 New Help with Spell Design, Is this even possible? |
  |
 Dec 12 2003, 08:38 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 21-October 03 Member No.: 5,749  |
I'm playing an Orc fire mage in our current game, and he is my first awakened character in Shadowrun. I was wondering if some of you with more experience and a better grasp of the rule system could help me design a spell idea i've been tossing around in my head, or tell me if it is even possible.
Basically the spell is an area effect version of the wreck spell that only work aganist ammo. He would cast the spell at a point and all the ammo within (force) meters would go off. However, can I even do that since I won't be able to see the ammo that I'm targeting with the spell? Also what would the modifers to drain be? |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 08:45 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Not possible unless you can physically see all the ammo. You can only affect objects you can see. If the ammo is in their gun then you cannot see it, and the spell cannot affect it. If the ammo was a belt hanging in plain sight, or a weapon with a clear plastic clip, then it would work just fine.
just remember, all combat spells in Shadowrun have a requirement that you have to see the target. Seeing a bulge and knowing it is a gun is not good enough. Seeing a gun and knowing there's ammo in it is not good enough. You actually have to see the ammo. period. If you decided to make the spell anyway, it would just be a wreck spell with a -1 drain level (IIRC) from being a limited target. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 08:51 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 693 Joined: 26-March 03 Member No.: 4,335 |
As a quick answer, I'd have to say If you can't see it, you can't target it with a combat spell. Also, bear in mind that it would _destroy_ ammo, not explode it. You'd end up with ammo bits. No boom-boom for the fire mage. :-(
A manipulation fireball would have a chance to cook off ammo though. I personally have always wondered if you could attach an elemental effect to a powerbolt, for example, to get an elemental spell that doesn't have to go from you to the target. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 08:55 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Right, a fire elemental manipulation spell called "Cook Ammo" or something has a much better chance of working. You could try and put a limitation on it ("Very Restricted Target") so that it only affects ammunition, but I'm not entirely sure if that's within the spirit of the rules. You don't have to see what you're affecting with elemental manipulations, just the area you're casting it at (I think -- might be a house rule).
Makes for some interesting elemental spells if possible, though. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 09:06 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Illuminate of the New Dawn Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 317 Joined: 9-June 03 From: Seattle 'Plex, UCAS Member No.: 4,700 |
Dead on, I think, since elemental manips work like ranged attacks, not like normal, targeted combat or manip spells. Though Doc F is right, I don't think you could allow it to only affect ammunition, you could probably only have it affect objects (maybe). That way you could destroy gear without hurting people directly. And it would, in all probablity, with a high enough force, cook off ammo. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 12 2003, 09:41 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 7-December 03 Member No.: 5,883 |
Nope. and double nope.
Elemental manipulation spells don't need to see things for the simple reason that you're seeing the effect target, the effect being the big ball of fire. you're pretty much summoning a fireball on a point, and that fireball cannot discriminate what it targets any more than a grenade can. I mean really, it's a ball of fire, it can't burn some things and not others. sorry if I seem to be repeating myself, but it seems like such a simple concept that I don't get why they didn't get it. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 09:50 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Yes, because in no way is magic magical. :please:
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 09:54 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 7-December 03 Member No.: 5,883 |
Oh you're right, I forgot that SR was following Rifts rules for a sec, it's not like SR has rules to govern explicitly how effects work. I mean if there were rules about how magic worked, both in game and out of game, then people would do silly thinks like make a science out of it. LOL they would probably even teach it at MIT.
good thing none of that happens... Come one and all to the all-sarcasm thread :) :D |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 09:54 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Exactly. ~J, deliberately ignoring sarcasm |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 12 2003, 10:01 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Feel free to show me where in the spell creation rules it states elemental manipulations cannot use the Restricted Target or Very Restricted Target modifier.
Note that in my first post I did expressely say that it probably wouldn't be feasable within the spirit of the rules. But in no way does that mean it's not possible at all. It breaks no rule, either as far as the rules go or the in-game limitations of sorcery. Time is not being manipulated. Teleportation is not happening. A magical flame that only affects non-living objects is being created. Show me where that breaks either of those rules or limitations. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 10:02 PM
Post
#11
|
|||
|
Illuminate of the New Dawn Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 317 Joined: 9-June 03 From: Seattle 'Plex, UCAS Member No.: 4,700 |
Oops. I stand corrected. Or actually sit corrected. I guess that's what I get for playing a conjuor for the past 8 months or so... Anyway, gimme a break, I just got up. I'm not required to be intelligent for at least another hour or so... :wobble: So, yeah, in terms of cooking off ammo with a spell, you can't only cook off ammo (unless you can see it, and then you can only cook off what you can see). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 12 2003, 10:52 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 7-December 03 Member No.: 5,883 |
It does say on page 51 (MitS) "Because they do not depend on sight, elemental manipulation spells affect all targts within an area of effect."
It also says repeatedly that Elemental Manipulations, like fireball, create a ball of fire, and that fire has the damaging effet. Now, if it set something specific on fire, like the ignite spell, then it could be area effect and target only ammo, but then you'd have to be able to see the ammo... but no, it doesn't have the sentence "Elemental manipulation spells cannot have the restricted target modifier" it also doesn't say that you can't give fireball a permanent duration. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2003, 11:08 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||||||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Sure does. Hence the options of "Restricted Target" and "Very Restricted Target." Notice the last word of each of those options.
Yes it does. And in this case, the fire is only producing its damaging effect on the restricted target.
Says who? They're all Manipulation spells and abide the same rules except where specifically noted otherwise. If you can do it with one type of Manipulation spell, you should be able to do it with another as long as it dosen't break any of the inherent rules of magic. And a magical flame that only affects non-living targets is not breaking any of the rules.
Which is why the system relies on GM's to allow or disallow spells. I see absolutely nothing wrong -- either logically or balance-wise -- with a spell that produces flames that cook off ammo. He could have done the exact same thing with a regular fireball. The only difference is that he now has a much more limited spell that, yes, has less drain, but isn't as versatile as a standard fireball.
My sentiments exactly. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Dec 13 2003, 12:25 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 228 Joined: 7-December 03 Member No.: 5,883 |
Simply put, I refuse to get into a "it is!" "Is not!" debate with you. You're ignoring what I believe such a direct and obvious implication that I don't believe it wasn't stated outright because they didn't think anyone wouldn't get that point.
You seem to be of the oppinion that if they didn't say "you cannot do this", it's fair game. If other people have input, please give it, otherwise there's no point in continuing. nothing I could say now would convince you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th July 2025 - 02:30 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.