How often does your mage kill enemies he can't see?, Why? Options

[Hank]

I don't know...maybe your games are different than mine. I don't kill many enemies I don't see, but maybe you do. If so, tell me about it.

[bjorn]

I think once have I seen a mage kill more people than he planned on.

[Ryu]

You made me think. I´m not entirely sure my mage killed someone (unless sending spirits home counts). The mage of a good friend killed a good amount of people without seeing seem (unless seeing them on the news counts), but that comes bundled with handling explosives.

So what is your question aimed at? It is technically possible to indirectly kill with magic (Levitate comes to mind), but generally magic requires LOS.

[Stahlseele]

does it count if you levitate something over the estimated position of the enemy you can't see(let's say a grenade or angry critter for example) and let it drop ? O.o

[Raven Bloodeyes]

Elemental Area of Effect Spells on the ground just past obstacles or corners... only once in a great while, but I've seen it... so they didn't have LOS, but knew they were there

[Fortune]

With Ritual Sorcery it is relatively common to affect (kill) someone without 'seeing' them.

[BishopMcQ]

Elemental AoE here as well. I had a player throw a Toxic Wave into an apartment, targeting the main bad guy. He didn't see the Stealth adept who was hiding in ambush just inside the room or the young girl they were supposed to be rescuing passed out on the couch.

Overall, it's happened 2-3 times in the last few years.

[Ravor]

Ritual Magic and Indirect AoE Combat spells are two of the greatest weapons in a Mage's arsenal and should be used as often as necessary.

[Stahlseele]

replace necessary with possible *g*

[Shrike30]

Less often than some of my other players do with hand grenades.

[Whipstitch]

I'm afraid Ritual Magic and Indirect AoEs simply haven't been very useful for me even when I do have a mage capable of using them. Needing a material, sympathetic, symbolic link or bound spirit acting as a spotter plus the typically 7 to 8 hours involved in casting the spell is impractical, and typically any situation complex enough to really make ritual magic a good idea is done more expediently by other means. As for Indirect Elemental spells, the drain is hellish and bombardment is what the heavy weapon toting samurai is for. If the game's going long enough I usually pick one up eventually, but it's not such a pressing matter to me that I'll fill up a precious starting spell slot with just another way to kill someone.

[masterofm]

AOE wreck gun. He has killed quite a few people that way.

[Sir_Psycho]

Chunky Salsa should remain a priveledge of the mundanes! I remember my first grenade experience!

I remember throwing a grenade down into a basement, because the back room of the basement was where my chummer was tied up. I waited for the explosion and then ran down the stairs, leaping across the room, with my dual browning max powers extended in front of me and... landed in a pile of chunky salsa in a room devoid of life.

So you cissy little "let's hold hand and chant for a few hours and change his emotions! Ooh let's light candles!" magicians, hands. off.

[Hank]

The point of the poll is to debunk the typical argument to this question:

Why do elemental spells have such a high drain value? (A: Because you can use them to kill enemies you can't see.)

Since direct combat spells are simply more effective (armor doesn't matter, reaction is typically higher than willpower, indirect warrants a damage resistance check but direct does not), it's always been hard for me to understand why their drains are also much lower.

[DTFarstar]

I answered all of them because the only mage I have every had to kill people directly with his mind was blind. Also his only AoE was Lightning Ball. I killed...... 22 people and 4 cars with an edged one at one time. And some 12 or 14 people and 2 cars at another. Oh, the stories I could tell about his crazy ass....

Chris

[Fortune]

Keep in mind that Indirect Combat spell damage must be staged down in it's entirety, while you only need to match the caster's hits with Direct Combat spells for them to fizzle. And of course, there are also the elemental side effects of the Indirect Combat spells.

[DTFarstar]

More to the point though, I think my group uses a houserule on Indirect AoE and grenades/rockets that make both more deadly because we were tired of people always dodging grenades. The magician casts and the DV is equal to Force + hits, and the reaction test stages that down, then you have to resist the rest with your body+1/2impact+counterspelling. Same with grenades, roll attack and judge scatter, then reaction lowers the DV on a 1 for 1 basis and you soak whatever is left. Grenades still are not THAT dangerous, but they are at least worthy of respect now, and it helps justify the hideous expense of indirect spells. Then again maybe this is RAW, I don't even remember anymore.

Chris

[Fortune]

Um, sounds like canon to me (at least the Magic part), unless I'm missing something.

Need coffee!

[hyzmarca]

According to the RAW, dodging increases the scatter of the grenade (possibly an abstraction of flashing boobs at the grenadier just as he throws or something like that) and only the target gets to dodge. No one else in the AOE, other the target, can dodge. This means that aiming at the ground is getter than airing at a person, but aiming at the ground when you intend to hit a person is illegal according to Rob Boyle. It has been suggested by some that grenadiers who want the low scatter should carry a bag of Devil Rats, throw a Devil Rat at the target (possibly using missile mastery), and then throw a grenade at the rat.

[Fortune]

The haunted 'Quote' button strikes again. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Edit: Aww! You're no fun! You fixed it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[knasser]

According to the RAW, dodging increases the scatter of the grenade (possibly an abstraction of flashing boobs at the grenadier just as he throws or something like that) and only the target gets to dodge. No one else in the AOE, other the target, can dodge. This means that aiming at the ground is getter than airing at a person, but aiming at the ground when you intend to hit a person is illegal according to Rob Boyle. It has been suggested by some that grenadiers who want the low scatter should carry a bag of Devil Rats, throw a Devil Rat at the target (possibly using missile mastery), and then throw a grenade at the rat.

Ah, the infamous "bag o' rats" strikes yet another game system in its prime. In D&D there is a loop hole by which a fighter can throw a bag of rats at his opponent and then use Whirlwind Attack & Great Cleave to get additional attacks against that opponent by using the rats as intermidiary opponents.

Getting back to the issue of indirect combat spells, they really have to exist if you think about it. Unless you seriously change what magic is capable of, then a magician has to be able to create flames, or loud claps of sound or electrical charges or whatever. And if a magician can do these things then you have to have rules for how these things will damage someone. Indirect Combat spells are necessary things in the rules. Likewise, you really need direct combat spells. They may not be quite as unavoidable according to fluff as indirect are, but they are really needed, especially those that inflict Stun (the "sleep" spells).

So really there is a necessity for two different types of spells and more or less a necessity that they should function differently. That they both have different advantages and disadvantages that create valid reasons to use different ones in different circumstances is to the credit of the rules, I think. As to the poll, indirect fire spells came into their own in the extremely twisty and confined tunnels of an ant-hive, but that's mainly been it, other than lightening bolt for shorting out electronics.