Direct vs. Indirect Combat Spells, Forgive a Newb Question Options

[BlackHat]

So, I don't play a lot of magicians, but I found myself recently looking at the spells again.

I think I am missing something pretty basic, but I'm not sure what. I figure somebody here can help me out.

Despite my favorite mage character being a fire-specialist, I found myself wondering why anyone would ever learn an indirect combat spell? The drain is 2 points higher. The target gets more dice to resist (first with reaction, then if there are any hits left, with body + 1/2 armor + elemental resistance armor mods, as opposed to only rolling body with, say, powerbolt). The elemental side-effects are nice, but most of them (except maybe fire) don't seem like they would come up that often - certainly not enough to make up for 2 points of drain, and giving your enemy about 6-12 extra dice to resist with.

Street magic confirms that someone thinks that elemental affects are worth +2 increase to drain, and having to be "indirect" (which seems to suck) - but I am not really seeing that much of an advantage to indirect combat spells. It seems that if you're interested in your combat spell dealing damage (as opposed to knocking your opponent down, having a small chance of stun, or making his ExEx ammo go off) you're much better off just using powerbolt.

Am I mad?

ô.o

[Abschalten]

No, you aren't going crazy. Most of the time it is a bum deal to use an indirect combat spell over a direct one. However, there are times it is more advantageous to use indirect spells.

The first one is against targets with lots of counterspelling protection. If you use a direct combat spell (single target or area effect) then there's a good chance it'll just get swatted away. Meanwhile, indirect spells don't get that same treatment. They're defended against like normal ranged attacks. If it hits, THEN they get the counterspelling protection added to their Body+ half armor damage resistance test. The result is usually that they get hit but reduce the damage. But that's preferable to having your spell take no effect anyway.

Additionally, indirect spells have some sort of physical medium that travels between you and the target. If you kinda know where the target is, but he's invisible, then you can still cast a spell towards him and have a chance to hit. Likewise if it's an area effect indirect spell, you can hit targets around corners. Try doing that with a manaball (hint: you can't.)

Finally, some of the indirect spells have secondary effects. Setting off Ex-Explosive ammo, creating slicks of ice, exuding choking (concealing) smoke, zapping with electricity (and using the electricity attack rules), etc... all of these can be used in strategic ways and create effects that direct combat spells just can't do, since you're just channeling invisible, destructive power into your target.

[DireRadiant]

Am I mad?

ô.o

Yes.

It's a tradeoff between spells and what you cando. Is it worth the drain codes? That's a matter of opinion, so you will get different answers.

Note that Direct spells, if resisted with that single test, do no damage, if not resisted, then they do the whole damage. Indirect Spells, while getting two resists, have to be staged down completely.

Also compare against what kind of targets you are hitting, and also consider line of sight rules. Can a direct spell affect that drone sitting around the corner?

[BlackHat]

The counterspelling argument makes sense. I was thinking that (without counterspelling) the initial resist is either body (for powerbolt) or reaction (for indirect spell). Those should be about the same value, and if either one gets you down to 0 net hits, the spell does nothing. I didn't notice that counterspelling was applied at different stages for the two types.

The hitting-things-you-can't-see makes sense with invisible opponents, but otherwise only applies for the area-effect versions. I should have specified that I was only comparing the single-target versions in my analysis - where, if the guy is around the corner, you can't hit him with a lightning bolt either.

But, thanks for the replies. That helped clear it up.
Now, if only I could delete my accidental post in the Welcome to the Shadows forum.

[Tarantula]

Likewise if it's an area effect indirect spell, you can hit targets around corners. Try doing that with a manaball (hint: you can't.)

Well, not without mirrors or other toys.

[Abschalten]

Well, not without mirrors or other toys.

True enough. My mental image was casting on the fly down a hallway and trying to hit some guys hiding just around the corner. I wasn't thinking about alternate methods of gaining LOS. Even so, I think casting through fiber optic toys and mirrors gets you something like a -4 pool penalty to spellcasting attempts.

[Tarantula]

Mirrors no, the fibreoptics yes.

[Jaid]

drone-mounted mirror anyone? (someone's GM is probably going to hate me for that...)

[sunnyside]

There is other stuff too.

(Hopefully this is all correct I think I'm getting some edition blur in my head here but I think this is all 4th).

For one indirect spell can be used for utalitarian stuff. A direct spell can target a whole car. Only an indirect spell can target the tires. Same for the rest of the targeting etc options.

This also means indirect spells can be used in a utalitarian manner (lighting fires, shorting stuff without totalling it, eating something with small amounts of acid).

Also sometimes direct spells will have a hard time with object resistance. This would probably be most notable if you're trying to zap a lightly armored drone when you've got some penalties on you from this that or the other. The direct spell still has to clear the high tech threshold. The indirect spell just has to connect against the drones pathetic dodge capability.

Indirect spells can also eat up the terrain. For example lets say someone is shooting at you around a corner using their smartlink. With direct spells your only option is to try and zap the gun. And indirect spell can blow some drywall.

[Hank]

We dropped the drain codes by two for all indirect combat spells. It was totally unbalancing. Ever since, the game has been ruined by mages constantly targeting enemies they can't see or specific parts of vehicles.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)
Give me a break. If you can't see an enemy, are you going to pull out all the stops and cast your uber powerful, drain intensive spell or just chuck a grenade? Does anyone think that the mana equivalent of a grenade is really powerful enough to justify that drain code? Or are we all just worshipping RAW?

[Ustio]

Just a random thought:

Since an indirect spell is "treated as a normal ranged attack test" (quick somebody find me the page number I'm at work) the following are potential options:

- Called shot to increase damage
- Called shot to bypass armour

Other (less RAW) option

- Convincing a GM to allow you to lean a burst or full auto version of a spell (+1 and +2 drain do you think?) mmmmmm Supressing lightning bolt (IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif)

[The Jopp]

The main problem i find with mana spells is that it's to easy.

Overcasting a stunbolt to F12 is simple as a walk in the park and you resist 5P drain.

The mage still rolls around 12+ dice
The poor target rolls between 1-6 in resistance dice
Most of the time they roll around 3-4

End result - target always loose and you dont always have a mage with spell defense around.

I have no problem with overcasting but it is always numbercrunching instead of the mage actually thinking about that he MIGHT DIE...

The main advantage over mana spells is also that they are invisible, and for a runner that is good.

In game balance terms stun spells and spells that hardly leaves a trace should have a higher drain than the obvious raw destructive mana of indirect spells.

[sunnyside]

Had much luck stunning a drone lately?

Also stunbolted enemies have a tendency to come back.

But on top of it all I think SR currently likes the idea of runners not leaving a trail of bodies behind. Hence stick 'n shock.

[The Jopp]

Had much luck stunning a drone lately?

Also stunbolted enemies have a tendency to come back.

Well, the equivalent of the stunbolt would be the powerbolt against drones (or people) and that spell also has a piddling drain for what it does and cannot be seen.

[Drogos]

Clearly you haven't been using astral signatures much. They are decidedly not traceless...damn Lone Star Forensic Mages (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[The Jopp]

Clearly you haven't been using astral signatures much. They are decidedly not traceless...damn Lone Star Forensic Mages (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

Well, i didn't mean detection of them, rather that someone actually SEES the mage cast the spell. For a runner using a stunbolt is much more preffered than using clout since the former can take someone out in one hit.

Casting a fireball at a group of people is very very obvious but the powerball or stun equivalent are basically invisible unless someone looks astrally, and most people wont be doing that and thus lesser chance of being detected.

[Mäx]

Casting a fireball at a group of people is very very obvious but the powerball or stun equivalent are basically invisible unless someone looks astrally, and most people wont be doing that and thus lesser chance of being detected.

It's pretty damn obvious that something magical is going on when a group of quards just hit the deck for no apparant reason.

[The Jopp]

It's pretty damn obvious that something magical is going on when a group of quards just hit the deck for no apparant reason.

Yes and No.

There is no fiery explosion, no fire alarms, no smoke, and most importantly - Not a streaking ball of energy from the caster to the target that a crowd can see.

The caster can stand in a crowd and look as amazed as the rest of them as a group of sec guards suddenly hit the deck for no apparent reason.

Direct combat spells are invisible in visual detection of the caster and a visible effect. Indirect spells are damn obvious in comparison.

[Mäx]

most importantly - Not a streaking ball of energy from the caster to the target that a crowd can see.

Neither is there a one when you use a fireball, there's just a fiery explosion midlle of the quard group.(at least thats how i understand it).

[sunnyside]

Direct combat spells are invisible in visual detection of the caster and a visible effect. Indirect spells are damn obvious in comparison.

Um. Not generally. Now I could see some debate about what happens right where the spell hits and all. But the section on noticing magic is pretty clear on the threshold to notice it. Which means if you're throwing potent mojo it's obvious to everyone even remotely in the area. By the time you're casting a force 12 stunbolt the old lady who lives below you is banging on the ceiling and telling you to quite down.

[Sma]

Well, the equivalent of the stunbolt would be the powerbolt against drones (or people) and that spell also has a piddling drain for what it does and cannot be seen.

If by cannot be seen you intend to say any onlooker needs to beat at most a threshold of 1, I agree.

[The Jopp]

If by cannot be seen you intend to say any onlooker needs to beat at most a threshold of 1, I agree.

No, I mean that the actual casting of the SPELL cannot be seen, The EFFECT of the spell is always obvious regardless of spell. Something explodes, dies etc.

The main point im making is that there is no direct link between caster-target that the casual observer might see as mana spells are invisible to the naked eye.

[Sma]

No, I mean that the actual casting of the SPELL cannot be seen, The EFFECT of the spell is always obvious regardless of spell. Something explodes, dies etc.

The main point im making is that there is no direct link between caster-target that the casual observer might see as mana spells are invisible to the naked eye.

The rules disagree with that notion by making it a 6-force perception test to notice someone using any sort of magic.

[The Jopp]

The rules disagree with that notion by making it a 6-force perception test to notice someone using any sort of magic.

How?

Sure, you can roll the dice to your hearts content, there is just a problem:

since most spells and spirits have little, if any, visible effect in the physical world

If the mage has no geas, no need to say anything, wiggle his fingers or pray to a god or just facing away from you there is nothing that tells you WHO cast the spell.

People might be AWARE that magic is being cast but not WHO cast the spell unless they look at/towards him and/or manages to pick hom out of a crowd.

If the caster flings a fireball at someone then he is far easier to spot

[Mäx]

If the caster flings a fireball at someone then he is far easier to spot

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)
This isn't D&D mages don't trow balls of fire around, the spell comes to being on target.