IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 1E SR to 4E SR Magic, A discussion about anchoring and elemental combat
Tashiro
post Feb 11 2011, 06:59 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Joined: 5-April 08
From: Ottawa, Canada
Member No.: 15,847



For those who remember 1E Shadowrun, there were a few things I liked, and which I found absent at around 3E. The first was Anchoring -- you might have seen it in 3E and 4E as a one shot type of thing, a fetish where a detection spell triggers an effect. Each time it's triggered, it needs to be re-enchanted to ensure it can work again.

Well, in 1E, it was re-usable. This was, essentially, a form of enchantment: If X happens, then do Y. The thing is, if spell Y had Concentration, it could remain active as long as X was occurring. If Y didn't have a duration, it would trigger once, but each time the detection spell 'pinged', then it would trigger again. It was a really nifty thing, and one I enjoyed quite a lot. I'm really hoping it comes back at some point.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Edit: Removed thoughts on Combat Spells -- I missed that they fixed that with 4E. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Silly me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sephiroth
post Feb 11 2011, 07:10 AM
Post #2


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,147
Joined: 2-May 10
Member No.: 18,539



QUOTE (Tashiro @ Feb 11 2011, 02:59 AM) *
The other thing however, was Combat Spells. Back in the day, they were allowed to have elemental effects, and I thought that was pretty cool. Combat Elemental Spells were the 'if you can see it you can hit it' sort, while Elemental Manipulations were 'you don't need to see it to hurt it, but you have to aim to hit'. I liked the variety between these two spell types, and it allowed some depth in Combat Spells. Right now, Combat Spells seem very, very limited:

Physical or Mana
Wound or Stun
Area of Effect or Not
Specific or General

That pretty much covers the gamut of combat spells once they removed the elemental spells. I really think they should have kept the elemental combat spells in, just to help add some variety. One of my favourite spells was "SHC" 'Physical Spell, Wounding, Fire Element, Single Target, Human Only'.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I have never played SR1E (far too young for that), so I cannot say that I can speak with certainty on the subject. However, those things I highlighted are very much still in 4E, both in the various elemental effects given in SR4A and SM for combat spells and in the 'have to aim to hit, but don't need to see your target' function of Indirect AoE combat spells. And Sound is probably the niftiest combat elemental effect there is in SR4.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Feb 11 2011, 07:30 AM
Post #3


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Sephiroth @ Feb 11 2011, 03:10 PM) *
I have never played SR1E (far too young for that), so I cannot say that I can speak with certainty on the subject. However, those things I highlighted are very much still in 4E, both in the various elemental effects given in SR4A and SM for combat spells and in the 'have to aim to hit, but don't need to see your target' function of Indirect AoE combat spells. And Sound is probably the niftiest combat elemental effect there is in SR4.

I think what he's saying is, there's direct combat spells, the "if you can see it you can hit it" spells. But those can't have elemental effects.

Then there's indirect combat spells, which are the "aiming" kind, those can have elemental effects.

Me, I still get confused on the Physical/Mana and P/S damage. I always think Mana = Stun damage. Not sure I like that a Mana spell can do P damage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tashiro
post Feb 12 2011, 07:52 AM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 732
Joined: 5-April 08
From: Ottawa, Canada
Member No.: 15,847



Basically, yeah. I'm wondering why they removed elemental effects from Combat magic -- it looks like the right place to put them. Sure, Manipulation as well, but why not both? They're fundamentally different but should be able to do the same thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eratosthenes
post Feb 12 2011, 12:59 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 356
Joined: 3-April 10
Member No.: 18,409



QUOTE (Tashiro @ Feb 12 2011, 02:52 AM) *
Basically, yeah. I'm wondering why they removed elemental effects from Combat magic -- it looks like the right place to put them. Sure, Manipulation as well, but why not both? They're fundamentally different but should be able to do the same thing.



As they said above: they didn't. The very first spell listed for Combat spells is "Acid Stream".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Doc Byte
post Feb 12 2011, 01:38 PM
Post #6


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 633
Joined: 16-March 05
From: 51° 16' North 7° 11' East
Member No.: 7,168



QUOTE (phlapjack77 @ Feb 11 2011, 08:30 AM) *
Me, I still get confused on the Physical/Mana and P/S damage. I always think Mana = Stun damage. Not sure I like that a Mana spell can do P damage.


It's quite easy: Mana spells can only affect living beings while physical spells can a affect both living beings and dead matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phlapjack77
post Feb 12 2011, 02:33 PM
Post #7


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,473
Joined: 24-May 10
From: Beijing
Member No.: 18,611



QUOTE (Doc Byte @ Feb 12 2011, 09:38 PM) *
It's quite easy: Mana spells can only affect living beings while physical spells can a affect both living beings and dead matter.

Hehe - yeah, I get the distinction...it's just that I keep thinking a "Physical" spell will do "P"hysical damage, so that must mean Mana spells wouldn't do P damage...plus Mana seems so much more "stun"-like...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 07:20 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.