Direct/Indirect Combat Spells?, When does it make sense to use indirect spells? Options

[yesferatu]

Hey guys,

I was doing some spell research and I can't seem to find any reason to ever use an indirect combat spell.
Just so I get this straight...you cannot use a direct mana spell against a non-living target...right?
You could use a direct physical spell against it, but the test would be a threshold test.

Since indirect spells are resisted first with reaction and then again with body and half damage, vs. direct physical spells which are just resisted with body...why would you ever cast an indirect spell?

Is there a situation where the indirect physical spell is preferable to a direct physical spell?

I just can't seem to get my head around it.

[Mäx]

Is there a situation where the indirect physical spell is preferable to a direct physical spell?

When your trying to take-out drones or vehicles, an indirect spell can be a better shoice in many cases, as it doesn't have to overcome the OR of the target like the direct spell does.

And then there are ofcource those situations where you want to affect someone behind a full cover or around the corner, in those cases the indirect area spells ability to affect targets you don't have a LOS to comes very handy.

[sabs]

Cars
Drones
Wanting to blow up barriers.

If you cast a direct power bolt at a Drone you need 6 hits just to get the equivalent of 0 hits, and then you need more hits to actually hit. Given the force limitations, it means that to hit a drone with a direct combat spell, you need to be using force 7 or 8 minimum. That can be rough.

A Force 5 Indirect Combat spell on the other hand, is going against the Response Rating of the Drone. Which is usually a 3, 4 for military, max 5 if fully upgraded. (Ignoring War) So it's your spellcasting+magic max Force hits, vs a DP of 4. Which is going to be 1.3 hits. That starts to look a bit better. Also, Indirect AE spells can effect people you can't see, as long as they are in the AE effect. Direct ones can't.

[James McMurray]

Indirect spells also come with elemental side effects, like electricity knocking someone out or sound making them nauseated.

[yesferatu]

Ok, so...indirect spells stop being "spells" once they are cast and behave more like ranged attacks?
I wasn't sure indirect spells didn't also have to deal with the non-living threshold.
I had thought they were resisted with response, had to get more hits than object resistance, and then body + half armor...which would suck.

[Mardrax]

Cut the OR from that and you are correct. Sound is the stranger in the row, being resisted with Willpower (+dampeners), not Body(+armor).

Also, electricity shorts drones out. It is as awesome as poking a a troll with SnS ammo.

[Dakka Dakka]

If you cast a direct power bolt at a Drone you need 6 hits just to get the equivalent of 0 hits, and then you need more hits to actually hit. Given the force limitations, it means that to hit a drone with a direct combat spell, you need to be using force 7 or 8 minimum. That can be rough.

You need 6 hits and get the benefit of 1 net hit. Spells weirdly need one net hit on threshold tests to take effect but drones are OR5.

A Force 5 Indirect Combat spell on the other hand, is going against the Response Rating of the Drone. Which is usually a 3, 4 for military, max 5 if fully upgraded.

Unless the drone is controlled by a rigger and/or has a response upgrade. Then the DP will be higher. The other drawback of indirect combat spells is that as of SR4A counterspelling applies to the Reaction test and not to the Damage Resistance test.

Elemental effect are rarely that great and you have to pay for them with drain.

For drones use the hawkeye spell and heavy weapons.

[Tyro]

Indirect spells aren't used nearly enough. Electricity's secondary effect is stupid awesome, and ignoring OR is teh shiznit [sic] ^_^

[Summerstorm]

Eh... it is mentioned that vehicles are often COMPLETELY IMUNE to electricity damage, without it being something special. Makes sense too.

Well, indirect spells are awesome on other occasions too:
You can shoot them without knowing where the target is. (Into full concealment, against invisible people, or just explode around a corner, or while effectively blind)

Then you can use them to BREAK through barriers. (Getting to people behind mirrored glass for example).

I myself also like the "manipulation"-combat spells. Turn too goo, ignite, the area-barriers. All very nice in the right circumstances.

[Tyro]

Eh... it is mentioned that vehicles are often COMPLETELY IMUNE to electricity damage, without it being something special. Makes sense too.

Well, indirect spells are awesome on other occasions too:
You can shoot them without knowing where the target is. (Into full concealment, against invisible people, or just explode around a corner, or while effectively blind)

Then you can use them to BREAK through barriers. (Getting to people behind mirrored glass for example).

I myself also like the "manipulation"-combat spells. Turn too goo, ignite, the area-barriers. All very nice in the right circumstances.

A simple fireball is often better than ignite for starting fires, as it doesn't have to get past OR. Turn to goo has crazy high drain, though it does have some interesting niche uses. Area barriers can be nice. Can you imagine laying down an electricity barrier in front of a speeding motorcycle? ^_^

[Dakka Dakka]

A simple fireball is often better than ignite for starting fires, as it doesn't have to get past OR.

Yup Ignite is weird. By RAW it is easier to ignite a rock (OR 1, natural material) than gasoline (OR 2, processed material) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

Turn to goo has crazy high drain, though it does have some interesting niche uses.

It all depends on how fluid the goo really is and how well it sticks to non goo parts i.e. cyberware. Both are not mentioned in the rules. Otherwise it is just a paralyisis spell (which is achieved more easily with Decrease LOG/CHA)

[DireRadiant]

Eh... it is mentioned that vehicles are often COMPLETELY IMUNE to electricity damage, without it being something special. Makes sense too.

Source for this?

I know on p.164 SR4A for Lightning damage type it specifically describes the following effects.

"Electronic equipment, vehicles, and drones can also be affected by Electricity damage.
They never suffer Stun damage, but they do roll Body + Armor (drones and vehicles) or
Armor x 2 (other objects) to resist secondary effects. If they achieve equal or more hits than
the attack, they are unaffected. Otherwise, they cease to function for a number of Combat
Turns equal to 2 + net hits scored on the attack test (and may need to reboot after that)."

So while the secondary effects are unlikely, it does not mean a drone is immune.

Note that Lightning spells do Physical damage, not stun.

[tagz]

Ok, so...indirect spells stop being "spells" once they are cast and behave more like ranged attacks?

It's a bit murkey.

I think they should be played like you said. Which would make Indirect spells bypass OR, not bypass ITNW (though it would still cut the armor by ½ making it more likely to damage), and would also make them unneffected by counterspelling.

That's not how it's played though, least not from what I've heard and seen. I'm fairly sure that most games play them as bypassing ITNW, still effected by counterspelling, and not effected by OR. Treats them as spells that bypass OR, but still spells.

Personally, I think treating them as no longer spells once cast makes them more appealing. Not effected by CS or OR makes it a good weapon against drones and other mages or targets protected by mages. And the loss of bypassing ITNW isn't a big deal, it still cuts armor by half and hits for Force + Net hits damage. Just cast at the Force you think the spirit is and it will hurt if it hits. Or you could just use Direct for Spirits, which is more likely anyhow as it can be used on the astral and all the other reasons Direct spells are more appealing. But whatever.

[Fortinbras]

and would also make them unneffected by counterspelling.

Counterspelling adds to the target's Reaction roll to Dodge the attack.

[Dakka Dakka]

OR is a tricky thing. On one page the BBB tells us that you always have to beat the OR of a non-living object on another it says only some spells need to.
I think only those spells that explicitly state it should have to overcome OR.
@ItNW: The interesting thing thing about beating it is that most spirits don't have real armor. So as soon as ItNW is circumvented (by magic) the spirit only gets its BOD dice to resist.

Indirect Combat spells should at least work as in SR4: They are Spells ergo not a normal weapon, they are used like ranged weapons i.e. called shots etc. apply and counterspelling can only be used to mitigate the spell's damage since the spell is not cast at a protected target but travels from the caster to the target in a fire and forget way.

[Mardrax]

I think they should be played like you said. Which would make Indirect spells bypass OR, not bypass ITNW (though it would still cut the armor by ½ making it more likely to damage), and would also make them unneffected by counterspelling.

They should bypass ItNW as all non-normal weapons do, like everything that does elemental damage.

[Dakka Dakka]

They should bypass ItNW as all non-normal weapons do,

Yes.

like everything that does elemental damage.

No. Mundane sources of elemental damage (flamethrowers, SnS, water guns etc.) do not and should not circumvent ItNW, since they are normal weapons. They only grant the benefits of the element (1/2 Impact armor, incapacitation etc.)

[tagz]

Counterspelling adds to the target's Reaction roll to Dodge the attack.

I ommited the rest as it didn't contain anything relevant to this point, but feel free to check, maybe I missed something.

...
When a protected character is targeted with a spell, she rolls Counterspelling dice in addition to the appropriate attribute (Body or Willpower) for the resistance test. Hits generated on this test reduce the net hits of the spell's caster as with any Opposed Test. If multiple protected character are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.
...

So, first it specifically states Body or Will. But, if you interperate that line to mean the appropriate attribute with Body and Will as examples and not specified stats, it still states that Counterspelling dice are added to the resistance test. In the case of Indirect spells, they have an avoidance test first (Reaction + Dodge if Full Defense), then the resistance test of Body + ½ Armor. So in the case of counterspelling Indirect spells, the Counterspelling dice are added to the Body + ½ Armor roll as that is the resistance test.

Anyhow, the point was simply that if Indirect spells were point and click, no magic except at the point of origin, then things like OR, counterspelling, and ITNW would be effected.

@ItNW: The interesting thing thing about beating it is that most spirits don't have real armor. So as soon as ItNW is circumvented (by magic) the spirit only gets its BOD dice to resist.

Not sure what you mean here.

Per SR4A p295 Immunity, last line first paragraph says that "this "armor value" is added to the damage resistance test as normal armor."

So, hitting them with something magical should bypass the automatic failure part of the test, but still add Armor dice, no?

[Dakka Dakka]

So, first it specifically states Body or Will. But, if you interperate that line to mean the appropriate attribute with Body and Will as examples and not specified stats, it still states that Counterspelling dice are added to the resistance test. In the case of Indirect spells, they have an avoidance test first (Reaction + Dodge if Full Defense), then the resistance test of Body + ½ Armor. So in the case of counterspelling Indirect spells, the Counterspelling dice are added to the Body + ½ Armor roll as that is the resistance test.

Anyhow, the point was simply that if Indirect spells were point and click, no magic except at the point of origin, then things like OR, counterspelling, and ITNW would be effected.

The Introduction to Combat spells clearly states when and how counterspelling is used against indirect combat spells: REA(+Counterspelling) to avoid being hit BOD+(modified Armor) and no Counterspelling to soak damage.

Not sure what you mean here.

Per SR4A p295 Immunity, last line first paragraph says that "this "armor value" is added to the damage resistance test as normal armor."

So, hitting them with something magical should bypass the automatic failure part of the test, but still add Armor dice, no?

This armor only applies, if the weapon is not magical. If it is, only armor from other sources applies (Armor Power, Equipment etc.). ItNW does not grant Hardened Armor, it grants armor that works like the Hardened Armor Power, if the attack is not magical.

[Stahlseele]

Source for this?

I know on p.164 SR4A for Lightning damage type it specifically describes the following effects.

"Electronic equipment, vehicles, and drones can also be affected by Electricity damage.
They never suffer Stun damage, but they do roll Body + Armor (drones and vehicles) or
Armor x 2 (other objects) to resist secondary effects. If they achieve equal or more hits than
the attack, they are unaffected. Otherwise, they cease to function for a number of Combat
Turns equal to 2 + net hits scored on the attack test (and may need to reboot after that)."

So while the secondary effects are unlikely, it does not mean a drone is immune.

Note that Lightning spells do Physical damage, not stun.

Well, faraday for example would come to mind . .
You are pretty safe in a car, when there's a thunderstorm out there, most of the time . .

[tagz]

The Introduction to Combat spells clearly states when and how counterspelling is used against indirect combat spells: REA(+Counterspelling) to avoid being hit BOD+(modified Armor) and no Counterspelling to soak damage.



This armor only applies, if the weapon is not magical. If it is, only armor from other sources applies (Armor Power, Equipment etc.). ItNW does not grant Hardened Armor, it grants armor that works like the Hardened Armor Power, if the attack is not magical.

Ok, now that you pointed out the location, I see it on the Counterspelling. Sorry, my bad.

On ITNW, that's sorta crazy. Makes spirits less then fragile against any form of magic.

[Stahlseele]

Ok, now that you pointed out the location, I see it on the Counterspelling. Sorry, my bad.

On ITNW, that's sorta crazy. Makes spirits less then fragile against any form of magic.

Have a magical Nail?
Needs a magical Hammer.

[jakephillips]

Also worth pointing out that in SRV4A as a balancing factor for direct combat spells they added +1 box of drain for each net hit on the success test for direct combat spells. Note that this is an OPTIONAL rule for direct spells.
For example I mana bolt you at force 6 so F %2 -1 equals 2 boxes of drain in RAW. I get 6 successes you take 12 boxes of damage and probably die unless you are counter spelled and I laugh off the drain.
With Optional rule in SR4A same formula F%2 -1 equals 2 + 6 net successes =8 boxes of drain I still kill him but get a big headache and can't do that to many more times.
Makes Lightning Bolt at F%2 +3 look a little better in comparison.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

On ITNW, that's sorta crazy. Makes spirits less then fragile against any form of magic.

And this is bad Why, exactly?

[Udoshi]

Yes.
No. Mundane sources of elemental damage (flamethrowers, SnS, water guns etc.) do not and should not circumvent ItNW, since they are normal weapons. They only grant the benefits of the element (1/2 Impact armor, incapacitation etc.)

This is 100% accurate.
However, Mundane Elemental Damage is still AP Half, which is most often enough to circumvent the Hardened Armor that ItNW gives without the weapon being magical at all.