[X] My Assistant

[HunterHerne]

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.

I use a rule based on the Food fight 4.0 quick start, to treat direct spells as only net hits for damage.

[Mäx]

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.

Or i just cast 2 of those force 6 manabolts and don't use nethits to boost damage, so the target takes 12 boxes of damage and i resist 3 points of drain twice laughing of the drain.
The lightning bolt still looks like a very bad choice (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Or i just cast 2 of those force 6 manabolts and don't use nethits to boost damage, so the target takes 12 boxes of damage and i resist 3 points of drain twice laughing of the drain.
The lightning bolt still looks like a very bad choice (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Indeed. All that Optional Rule does is promote Multicasting over Overcasting. It was not all that well thought out.

[sabs]

Don't allow multicasting. It's a poorly thought out mechanic

[Dakka Dakka]

Why not forbid mages altogether?

More seriously, a houserule to make an optional rule less stupid, isn't the way to go, IMHO. Just don't use either. So what, direct combat spells are better most of the time, still the mage won't be as effective as a street sam with appropriate weaponry. Also creating real world effects has always been more difficult/straining in SR it is part of the setting.

[sabs]

Over react much? Do you Dakka?

[Mäx]

Indeed. All that Optional Rule does is promote Multicasting over Overcasting. It was not all that well thought out.

I wouldn't really say it promotes Multicasting over Overcasting.
More that it promotes both of them over "regular" casting

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Don't allow multicasting. It's a poorly thought out mechanic

I actually like the Multicasting Rules, though likely not for the reasons you think. I have never used it to cast two Combat spells simultaneously. I tend to use it for Utility Spells, where it is often advantageous to cast Multiple (different) Spells in Parallel, rather than doing so in Series. And even still, I have not used it all that much.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I wouldn't really say it promotes Multicasting over Overcasting.
More that it promotes both of them over "regular" casting

Well, Multicasting will be your preferred choice over Overcasting, when using the Optional Rule. You will suffer Less drain, for generally the same Damage overall. Assumming you hit, of course.

[Dakka Dakka]

The other option is to overcast and not use any net hits to increase damage. Force 10 or 11 should drop most targets even without net hits.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The other option is to overcast and not use any net hits to increase damage. Force 10 or 11 should drop most targets even without net hits.

This is true...

[DamienKnight]

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.

The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.

[Dakka Dakka]

Well unless the mage kills himself with it, a fireball is pretty wimpy as well. Additionally he probably won't even hit if an opposing mage is around since SR4A.

[Randomonioum]

The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.

Im pretty sure tasers are designed to have high voltage, low amperage, so they DON'T do permanent damage. As far as I know, lightning doesn't have that restriction.

[HunterHerne]

The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.

I generally assume Lightning bolts from the sky do about 20S damage. It`ll KO almost anyone, and have a good chance of killing, especially if you use the Severe damage rules (and the other optional rules around it)

[Yerameyahu]

I thought Lightning Bolt spells did P, not S.

If you want to 'realify' the taser rules, go ahead. RAW, they affect vehicles, spirits, etc. :/

[Mäx]

If you want to 'realify' the taser rules, go ahead. RAW, they affect vehicles, spirits, etc. :/

Well they atleast affect small drones with no extra armor, you have to have a pretty damm good pool for shooting that taser to score more hits then a bigger vehicle with added armor can score with its Body+Armor pool.

[Lanlaorn]

The army needs to know about this! Forget missiles and tankbuster rounds, they need to equip more soldiers with taser guns!

Seriously though, ever tried tasing a car? Guaranteed 0 effect if you hit the outside of the car. If a taser is 6(e) and has no effect on a vehicle, how is it that a lightning bolt spell cast at force six is going to have more effect?

Personally I think big bolts of lightning should be alot more devastating to a vehicle than a taser... except the lightning spell is nothing like a real lightning bolt. If someone is struck by an actual bolt of lightning they are almost always knocked out, frequently suffer from memory loss and permanent nervous system damage... not to mention occasionally being set on fire. Tasers incapacitate but rarely knock people out, dont set them on fire unless they are covered in something flammable, and are rarely deadly. Great weapons, but a whole different class of damage from an actual bolt of lightning from the sky.

But if a force 6 lightning bolt spell does the same damage as a taser, we have to assume it is a very wimpy bolt of electricity, so it should similarly have little effect on a car, truck or much less a tank.

Why is the lightning bolt spell like a natural lightning bolt? Why can't it be like, say, an arc welder?

Electricity is very versatile, it can be used to stun people or to melt metal. A mage's ball lightning, if it overcomes half the impact armor, is doing physical damage to the body of that car or drone or whatever. Just because 6s(e) SnS rounds and a Force 6 spell both have the number 6 in them doesn't mean they're equally "wimpy". One is designed with the voltage and amperage of a taser and the other, for all we know, is an electric arc smelter tearing that car apart and outright cooking people.

[Yerameyahu]

Right, Mäx. It's not a huge issue, though it can happen with great shooters and bad vehicles. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[UmaroVI]

The answer to "what combat spells should I use" is:

One target:
living: Stunbolt.
nonliving, Reaction/3+Armor/2 >= Object Resistance: Powerbolt
nonliving, Reaction/3+Armor/2 < Object Resistance: Any P-damage single target elemental attack.

Multiple targets:
All alive and all visible: Stunball
All alive, not all visible: Soundwave
Not alive, all visible, Reaction/3+Armor/2 >= Object Resistance: Powerball
Other: Any P-damage area of effect elemental attack

There's a little bit of fuzziness around the borders of the "use Power* vs Element" call; sometimes, you'll be in a situation where you will do more average damage by overcasting a Power spell by more, but risk pinging.

[Udoshi]

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.

Indirect spells ARE actually treated like ranged attacks. Namely, the biggest difference, is you can dodge them.
Also you can soak them, and they deal with armor instead of object resistance.
They also have a clause about creating a physical effect that travels, meaning it can be stopped by walls, but also that area attacks can hit things you can't see. So throwing a fireball around a corner still explodes everything around the point it hits, even if you don't have line of sight.


Compare to direct spells.
Which can't be dodged.
No damage resistance test - you just take damage.
You only need one net hit to take effect. (against people anyway). And net hits add to damage.
Dice pool superiority. Spellcasting+magic+foci vs Body or Willpower. (+counterspelling, but its not guaranteed).

Its not that indirect spells are bad, per se. Its that direct spells are so much better.

[Amazeroth]

The other option is to overcast and not use any net hits to increase damage. Force 10 or 11 should drop most targets even without net hits.

I probably will look pretty dumb, but I got a question regarding this: How can you do this? How can you NOT use your net hits to increase damage?

[Dakka Dakka]

You say "I apply 0 of my net hits to damage". There is no rule that forces you to use all of them.

[Amazeroth]

You say "I apply 0 of my net hits to damage". There is no rule that forces you to use all of them.

So there is a rule that allows you not to use your nets hits for damage? I only know the text out of the "combat spells" chapter and it goes like this "Net hits increase the damage as normal", but I don't know what "normal" refers to. Still it sounds like it would always be the case.

So is there a rule?

[Amazeroth]

-double post-