IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> just noticed something about spell casting...., Did you all notice it also?
WorkOver
post Jul 3 2006, 04:44 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 28-August 05
Member No.: 7,637



Ok, I hear a lot how damaging magic is. I also hear how magic users are harder to make, I hear a variety of things, here is somethig subtle I saw:

Ok, this is the way I read(past tense) it, as well as every group I have played with plays it, mostly because of the previous editions.

Mage wants to geek Sam with a mana bolt.

Mage rolls his magic of 5, plus his spell casting of 5, for 10 dice. Say its a measly power of 5.

mage rolls 3 net hits, for 8 points of damage.

Most say its unfair as the sam now rolls his willpower, with no armour, and can at best reduce damage by 4 boxes.

The mage then rolls his willpower plus his logic. Making the mage come out on top.


Ok: Turn to page 195. This is all wrong. Sams do have a chance, and sams with counter spell dice have a very good chance against a mage.

mage rolls his dice, Sam rolls his will power plus his counter spell dice if he has any. If the Sam ties or wins, the spell does no damage at all.

The caster needs at least one net success to do any damage at all!

I had totally missed this, having played since 1990, and the caster only having to get one net success, and targets getting only a damage soak roll.

this new way, the target gets to counter the spell (a psychic dodge?), then he gets a soak roll.

How many of you made this simple mistake?

This really makes a huge difference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glyph
post Jul 3 2006, 05:40 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,116
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,449



Not quite. They do compare successes, and the target does take no damage if the mage doesn't get at least one net hit.

But the target only gets that one resistance roll - he doesn't roll to resist, then get another roll to soak. The target still only gets one roll!

The only thing that you were doing wrong was using a simple soak test, instead of an opposed dice test.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 3 2006, 01:31 PM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



Also note that the force of a spell limits your hits on your test. It doesn't limit net hits, but instead limits total hits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apathy
post Jul 3 2006, 02:43 PM
Post #4


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 31-January 04
From: Reston VA, USA
Member No.: 6,046



QUOTE (WorkOver @ Jul 2 2006, 11:44 PM)
sams with counter spell dice have a very good chance against a mage.

Sams don't have counter spell dice of their own. Only mages are allowed to get the skill of counter-spelling. So, if the sam has magical backup who is protecting him, he can use those counter-spell dice to augment his willpower on his resistance roll. If there's no friendly mage around to help resist, then he's just hosed, and can only resist with willpower.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CradleWorm
post Jul 3 2006, 03:40 PM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 22-March 05
From: Milwaukee
Member No.: 7,210



Let me summarize...

Mage casts a Manabolt 4 at a Street Samuri with a Willpower of 3. The mage has a Magic attribute of 4 and a Spell Casting Skill of 5 so he rolls 9 dice. The Street Samuri rolls his Willpower of 3 plus any counterspelling dice provided to him.

First the Mage is limited to 4 successes on his 9 dice because he is casting a force 4 spell.

If the Mage rolls more total successes then the Street Samuri then the Street Samuri takes 4 + Net Hits in damage.

If the Mage rolls the same number or less successes then the Street Samuri then no damage is done.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Jul 3 2006, 03:43 PM
Post #6


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



gives elemental spells a reason to exist, this...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 3 2006, 03:46 PM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



QUOTE (hobgoblin)
gives elemental spells a reason to exist, this...

Not really. For sheer damaging capabilities you're probably better off with a non-elemental spell. Against elemental spells the target gets to roll dodge tests, and can still avoid the damage altogether. The difference is that he has more dice (reaction + dodge if he needs it), and you take higher drain. The elemental spells are good for hitting folks you can't see and dealing secondary damage such as ammunition cookoff, armor damage, stunning, and other environmental effects.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aaron
post Jul 3 2006, 04:00 PM
Post #8


Mr. Johnson
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,148
Joined: 27-February 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 8,314



QUOTE (James McMurray)
The elemental spells are good for hitting folks you can't see and dealing secondary damage such as ammunition cookoff, armor damage, stunning, and other environmental effects.

And against technological targets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Abbandon
post Jul 3 2006, 05:45 PM
Post #9


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,711
Joined: 15-June 06
Member No.: 8,716



Can we continue that example a little more.

mana bolt 4 willpower 4 spellcasting 5 vs willpower 3 + spell defense( if any).

spells are limited to its force in hits.....

So the mage rolls 9 dice and gets 5 hits and the sam rolls and get 2 hits. What does this mean? Even though the mage rolled 5 hits he can only use 4 of them which means he only gets 2 net hits which means the samurai eats 6P????

OR does it mean you can only stage the damage up = to the force of the spell? Meaning a force 4 spell could only inflict a maximum of 8p ever??

From what i understand its the first one that limits your hits allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Geekkake
post Jul 3 2006, 05:48 PM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Joined: 13-March 06
From: dusty Mexican borderlands
Member No.: 8,372



QUOTE (Abbandon @ Jul 3 2006, 12:45 PM)
Can we continue that example a little more.

mana bolt 4  willpower 4 spellcasting 5  vs willpower 3 + spell defense( if any).

spells are limited to its force in hits.....

So the mage rolls 9 dice and gets 5 hits and the sam rolls and get 2 hits.  What does this mean?  Even though the mage rolled 5 hits he can only use 4 of them which means he only gets 2 net hits which means the samurai eats 6P????

OR does it mean you can only stage the damage up = to the force of the spell?  Meaning a force 4 spell could only inflict a maximum of 8p ever??

From what i understand its the first one that limits your hits allowed.

Gross hits of a spell are limited by the Force. So the Force 4 Manabolt could only stage up damage by those 4 hits, discarding the last one before any other considerations.

[edit]: Editing because I just choose words all willy-nilly, with no concern for their actual meaning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 3 2006, 05:54 PM
Post #11


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



QUOTE (Geekkake)
Net hits of a spell are limited by the Force.

I think it's what you meant to say given the rest of the paragraph, but figured it is something that should be clarified: the force of a spell limits total hits, not net hits. If you roll 5 hits on a force 4 spell you lose one before the opponent even tries to resist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Geekkake
post Jul 3 2006, 05:58 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 475
Joined: 13-March 06
From: dusty Mexican borderlands
Member No.: 8,372



QUOTE (James McMurray)
QUOTE (Geekkake @ Jul 3 2006, 12:48 PM)
Net hits of a spell are limited by the Force.

I think it's what you meant to say given the rest of the paragraph, but figured it is something that should be clarified: the force of a spell limits total hits, not net hits. If you roll 5 hits on a force 4 spell you lose one before the opponent even tries to resist.

Err, yeah, what I meant to say. Editing the previous post presently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eugene
post Jul 5 2006, 09:43 PM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 16-September 03
From: Massachusetts
Member No.: 5,625



I'm not sure I get why people complain about this topic again and again. In SR3, a mage -still- had the advantage = Casting Skill + Spell Pool dice > Will/Bod dice, and a Street Sam -still- couldn't use armor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 5 2006, 09:45 PM
Post #14


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



Without actually saying whether I think it's balanced or not, I'll point out that "it was imbalanced before" is not a valid argument for "it should be imbalanced now." If it were we'd still be playing SR1 :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Jul 5 2006, 09:48 PM
Post #15


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



allso, if there is something that get a rpg'er talking, its the flaws of the game they "love"...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eugene
post Jul 5 2006, 09:54 PM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 199
Joined: 16-September 03
From: Massachusetts
Member No.: 5,625



QUOTE (James McMurray)
Without actually saying whether I think it's balanced or not, I'll point out that "it was imbalanced before" is not a valid argument for "it should be imbalanced now." If it were we'd still be playing SR1 :)

Sweet, sweet variable damage staging...

Oh, I agree, it's just that I don't remember anyone spending a lot of time complaining about it in SR3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 5 2006, 09:56 PM
Post #17


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



It was there. It hasn't happened as much in recent history because there had already been several years of it. There were also new books to discuss, and things introduced in new books to provide some balancers.

Once SR4 has been around a long time it'll drop off for is as well. If nothing else discussion of magic will all but die for a while when the tech books hit the stands.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WorkOver
post Jul 5 2006, 10:14 PM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 28-August 05
Member No.: 7,637



QUOTE (Geekkake @ Jul 3 2006, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE (Abbandon @ Jul 3 2006, 12:45 PM)
Can we continue that example a little more.

mana bolt 4  willpower 4 spellcasting 5  vs willpower 3 + spell defense( if any).

spells are limited to its force in hits.....

So the mage rolls 9 dice and gets 5 hits and the sam rolls and get 2 hits.  What does this mean?  Even though the mage rolled 5 hits he can only use 4 of them which means he only gets 2 net hits which means the samurai eats 6P????

OR does it mean you can only stage the damage up = to the force of the spell?  Meaning a force 4 spell could only inflict a maximum of 8p ever??

From what i understand its the first one that limits your hits allowed.

Gross hits of a spell are limited by the Force. So the Force 4 Manabolt could only stage up damage by those 4 hits, discarding the last one before any other considerations.

[edit]: Editing because I just choose words all willy-nilly, with no concern for their actual meaning.



edited, we are saying the same thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 5 2006, 10:16 PM
Post #19


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



That's what geekkake said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
booklord
post Jul 5 2006, 10:56 PM
Post #20


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 502
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Detroit, Michigan
Member No.: 4,583



Here's a question for you....

Can you dodge an area effect elemental spell? By just reading the rules it seems the answer is yes. But the part of my brain that relies on logic screams no. So I'll ask you:

A) Yes , by all means dodge that 4 meter radius Fireball.
B) Yes, but scoring more successes only lowers the damage.
C) Hell no! It's blast radius is 4 meters and the power remains the same no matter where in the blast radius you are. How do you even remotely dodge that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevebugge
post Jul 5 2006, 11:12 PM
Post #21


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,026
Joined: 23-November 05
From: Seattle (Really!)
Member No.: 7,996



QUOTE (booklord)
Here's a question for you....

Can you dodge an area effect elemental spell? By just reading the rules it seems the answer is yes. But the part of my brain that relies on logic screams no. So I'll ask you:

A) Yes , by all means dodge that 4 meter radius Fireball.
B) Yes, but scoring more successes only lowers the damage.
C) Hell no! It's blast radius is 4 meters and the power remains the same no matter where in the blast radius you are. How do you even remotely dodge that?

I think the rules do allow you to dodge an area effect spell, however I think depending on the style of game you play you would be well within your rights as a GM do disallow it. If you are playing a cinematic style game sure maybe the character who dodged outruns the expanding fire ball and dives to cover in the nick of time, for a grittier game forget it he comes out looking like overdone toast. This is probably included in the rules mostly to prevent an unavoidable TPK, more of a balance issue than a realism issue (once again we run off to debate the realism of Magic!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 5 2006, 11:52 PM
Post #22


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



A 4m radius fireball spell doesn't necessarily mean a 4m ball of solid fire. More likely it's a burst of fire starting at the center and blasting outward with streamers of flame, in which case the dodging involves ducking down and turning your back so you just get a little singed instead of a lungful of pain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Jul 6 2006, 12:43 AM
Post #23


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



A victim of an elemental attack does have a chance to dodge the it. The mage has to beat the target in an opposed ranged combat test to hit the victim.

The target gets to stage down damage at that point by getting (at least a bit, if not entirely) out of the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hobgoblin
post Jul 6 2006, 12:44 AM
Post #24


panda!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 10,331
Joined: 8-March 02
From: north of central europe
Member No.: 2,242



i think previous editions had elemental area effect behaving about similar to a grenade. so if you can dodge a grenade (head for cover basicly) you should be able to dodge a fireball.

the one thing that irks me about the SR4 elemental area effects is that they now seems to require you to see the target, just like a normal area effect. before you could basicly aim one just inside a door and hope to catch anyone hiding out of view on either side...

so thats one thing ill probably allow in any games i end up a GM of...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ornot
post Jul 6 2006, 12:50 AM
Post #25


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,266
Joined: 3-June 06
From: UK
Member No.: 8,638



I was thinking about Elemental combat spells the other day for a similar reason. Why bother with them when they have little to no benefit compared to a powerbolt or powerball spell? They have harsher drain (IIRC) are resisted by armour, which direct spells are not and do about the same damage.

I have to say I'd probably allow someone to target an area with an area effect indirect combat spell. I'm just not sure how I'd work the mechanics as of now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 08:35 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.