 New to Game: Direct vs. Indirect combat spells? |
  |
 Jul 24 2006, 08:43 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 24-July 06 Member No.: 8,948  |
Indirect spells have higher drain but I don't understand why. Seems they're less power by my understanding (I figure my understanding is wrong.)
There's an example of an indirect combat spell being used so I figure I got that part right. Basically they get to roll reaction to avoid then body + 1/2 impact armor to resist damage plus whatever resistance you have to the particular type of damage (like fire resistance against fireball.) Direct combat spells seem straightforward. No chance to avoid, basically a straight resistance test with only Body. Damage is generic physical damage. So what am I missing about direct combat spells? |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 09:11 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 28-August 05 Member No.: 7,637 |
with direct combat spell,s they can also be outright resisted.
Caster rolls, defender rolls. If caster doesn't get one net success, spell is outright resisted. With counter spelling and also shielding, its not very difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 09:13 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
First, the resistance test for a direct combat spell is willpower for a mana spell and body for a physical spell. This test is more of a dodge test because the target's successes are subtracted from the caster's net hits. It there are not net hits then the spell fizzles without causing damage.
In many situations, direct spells are best. However, indirect spells have advantages of their own. Most obviously, indirect spells can be cast against characters that are not in the magician's line-of-sight. A single-target spell indirect spell can be cast with a blindfire penality while an area indirect spell will hit anything in the area of the spell regardless. It is almost impossible to cast direct combat spells against vehicles and drones due to high thresholds. Likewise, any object with high object resistance is difficult to cast against because of thresholds. Indirect combat spells do not have to overcome these thresholds. Most indirect combat spells are elemental in nature and have secondary elemental effects that are actually more useful that the spell itself. Lightening spells can disable drones and electronics. Fire spells can make flamable stuff (including gunpowder) burn. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 10:13 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534 |
indirect combat spells are severley underpowered
indirect area spells do not even hit targets out of sight use indirect combat spells only if you need the elemental effect (or use my houserules, SHP in my signature) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 10:15 AM
Post
#5
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
I know it could be a logical way for spell to work - but it is wrong :
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 24 2006, 11:30 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
something i hope is the single biggest typo i the whole of SR4. if not, they have just removed the reason for indirect combat spells to exist... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 12:06 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 28-June 06 From: Sol System, Earth, Europe, Germany, Saxony Member No.: 8,796 |
the thing with indirect area combat spells is, what you think is the way they work.
if the do work similar to grenades (my point of view) they SHOULD affect targets, that have no LOS to the caster, but have no cover concerning the center of the spells area. you create an actual elemental "explosive-ball" and throw it (magically). when it "detonates", it fills the area with that aggressive elemental effect. that's how i imagine it to work ... but i know, according to RAW they don't work that way (even if the fluff-text seems like that). maybe some errata is needed ... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 01:17 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
thing is, pre-SR4 versions of indirect combat spells worked just like grenades. as in, you could lob one past a door and hit anyone hiding to either side. so either its one big typo, or someone found them indirect spells to strong (how that can be i dont know).
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 01:31 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
Men just learn to read. The text is pretty clear :
1 it specify : area spell = multiple target (NOT detonation) 2 it specify "If there are targets within the area that the caster cannot see, they will not be affected" 3 a explanation is given : "because the caster cannot synchronize with them to transmit the spell signal on a frequency they will receive." There CAN'T be typo. May be that's strange but it's RAW |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 01:56 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
That text says nothing about indirect combat spells. It is about area spells in general. This is overridden by the specific text about indirect combat spells on page 196
Ranged attacks do not require Line of Sight. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:16 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
maybe not, but then its the strangest bit of rules "change" in the whole of SR4... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:22 PM
Post
#12
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
Non sense. Ranged attack can be either Ranged attack on a target "LOS", or on an area "LOS (A)". Magical ranged attack always need LOS. If you are not sure for area spells, see their definition : range p194
And area spell p173
Or read the explanation of magic laws earlier in the thread.
All this is clear, and concordant. IT IS SURELY NOT TYPO. But it is maybe strange, and do not correspond to earlier version of the magical way. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:37 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
Well personally I'd have to ask, what is the 'target' of a Fireball? The guy you're trying to fry or the point at which your Magic is focused to create that huge flaming ball of death?
Personally given the nature of Indirect spells, (Armor working, ect...) I think that the latter is the only option that makes sense... |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:40 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
No. A Shooting someone with a gun is a ranged attack. Shooting someone with a grenade launcher is a ranged attack. Casting a manabolt at someone is not a ranged attack. Casting Manaball at an area is not a ranged attack. In SR4 and in previous editions, a ranged attack is a specific type of attack.
On the ranged attack modifier table there is an entry that says
thus, since blind fire is a ranged attack modifier and indirect combat spells are ranged attacks you can use indirect spells when blind to your target. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:46 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
what you don't get is that you don't aim a "point" but an area ... Read again its all written.
I can't say I like it, but its official and logical. I agree there should be spell that works as you say. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:56 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
Very funny how you show that range attack could describe different type of attack and says right ofter it is a specific one :D For the rest everything is correct except the end, when you say you can use LOS spell on someone you don't see even if rules state "NO!" just because a general ranged attack modifier exist for blind fire. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 02:57 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Indirect area spells target an area in the same sense that a grenade targets an area.
Emphasis mine. Indirect spells can be dodged. They are not magical energies that pop up out of nowhere. They are physical creations that are hurled at the target. This only applies to indirect spells. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:06 PM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
If a sheet of armored glass stands betweeen the magician and the target security guards and he throws a fireball at them unaware that a sheet of armored glass stands between him and them. A) The fireball hits the glass and fizzles out. B) The fireball hits the glass and explodes but cannot harm the glass as the magician couldn't see it. C) The fireball hits the glass, explodes, and damages the glass. D) The fireball passes right through the glass not damaging it in the slightest and hits the security guards on the other side. If "C" then fireball behaves like a normal ranged attack then it hits the glass and detonates, damaging the glass even though the magician can't see the glass. In this case the rule "Indirect combat spells are treated like ranged attacks." is completely true and the normal targeting rules do not apply to indirect elemental spells. If "D" then fireball goes right through the glass and hits the guards inside then the fireball traveling from the magician to the guards is a completely illusion. The fireball really just spontaneously appeared on the other side of the armored glass. In this case the rule "Indirect combat spells are treated like ranged attacks." is false. I've got to go with "C". If it can be dodged then there is acutally something physical travelling from the caster to the target. ( which is how a non-magic ranged attack works ) In short they could have made this clearer. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:08 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
The Dragon Never Sleeps Group: Admin Posts: 6,924 Joined: 1-September 05 Member No.: 7,667 |
What if the fireball doesn't travel between the caster and the center of the explosion, but actually starts manifesting the physical elemental effects at the center of the area of affect?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:10 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,150 Joined: 19-December 05 From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex Member No.: 8,081 |
I'll stick to the old way for the time being. Besides secondary elemental damage it's the only thing to make indirect spells usefull, considering the high drain value. I'll have to think about about Blast, though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:26 PM
Post
#21
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 502 Joined: 14-May 03 From: Detroit, Michigan Member No.: 4,583 |
Then you have chosen option "D". The fireball is transmitted instantly to the area of effect. But this beggars the question.... How are you even remotely dodging something that spontaneously appears out of nowhere? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:26 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Well, indirect combat spells are still handled as Ranged Combat by the RAW.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 03:28 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
hyzmarca : I give up.
DireRadiant: the spell description aren't very clear but I think you are right (despite the all the picture and our imagination where lighting bolt and fireball are thrown by the mage. Booklord : For me it is clearly E: the spell is cast on the area, the glass doesn't change anything. For the same reason a mage can cast a spell through optical vision but not through electronic ones As I said I don't like it very much, but those appear to be the rules. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 04:08 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 4-July 06 Member No.: 8,836 |
Heh,
The longer I read these boards the funnier it gets when people defer to the RAW as the ultimate authority. Hasn't it sunk in yet that the RAW are critically flawed and that the intent is clearly more important? If it makes you happy to follow the RAW despite logic, common sense and the like, knock yourself out. :D Chris |
|
|
|
|
Jul 24 2006, 04:19 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 18-April 05 From: France Member No.: 7,343 |
I don't get you. RAW is RAW, but nobody on that thread said that RAW -HAD- to be followed.
When I don't like RAW I just use house rules. I don't like the logic of how the magic can reach targets, as I said. As a GM I don't follow that logic but another one (in which magicien rope goggle stuff do not work). Even if the RAW here IS logic, and the intent is coherent with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd April 2024 - 04:57 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.