Direct Combat Spells?, Problems with Manabolt. Options

[Agent 333]

Hi, first, I'm new, both to the game and the form (Hi everyone!). I played some 2nd edition when I was a wee little lad (musta been 9 or 10 years ago), and the setting always stuck with me as so much fun, I decided to pick up 4E and start running it with my game group. So far we've been having fun, till we hit something I thought was kinda odd: Direct Combat Spells.

How come spells like Manabolt have less drain than spells like Flamethrower? Unless I'm reading the rules wrong (please tell me I am), it automatically hits and pretty well toasts non-spellcasters. With Flamethrower you have to roll to hit, then the target gets to add some of his armor to soak rolls and use Body (which most characters have at least a bit of, unless they want to die easy). So, why does a more reliable attack spell cause less drain? Am I missing something? Manaball is even worse, it pretty does massive damage over an AOE and it's easier to resist than a single target Fire spell! Help me please!

[Magus]

First off, Search Direct Damage Spell

Second off: FlameThrower is an elemental effect spell that can affect targets not in LOS (line of site) whereas ManaBolt/Ball only effect targets you can see.
If you do not have Counterspelling a DD spell is death for mundanes. All you get to roll is either Willpower or Body to resist.

Elemental Spells create an elemental effect thus have higher drain.

[Agent 333]

I did a search for Direct Combat Spells, and I didn't come up with an answer to my question.
Also, though an indirect spell like Flamethrower can theoretically hit things out of LOS, it has a range of LOS and I don't really see a way to arc fire around a corner, so saying it can hit things that Manabolt can isn't helpful.

Other than the in game reason that Elemental Effects are harder to do, is there a reason it does a higher drain? What about game balance? Why would a wiz ever cast flamethrower when he can use a powerbolt (unless he wants to set something on fire, but that's relatively rare compared to just blasting people)?

[kzt]

So, why does a more reliable attack spell cause less drain? Am I missing something? Manaball is even worse, it pretty does massive damage over an AOE and it's easier to resist than a single target Fire spell! Help me please!

You are correct in how it works. The right answer to why seems to be "Because". If you don't like it you can change it in your game. Raise the drain, make it easier to resist, all sorts of tweaks. But play the game as written a few times before making changes, and don't go crazy all at once.

[Adarael]

I did a search for Direct Combat Spells, and I didn't come up with an answer to my question.
Also, though an indirect spell like Flamethrower can theoretically hit things out of LOS, it has a range of LOS and I don't really see a way to arc fire around a corner, so saying it can hit things that Manabolt can isn't helpful.

Other than the in game reason that Elemental Effects are harder to do, is there a reason it does a higher drain? What about game balance? Why would a wiz ever cast flamethrower when he can use a powerbolt (unless he wants to set something on fire, but that's relatively rare compared to just blasting people)?

He may be unable to effectively see his target, and is able to hurl fire into the darkness rather than simply not being able to cast at the target. Some chance is better than none.
He may wish to cause an elemental secondary effect, as different elements have different effects.
He may be attacking an object, such as a drone, and therefore it will be easier for him to hit it with a physical manipulation spell rather than a direct damage spell.
He may be attacking something with an allergy to that element, such as attacking a fire elemental with acid spray.
He may be attempting to bypass something's Mana Barrier spell, or a ward, which would reduce a direct spell's power, but not an indirect spell.
He may be doing it to look cool or aid an intimidation roll.

[Agent 333]

Well, I'm the GM and none of the players are spellcasters so I guess I just won't have any NPCs with Direct combat spells. Thanks for the clarification guys.

[Draco18s]

Stunbolt is better than Manabolt in any case. Less drain for the same (or better) effectiveness at taking out (N)PCs: most people's stun track isn't longer than their physical.

[Glyph]

Direct combat spells should be the primary weapon in any mage's arsenal. They have low Drain because they channel energy directly into the target, rather than expending lots of energy to create an effect in the "real" world.

Indirect combat spells are good for:

> High counterspelling environments (for indirect combat spells, counterspelling is used to soak the damage afterwards - for direct combat spells, it adds to the resistance, so high counterspelling means direct combat spells might not do anything to a target).

> Indirect fire: things like someone hiding behind a desk, which makes someone immune to, say, manabolt, while a fireball will catch him in its radius, no problem.

> Elemental effects: things like disorientation, glare, smoke, setting things on fire. In some circumstances, this can be more useful than the main effect of the spell.

There is not supposed to be any parity between direct and indirect spells. Indirect spells, like manipulation spells, have higher Drain because they are doing more work.

[JFixer]

Remember that invisibility also makes you immune to anything that is direct affect, but NOT to indirect effect. If you know the invisible guy is in the doorway, just blast the doorway with your flamethrower. He's toast. If he was carrying any bread, that's toast too.

All you have to do is obscure sight to be immune to direct spells, including simply standing around a corner. Sandblast, waterspout, fireball... all the Indirect Spells don't care if the magician can see you.

That being said, the Direct spells beat the /tar/ out of anyone who relies on armor for protection.

[Coldan]

Well, just try to destroy a drone with a direct combat spell. First of all, it won't be affacted by three quarter of the spells (immune to stun damage and mana based spells) and for the last few... well, beat the object resistence first please (would be 4, so you have to get 5 hits).

[Dream79]

He may be unable to effectively see his target, and is able to hurl fire into the darkness rather than simply not being able to cast at the target. Some chance is better than none.

"I attack the darkness."




Sorry, I had to. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[Muspellsheimr]

well, beat the object resistence first please (would be 4, so you have to get 5 hits).

OR is a Threshold, so you need to equal, not exceed, it. In other words, 4 hits will not get you any Net for damage, but will take effect, dealing Force damage.

[Adarael]

Oh, I may have worded it that way on purpose... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[TheOOB]

Heh, I seem to remember this being like the first question I asked on dumpshock when I joined. Ahh memories.

To basically answer your questions(and a few you didn't ask), yes direct combat spells are powerful, yes and are very cheep, yes people without counterspelling are supposed to be horribly weak against magical attacks, no you don't get a wound check(I house rule that personally), no direct combat spells are not way stupid overpowered(remember you street sami can make a short burst and a long burst in the time you can cast 1 manabolt, and they don't risk damage to do so), yes feel free to weaken them a little if you feel the need(I add the aforementioned wound check), yes direct damage spells are better at dealing damage then indirect ones, yes it's supposed to be that way, yes direct combat spells can be cast through barriers that are see through, no they cannot target people you can't see(indirect spells can, you just need LOS to the point of orgin), yes vision modifiers(and backround count, and wards) apply to direct combat spells, and yes indirect spells are more valuable for their secondary effects then damage(see lightning bolt for the most notable example).

Direct combat spells are really powerful, but not as overpowering as you might think, and a good magician will mix in some indirect spells to. If all you want is damage a direct spell is better, but that's not always all you want.

[Dakka Dakka]

Just a litle nitpick, only area effect indirect combat spells can hit targets the caster cannot see. You do not have to see the point of origin, which is somewhere on or near the caster but the center of effect. According to the FAQ it is discouraged to target a point in space with indirect combat spells. So you can only target your enemies behind a corner if at least one is stupid enough to stick his head out.

[TheOOB]

Note that the point of orgin for a single target indirect spell is yourself. You definatly need line of effect to the target(the spell needs a path to travel), but you could try to hit a target in a pitch black room(with huge penalties natch) which you would not be able to do with a direct spell.

[Dakka Dakka]

Note that the point of orgin for a single target indirect spell is yourself.

Yup, as I said before.

but you could try to hit a target in a pitch black room(with huge penalties natch) which you would not be able to do with a direct spell.

This is only true if the rules about indirect combat spells supercede the standard spellcasting rules:

A spellcaster can target anyone or anything she can see directly with her natural vision.

[InfinityzeN]

Indirect spells are not actually cast at the "target" (different from the Target as referred to). Lightning Bolt creates a crackling charge of electricity (the Target) in the casters hand with the spell, then he tosses/shoots/what have you at the "target". All damage/effects from the spell are caused by being struck by what the spell created rather then the spell being cast on you.

[Dakka Dakka]

No, Lightning bolt creates the effect of a crackling charge of electricity that moves to the target. The possible damage is the result of this effect.

BTW if you allow blind fire, does the caster exchange his Magic attribute for Intuition?

[InfinityzeN]

@ Dakka Dakka: Ok I can accept that discription, since we both agree that any damage/etc is an effect from what is created by the spell, rather then the spell.