Manaball Targets Options

[Phatpug]

this came up in a game over the weekend.

For the AoE spell Manaball, and other AoE mana type spells, do you have to target a "being"? or can you cast the Manaball in the space between a group of "beings" to hit all of them with the AoE effect?

I guess a simpler way to ask the question is do AoE spells with the Mana Type have to have a "being" as it center?

[Dakka Dakka]

I know of now rule forcing you to center the area spell on a being. Valid targets however are only beings seen by the caster within the area around the central point.

Forced targets I only know from the stupid grenade rules.

[Phatpug]

Ahh.

Thank you. That is very helpful.

[phlapjack77]

I think you can't target "empty space" with Direct Combat spells (manaball). There has to be some recipient of the "channeling mana directly into a target". I would think any inanimate object the caster can see would be ok, as long as you beat the object resistance.

You definitely can't target empty space with Indirect Combat spells.

[Glyph]

I shoot magic missile at... the darkness!

[CanRay]

I shoot magic missile at... the darkness!

Great way to piss off certain types of spirits... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

[3278]

For the AoE spell Manaball, and other AoE mana type spells, do you have to target a "being"? or can you cast the Manaball in the space between a group of "beings" to hit all of them with the AoE effect?

SR4a, p183: "Area Spells: Some spells target areas or points in space; in this case the caster must be able to see the center of the area affected. All visible targets within the area are affected; area spells can affect more than one target at a time." So no, you don't have to target a being, you can target a "point in space," provided you can "see the center of the area affected." And then everyone inside the area is affected, but only if you can see them: targets you cannot see, even if they're in the area of effect, will not be affected by the spell. In the case of Direct Combat Spells, armor won't help them, because you're targeting their aura directly.

The exception to this is Indirect Combat Spells: they cannot target a point in space, but "require a physically solid target or astrally active target to hit." Because you actually hurl a chunk of burning whatever at something [or whatever the spell you're casting might be], this also is an exception to area effect spells not affecting targets you can't see: Indirect Combat Spells work like grenades, and affect people inside the area of effect, irrespective of their visibility. Everyone gets the benefit of armor and barriers, though, because you're not directly targeting their auras, but rather indirectly targeting them by filling their house with fire [or whatever; don't judge me!].

[phlapjack77]

dang, good catch 3278 - totally clear now. Although your preoccupation with fire is a little worrisome...

[Ascalaphus]

Does that mean that if there's a dude with Invisibility in the AoE, and you're not bothering to see through it, that he won't be blasted?

Follow-up: can you voluntarily fail to resist the Invisibility spell you cast on your teammate?

[Bodak]

I shoot magic missile at... the darkness!

That's a good example of a spell which specifically specifies it targets creatures.

And then everyone inside the area is affected, but only if you can see them: targets you cannot see, even if they're in the area of effect, will not be affected by the spell.

Which is where the Negator program from Unwired p108 comes in handy. It can be set to occlude LoS to friends in mêlée, especially if you feed it from your tacnet. Now you can AoE into a grapple with impunity.

[Aarakin]

You don't see the target, you do not affect the target.

So if the caster cannot resist the invisibility spell, no targeting what it covers (mundane stealth will serve the same purpose btw)

AFAIK you do not *have* to make a resistance roll for a spell (but it is often in your best interests to do so) and as a result there is no need to make a resistance roll for beneficial spells (I can just see a mage having to resist their own buffing spells.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) )

A quick look through the spellcasting section did not show anything solid, so I could be wrong

[Mardrax]

You don't see the target, you do not affect the target.

Exception: Indirect combat spells. Fireballs hurt everything inside F meters, cover excepted, regardless of visibility.

[Ascalaphus]

I remember reading a developer comment thread, waaaay back, about targeting spells. It was about the question what happens if you look through your slightly-separated fingers so you can see your enemies, but not your friends, in combat, and then cast say Manaball.

The answer was brilliant: magic works (partially) because of belief, and if you're trying to fool yourself this way, your spell fails, but you still get Drain.

[Dakka Dakka]

Interesting, but contradicting RAW. If you can't see a target you can't affect it. whether that is due to cover near the target (hiding behind a wall) or near the caster (hand in front of the eyes). As stated before the negator program can be used for that.

[3278]

The answer was brilliant: magic works (partially) because of belief, and if you're trying to fool yourself this way, your spell fails, but you still get Drain.

This was RAW in previous editions, at GM's discretion.

[Midas]

Looking at the description of the Negator, it digitally removes images; the incompatibility of digital tech and magic is well established in SR, so I do not think it would work as you suggest.

As for trying to cut teammates out of an AoE spell with hands in front of the eyes, I like the developers answer but would run it more simply myself - I would rule it would take one complex action per target to remove them from LOS prior to casting the spell, and even then would only allow this if both caster and target were completely static. Hence a mage trying to exclude allies from an AoE spell would have to use up a hell of a lot of complex actions prior to spell casting to achieve this, with both mage and ally effectively being sitting targets for the duration.

As for casting invisibility on teammates, should be valid, although I would rule the mage would subconsciously resist the spell if he/she were then casting an AoE spell on enemies.

Any combat mage worth their salt should have an selection of AoE and single target spells which they can mix and match depending on where their allies are vis a vis the bad guys. Also note that a mage can reduce the radius of AoE spells by reducing their DP by 1 per metre, and this should help a mage aviod friendly fire problems in most cases.

[toturi]

This was RAW in previous editions, at GM's discretion.

If we are going by GM's discretion, then it would be RAW even in this edition.

IIRC, I remembered that it wasn't the explicit RAW and the writer who posted made it clear that it wasn't.

[Yerameyahu]

Midas, there's nothing in the rules about digital (which is actually optical) *blocking* not working. It's the same as looking through a window with electrically-controlled blinds; they're digitally-controlled, but your LOS is for-real blocked. The only rule about tech and magic is that you can't *gain* LOS through a non-analog system (which usually just means 'cameras'). In this case, you'd wear normal (glasses, contacts, or goggles), or even trodes, and the software would obscure your view… but your LOS would still be all natural.

Just to be clear, a fireball can't target a point in space (=mid-air), but you can totally target a point on the wall or ground. (Obviously, fireball is Indirect; I'm not contradicting anything above.)

[Udoshi]

Looking at the description of the Negator, it digitally removes images; the incompatibility of digital tech and magic is well established in SR, so I do not think it would work as you suggest.

Once again, Cybereyes are proven to be a wonderful piece of equipment for any magician.

[Minimax le Rouge]

The problem is in the definition of the LOS.
You can be blind and a good spellcaster. The question isn't only do you SEE the target, it is also you perceive the target? or, can you exactly tell me were is the target?

* If i know that there is one of my friend in the area using an Invisibility spell (or ruthenium), but i don't really know were he is, i can't hurt him whit the manaball.
* If i know exactly were he is, because of the Tacnet whe share (or anything else giving me is location) and, if there is no cover between us, the manaball will affect him, having my fingers on my eyes, Negator program or whatever wouldn't change this.

So if you don't want to hit your friends, learn to cast at the good target, with the good area effect. And remember you always can use your succes to reduce the area.

[Dakka Dakka]

The problem is in the definition of the LOS.
You can be blind and a good spellcaster. The question isn't only do you SEE the target, it is also you perceive the target? or, can you exactly tell me were is the target?

A blind caster can only cast touch spells unless he is astrally perceiving. The book is clear on that.

* If i know that there is one of my friend in the area using an Invisibility spell (or ruthenium), but i don't really know were he is, i can't hurt him whit the manaball.

True

* If i know exactly were he is, because of the Tacnet whe share (or anything else giving me is location) and, if there is no cover between us, the manaball will affect him, having my fingers on my eyes, Negator program or whatever wouldn't change this.

Nope. You are trying to digitally get LOS. That does not work. Period. No matter how detrimental acquiring LOS through such means would be. It is the same thing as trying to cast a spell at for example the computer screen right in front of you with closed eyes. although you know exactly where it is, you still do not have LOS, which you need for any spell.

So if you don't want to hit your friends, learn to cast at the good target, with the good area effect. And remember you always can use your succes to reduce the area.

You remove dice from your pool not hits from the result.

[Minimax le Rouge]

A blind caster can only cast touch spells unless he is astrally perceiving. The book is clear on that.

Astral perception works, and what about a blind caster granted with a sonar sense? If it can perceive you, it can cast on you, that's what i tried to say.

Nope. You are trying to digitally get LOS. That does not work. Period. No matter how detrimental acquiring LOS through such means would be. It is the same thing as trying to cast a spell at for example the computer screen right in front of you with closed eyes. although you know exactly where it is, you still do not have LOS, which you need for any spell.

Bad exemple i agree. so let's change it :
* If i know exactly were he is, because i see is ruthenium form (or anything else giving me is location) and, if there is no cover between us, the manaball will affect him, having my fingers on my eyes, Negator program or whatever wouldn't change this.
What i want to say, is that if i jnow exactly were you are, i can't fool my mind with a finger or a RA program to not targeting you.

You remove dice from your pool not hits from the result.

i agree that to.

[3278]

Astral perception works, and what about a blind caster granted with a sonar sense? If it can perceive you, it can cast on you, that's what i tried to say.

Spell targeting is visual or touch only. SR4 doesn't make a specific ruling as to why, but in previous editions it's all about making a connection from caster target to aura: touch is direct enough to link your auras, as is sight, but other senses don't qualify for a targeting lock. Sight works [again, previous edition explanation] because you use a form of limited astral perception when you spellcast. There's no provision for astral perception of the same kind through sound, for example: the caster's aura has to touch or see the target's aura [or location, in the case of Indirect spells].

Do you have some example of blind spellcasters without astral perception, targeting spells other-than-visually?

What i want to say, is that if i jnow exactly were you are, i can't fool my mind with a finger or a RA program to not targeting you.

No, the caster has to be able to see the target: if he knows the target is there but cannot see him, he cannot cast anything other than Indirect spells at the target.

[Yerameyahu]

Despite the FAQ's weird stuff the contrary, 'knowing where they are' doesn't matter at all. Sight, or touch.

[Bodak]

Which is where the Negator program from Unwired p108 comes in handy. It can be set to occlude LoS to friends in mêlée, especially if you feed it from your tacnet. Now you can AoE into a grapple with impunity.

Looking at the description of the Negator, it digitally removes images; the incompatibility of digital tech and magic is well established in SR, so I do not think it would work as you suggest.

I am A.F.B. now but this post suggests SM says AR objects block LoS for mages. If that's the case, it would work as I suggest.