 Direct Combat Spells, A few questions. |
  |
 Dec 11 2007, 01:46 AM
Post
#76
|
|||||
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046  |
I would think this all depends on how you visualize the effect of the spell. I don't think anything explicitely says that these spells instantaneously fill ever square centimeter with damage. The kill range of hand grenades (defined my military as >50% chance of lethal injury) was around 50' I think (this is just off memory, so please somebody correct me if I'm off). But RL people still often got lucky and escaped injury if the hit the dirt and/or found something to hide behind. If ID AOE spells work kind of like fireworks, or grenades, where a finite amount of the deadly stuff travels out from a central explosion point, then you very well could 'dodge' the AoE while still being inside the radius of the effect. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2007, 02:08 AM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Actually, with a grenade defender dodge successes increase the attacker's scatter, which I suppose represents the defender making a silly face at precisely the right instant, causing the attacker to laugh and throwing off his aim.
The actual grenade explosion can't be dodged, and only the target of the grenade attack can use dodge to increase scatter. 0 Net hits on a grenade throwing test means maximum scatter, but people in the blast radius are still going to die. And you can negate the ability of targets to dodge altogether by simply targeting the ground near them, though it is recommended that GMs not allow this. The same is true with rockets and guided missiles. If one were to treat area elemental attacks like area physical attacks, then one should probably use scatter rules to move the epicenter of the attack while making it impossible for those caught in its radius to dodge. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2007, 05:59 AM
Post
#78
|
|||||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,664 Joined: 21-September 04 From: Arvada, CO Member No.: 6,686 |
Which could be an example of a successful reaction test. Superficial burns probably aren't even worth one box of damage, and burnt hair definitely isn't. But, you can always do superficial damage to runners for a successful reaction test (such as burnt hair, and such). Hyz: An example would be, a thrown regular frag grenade (1d6 base scatter). Defender beats attacker on the opposed test, so they take 1d6 in scatter. Lets assume 3 meters of that. Great. Now it lands. Now the defender has until the attackers next IP to move, hide, move the grenade, etc before the grenade goes off. Assuming he's smart, and runs, he only needs to get a total of 11m (8m from where he is) from the grenade to avoid all damage entirely. Since base speed on even a dwarf is 20m, this is easily accomplished.
If you felt like doing that, sure, but I've never pictured fireball simply causing a Force meter sphere to suddenly be fire, and then not. I've always seen it as a ball of fire, shooting from the mage, hitting the targetted area, and then exploding to be that force meter sphere. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 11 2007, 07:30 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
I would easily consider the damage I took to be at least 3S, when I said superficial damage, I was categorizing the burns. Superficial burns are first or light second degree burns. They would definitely be damage of some type as they hinder the hell out of you when doing other things. I would say I reacted successfully and staged a 6 or 7P wound down to 3S or so. If I had not tucked up I would have exposed eyes and especially lungs to the flame which could have easily been lethal especially if I was breathing in.
Anyway, I feel like a jackass trying to state a real life situation in SR terms, I'll just say I have real life experience behind playing explosions the way I do and leave it at that. YMMV, as it stands I agree that with the exception of trying to hit people you cannot see D spells ALWAYS beat ID spells. That said I would imagine we would all also agree that grenades beat ID spells and guns largely beat D spells because they don't have drain associated with them. Magic should do what it does, and in the damage department that is largely ineffective as far as comparisons to other forms of magic and guns go, especially if the opposition has a mage. Chris |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2007, 07:31 AM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
Also, would like to say when talking about grenades and explosions I was referring to airburst linked ones so that there was no time in between throw/fire and explosion for the person to legally run.
Chris |
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2007, 01:47 PM
Post
#81
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 28-June 06 From: Sol System, Earth, Europe, Germany, Saxony Member No.: 8,796 |
i always thought that, too. we played it that way: mage has to make a perception test (if the situation is lousy - i.e. dark, foggy or so). if he can see "something" of the targets aura, the direct combat spell can normally work. for IDCS it's plain told in the BBB, that one has to cast them like firing a ranged weapon, just use MAG+spellcasting (plus modifiers). and mods from cover, sight and such are surely used. the main advantage of IDCS is the fact, that one can toast targets behind cover. and that a fireball spell will make those gangers piss of. in terror and fear of the burns. sure, it makes no difference if you're killed, but a nasty elemental effect is a thing, every opponent will consider for sure. sidenote: as a GM i wouldn't allow elemental effects for direct spells. they're pure magic. there isn't created anything plain physical that would be able to cause the elemental effect, IMHO. IDCS are different. you create an actual ball of fire in your hand and "throw" it at the target (with magic). there it explodes like a grenade. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd February 2026 - 01:06 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.