still work), the person is hit by the spell. when in dout, have the caster roll a perception check to "lock on" to the target(s) at the moment of casting. yes, this could lead to someone being surrounded and dropping a powerbolt or similar at his own location. as that is equivalent to holding an amount of explosives and detonating it, i dont have a problem with it hitting anyone around the caster (including the caster himself). |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:59 AM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Yes, you can say that. Not everyone will agree, but then again, they don't have to. :)
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 05:08 AM
Post
#97
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
I think we're all opperating with some assumptions here. Since the rules don't explicitly say one way or another we have to interpret them in a way that makes common sense to us. You and I don't agree about what makes the most sense in this case, but I can easily see how you interpret the rules the way you do. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter which way people interpret, as long as they do so consistently and as long as all players understand ahead of time how it's being played. As you pointed out, the actual canon references say:
and that to be a valid target you have to be able to see it
I think where the interpretation comes in here is how we read the "anything s/he can see directly" part of the phrase.
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 5 2006, 07:41 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
thing is that LOS do not imply that you have to actualy see it, but if you try to, there should be nothing obscuring the target.
LOS basicly means a clear and direct line from you to the target, kinda like if you tryed to point a laser at him... |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 08:21 AM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,590 Joined: 11-September 04 Member No.: 6,650 |
I find myself agreeing with Blakkie
MFB I'm scared, hold me |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 09:52 AM
Post
#100
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
there, there, nothing to be afraid of. even a rabid, senile clock is right twice a day.
zing! |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd November 2025 - 09:48 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.