 Direct Combat spells: Common misconception WRONG? |
  |
 Oct 24 2006, 06:48 PM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115  |
Let's compare Lightning Bolt to Mana Bolt for a second:
For three extra points of drain, you get the ability to target non-living things (generally worth 1 point of drain - see power bolt) and the elemental electricity effect (easily worth 2 points of drain - have you read it?). The other change is that the target gets a reaction roll to avoid the spell, but they have to completely resist the effect of the spell to take nothing. Giving the way electrical damage works, this is a *really good deal*. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 24 2006, 07:00 PM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Of course, the interesting bit about this is that electrical damage is defined as stun, and the spell lightbolt/ball say it's physical damage. Not sure what they meant here. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 24 2006, 07:04 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 9-October 06 Member No.: 9,576 |
Whether they are using Body or Reaction to avoid the spell, they are still avoiding it. With the lightning bolt, yes, the target has to completely resist the effect of the spell to take nothing. However, the manabolt doesn't even give them that chance. Which is my entire point. Avoiding a manabolt with Willpower is the same as avoiding a lightning bolt with Reaction. What is missing is resisting the damage for manabolt. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 24 2006, 07:20 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 633 Joined: 23-February 06 Member No.: 8,301 |
The big difference comes when dealing with magical defenses: Counterspelling is added to the damage resistance roll, rather than the reaction roll, for indirect spells. Magical defenses help reduce the damage, but are less likely to help you resist completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 24 2006, 07:26 PM
Post
#30
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
They're listed as Physical type spells. Not quite the same thing. This simply means that they're not mana spells and are resisted with physical attributes rather than mental (Willpower) and can't be cast against purely astral targets. That's definite. Possibly more open to interpretation is how you resist it, though the electricity rules say Body + Willpower to avoid being shocked. It ain't just stun damage. Maybe you're supposed to apply both? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 24 2006, 08:37 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 261 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Massachusetts Member No.: 2,115 |
That's actually sort of amusing; the book directly contridicts itself there. I'm pretty sure they meant "Lighting Bolt is treated as Electricity damage (Page 154), except that it's physical damage rather than stun." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 12:08 AM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 28-July 05 Member No.: 7,526 |
read again, it's a physical spell that also does physical damage. All elemental combat spells are physical, and deal physical damage. Street Magic actually lists this as a requirement when designing one. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 12:40 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
First:
As I mentioned several time. I understand the consensus is: no secondary damage resitance roll Right now I am honestly undecided if it is a problem. SO far in my games it isnt, but then the ones I play with have learned abusing the system isnt a good idea and play for the role-playing aspect not the roll-playing aspect. If it becomes a problem, I will change it (most likely to give a secondary resist). I am totally comfortable with making house rules. My point is has this every been raised and 'offical' answered. Going through the books after the 'Great Dragon vs. Noob Mage' thread I will say Combat spell in general seem a little hinky in the new system. The whole concept, of combat spells, seem to go against how every other spell work. For all non-combat spells force normally CAPS the sucess rather then count as sucesses. For combat, force actually makes the spell 'stronger' Levitate- 100 with one net sucess can lift 200kg Levitate-2 with 1 net sucess can lift 200kg Heal-200 with 1 net sucess heals 1 box Heall 1 with 1 net sucess heals 1 box Why does Manabolt-100 with one net sucess do 101 boxes of damage Manabolt-1 with one net sucess do 2 boxes of damage. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 12:59 AM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
Umm sow me one other COMPLETE example where damage is actually stated as being recorded! The only one that states it is the attack against the drone (at least in core, have not done a full re-read of Street magic yet). Every other example never goes through all the steps. The 'Standard' for the italic examples is to show the 'one part' the are explaining the step the are talking about. Can you point out one example besides the drone attack, matching your: "All other such examples are complete." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 01:23 AM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
They also missed pointing out that you need 4 levels of success before the spell affects a drone if I remember Franks recent comment correctly. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 01:34 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 16-August 06 Member No.: 9,130 |
I will answer your question if you answer mine laughingowl. Why do guns have a base DV? Why aren't they just done by net successes? Heck, why are all weapons done this way? Why does a 10DV gun with 1 net success do a modified DV 11 and not just 1DV? After answering these questions maybe you will see why it is so self explanatory. As an Elf adept with agility out the wazoo I can do a lot of damage with guns. Heck, I can make many flavors of mundane characters all with around 22-25 dice for a combat related active skill dicepool. It is up to the GM to keep things in line in these cases. No starting character should be allowed to have dicepools that large. Not only that, these characters usually aren't any fun to play to begin with. They usually aren't too well rounded and highly specialized. These type of problems are supposed to be resolved by common sense. It is GM's job to accept the characters for their campaign. If you accept characters that are obviously made to abuse the system, that is your own fault. You can't blame the rules. The root of the problem here isn't the rules, but that characters are being allowed to be played that should have been refused outright. Unless your playing a campaign with emo samurai there isn't any reason to have characters like this. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 01:50 AM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
Well ok: A gun is a two step process. 1) You attempt to put the bullet into the person. Which is opposed shooting versus dodging. 2) Then the bullet attempts to damage the person which is a matter of the size and speed of the bullet (base damage) and where it hit (net results of the shooting contest). Much the same as a indirect combat spell. Although your question doesnt really apply. Since EVERY other type of SPELL.. Force has NO effect on how strong the magic is save for a possible cap.... COMBAT spells though force directly makes the spell more powerfull. One thing I am strongly thinking of doing which I think might work well. Diect Combat spells: Base Damage is gross hits on spellcasting test (capped at force). Applied damage equals gross hits + net hits. (as opposed to force + net hits) This would atleat follow the same concept as every other type of spell (force does not make the spell 'stronger' merely makes it POSSIBLE for the spell to be stronger. Makes the spell damage depend on the skill of the caster, (and how well they roll) not just on the raw 'force'. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 25 2006, 02:04 AM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
So, in other words, you intend to pretty much totally gimp Direct Combat Spells.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 02:20 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
Direct Combat Spells work differently from other spell types... so? That's the canon RAW. House rule it as you will, but know that the net effect is that you are gimping Direct Combat Spells vis a vis other combat options.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 08:23 AM
Post
#40
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
I'm not finding this. SR4, pg. 197, the spell description says that the spell does Electricity Damage (pg. 154) which states electricity damage is stun damage with a secondary Body + Willpower test to resist temporary incapacitation. I suppose that the section on Damage Value earlier says that Spells either cause Physical or Stun damage and by default, you would take these types from the spell summary. But the specific overrides the general and Lighting Bolt is a Physical spell that does electrical (stun) damage. @laughingowl I don't recommend you add a damage resistance roll to direct combat spells. It makes them significantly weaker. I don't see why you have a problem with increased force making the spell "stronger" as that is what it is supposed to do. You seem upset by the lack of symmetry with gun rules. But that is what Indirect Combat spells are for. They send an attack that you can resist as normal damage. Combat spells are something more "magical". |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 25 2006, 09:04 AM
Post
#41
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 615 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,895 |
knasser:
I dont have a problem with lack of symentry with GUNS.. ..
Force is NOT suppsoed to make spells stronger. None of the other spells (outside of combat) get 'stronger' with force. The POTENTIAL to get stronger is with force, but the spell casting is what makes it stronger. It would be swell if I could heal 13 boxes of damage by getting on net sucess on my force 12 heal spell. It would be swell if I could add 13 points of armor to myself with a force 13 armor spell It would be swell if if my stealth force 12 spell meant somebody had to get atleast 13 sucess on a perception test to see me. It would be swell if my force 12 combat sense gave me atleast 13 dice to all my ranged/melee defense rolls. NONE of the other spells get more powerful with force. I have a problem with lack of symentry with all other spells. No other type of spell does FORCE make the spell more powerful. It makes the potential for the spell to be more powerful. Levitate force 1000 with one sucess lift 200kg. Levitate force 1 with one sucess lifts 200kg. Why does manabolt force 1000 with one sucess do 1001 yet manabolt force 1 with one sucess do 2 My other problem is that with damage being a minimum of force+1. A starting mage can almost 100% likely (if they live to go) do 13+ points of damage to something. As pointed out in the great dragon vs noob mage thread. While one mage is not likely to do it. two starting level build mages can almost certainly take out a Great Dracoform (from the base stats). As is direct (especially) combat spells are very much all or nothing. Its dead or nothing happens. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Oct 25 2006, 10:02 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 171 Joined: 5-February 05 Member No.: 7,053 |
Are 6 Magic mages who routinely cast Force 12 Stunbolt really that common in your games? They seem to crop up in every one of your threads. You know, maybe *that's* the problem. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 12:22 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 9-October 06 Member No.: 9,576 |
Can you back up this statement? I think the entire reason laughingowl put "Common Misconception WRONG?" was because he believes the way people have interpreted the main book is incorrect, possibly due to an editing mistake in the main book. That is why we're all having this discussion at the moment. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 02:08 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Well, if it is an editing mistake, the same mistake has been made in pretty much every edition to date. Direct Combat Spells have always worked the manner they are stated to work in SR4 in relation to (what ar now called) Indirect Combat Spells.
This is because the Direct Combat Spells are supposedly manipulating pure mana to affect the target, so the target does not get to Dodge (which is a Reaction test). Indirect Combat Spells, on the other hand, create an actual element to cause damage to the target. Because this element is actually physical, the target does get to Dodge in this case (the Reaction test). Now we are up to the same place, where a Resistance test is made. Willpower or Body are used alone in the case of Direct Combat Spells, as we are still basically dealing with pure mana and Armor would not help. It does help when resisting the purely physical effects of Indirect Combat Spells though, at least partially, as it is halved (like with all similar effects like grenades and such) before being added to the Body test. There really is no extra resistance test involved. The only difference is that the purely physical nature of Indirect Combat Spells allow the target a chance to dodge the effects, even if only partially, while there is no real way to physically dodge the purely mana-related Direct Combat Spells. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 02:42 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
I am willing to accept the "Damage Resistance Test" argument, simply for argument's sake. But what I was refering to in my post was the way combat spell Force and net hits interacted. It is simply different from other spells - that Force-net hit interaction is canon.
Are Combat spells any part of combat? Yes, but by defination only when mana spells are used as part of an astral attack or only peripherally as part of a Touch range spell(and since damage is not dealt by the touch attack, the point is moot). So I'd accept "Damage Resistance Test" for combat spells only if it is used for Astral Combat. Combat Spells are neither ranged attacks nor melee attacks and are quite obviously not cybercombat. In fact, they are not combat as it is defined in SR4. Combat spells may use elements of the normal SR4 combat system and in some cases are function very similar to range attacks; in many cases there are parellels to normal combat, but they are not normal combat. That's why hey have their own rules: It's Magic. :D |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Oct 25 2006, 04:08 PM
Post
#46
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 749 Joined: 28-July 05 Member No.: 7,526 |
If you're not finding it, try looking at the description of Lightning Bolt (197) where it says, "Damage: P". So yes, there is a contradiction. Interpret it as you wish, but the contradiction is there. Street Magic says all elemental combat spells do physical damage, SR4 says all electricity damage is stun. take your pick. Since the lightning bolt spell description specifically says it does physical damage, I'd say that takes precedence.
no, there are other exceptions where force influences spell strength directly. The three I can think of are Area spell radius, Detection spell range, and all sustained spells use Force to resist being dispelled. You may argue that these aren't real "effects", but I think that depends completely on what effect the magician is looking for. Increased Reflexes is a perfect example of a spell you don't need to cast above a certain force, but is also something you really, really don't want to have dispelled. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 25 2006, 04:40 PM
Post
#47
|
|||||||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
And thus the circle is completed. ;) I refer you back to the part you quoted where I say it's listed as a physical type spell. I also don't really need the "have a look on pg. 197" as you'll see that's in my original quote too. I said that the specific overrides the general, and specifically, the spell description for Lightening Bolt says it does Electricity damage as detailed on pg. 154. I don't see any scope for confusion, here. Shall we go round again? ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Oct 25 2006, 04:47 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 9-October 06 Member No.: 9,576 |
Lightning Bolt
...Type: P . Range: LOS . Damage: P . Duration... Yeah, he's right. The spell actually says physical damage. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 25 2006, 04:49 PM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
And hence my orginal comment that it's unclear. . . . :wobble: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Oct 25 2006, 05:51 PM
Post
#50
|
|||||
|
Shadow Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 3,737 Joined: 2-June 06 From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West) Member No.: 8,636 |
Arg! I said this myself earlier. But it shouldn't cause anyone any confusion at all unless their totem happens to be Goldfish + 3 dice summoning spirits of water, Will (3) required when attempting to reach end of paragraph. ;)
See? How can anyone be in any confusion over what sort of damage this spell does? It even gives you a page reference for the damage that it does! If you can't handle the case that specific statements will over ride general ones elsewhere then I'm surprised you even made it this far into the book. Are you people deliberately winding me up? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th September 2025 - 10:32 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.