Cover applies to spell resistance rolls? Options

[Psikerlord]

So... looking through SR4A again and noticed that p.183 and p.160 say the partial and good cover modifiers apply to the target when resisting a spell. Cross checking with the original SR4, cover does not seem to help against spells (or at least not against direct combat spells). I think this is probably a good move balance wise.

Have I got this right? It's worth being in cover against magic too? Pretty sure in older editions, and SR4 original, cover did not help you against direct combat spells (I could be wrong, but that's my memory of how they worked).

[Thanee]

Well, visual modifiers help against spells, so it just makes sense.

Bye
Thanee

[Makki]

yes it applies, and it it is a great addition.

[Mordinvan]

Pretty sure by RAW, cover helps against even direct combat spells. I find the notion a little 'odd', as I'm not sure how cover aids in defense against magical electrocution of the soul, but by the books its supposed too.

[Neraph]

Pretty sure by RAW, cover helps against even direct combat spells. I find the notion a little 'odd', as I'm not sure how cover aids in defense against magical electrocution of the soul, but by the books its supposed too.

Direct Combat Spells don't use Elemental Effects, but I can see how an interruption of the LoS requirement adding dice for the target to resist.

[The Jopp]

Which justadds another question from me.

Ruthenium Polymer (stealth suit) armour gives an enemy a -4D6 to perception tests against you - does it give ANY bonus once you are spotted? Visibility modifiers for ranged attacks or close combat or even cover bonus against mages?

After all, the character is still darn hard to spot even WHEN spotted.

[Neraph]

Which justadds another question from me.

Ruthenium Polymer (stealth suit) armour gives an enemy a -4D6 to perception tests against you - does it give ANY bonus once you are spotted? Visibility modifiers for ranged attacks or close combat or even cover bonus against mages?

After all, the character is still darn hard to spot even WHEN spotted.

I think the consensus is that as soon as you see them, you see them. At my tables that penalty (and the one for camo gear) applies to Ranged Attacks also, like visibility modifiers. I think the point of contention is that the penalty for RuthPoly is a penalty, not a Visibility penalty.

[Mordinvan]

Direct Combat Spells don't use Elemental Effects, but I can see how an interruption of the LoS requirement adding dice for the target to resist.

I was being metaphorical with the electrocution bit, as i honestly have no other phrase in my lexicon which could describe the effect.

[almost normal]

I think the consensus is that as soon as you see them, you see them. At my tables that penalty (and the one for camo gear) applies to Ranged Attacks also, like visibility modifiers. I think the point of contention is that the penalty for RuthPoly is a penalty, not a Visibility penalty.

Does that apply to invisibility spells as well? If you knew where the character was before they cast invisibility, would you be immune to it's masking effects?

[Neraph]

Does that apply to invisibility spells as well? If you knew where the character was before they cast invisibility, would you be immune to it's masking effects?

Not Invisibility per se, although you'd be Blind-Firing at them without ultrasound. Chameleon functions the same as RuthPol.

[Mäx]

So... looking through SR4A again and noticed that p.183 and p.160 say the partial and good cover modifiers apply to the target when resisting a spell. Cross checking with the original SR4, cover does not seem to help against spells (or at least not against direct combat spells). I think this is probably a good move balance wise.

Have I got this right? It's worth being in cover against magic too? Pretty sure in older editions, and SR4 original, cover did not help you against direct combat spells (I could be wrong, but that's my memory of how they worked).

In SR4 cover was a negative modifier to the attackers pool, it was changed to a bonus to the defender in SR4A for various reasons, for example it doesn't make any sense that target being in cover makes it more likely for the shooters gun to misfire(higher chance of a glitch when you lose dice).
So ofcource cover didn't help in resisting spells in SR4, but it did make the casting the spell harder for the mage

Visibility modifiers (including darkness, cover, and other impediments) noted for ranged combat also reduce the magician’s Magic + Spellcasting dice pool when casting spells.

Those being attacked with direct combat spells are definedly the ones who benefit the most from this change to cover mechanics, witch definedly is good for the game balance.

[Psikerlord]

yeah ok cool so cover does help against direct combat spells now. I seem to remember from SR2, possibly SR3, the magic book making it clear that cover didnt help against direct combat spells - the mage just needed to see part of the targets aura to sync with it and then blast them.

In any event - yay - I really like this. Gives mundanes a real protective boost, and more good reason to keep moving and not the mage get clear LOS to you!

As for chameleon suit - someone had a good suggestion in an earlier thread - treat it like the Adaptive Colouration p.208 Running Wild (that critter power is -4 perception checks and -2 hit once creature is spotted).

[Shinobi Killfist]

I don't have my SR3 near me but I think every edition had cover effect all spells. Given the SR4 rules I do prefer the add to the resistance roll method as opposed to the reduce the attackers dice method.

[The Jopp]

As for chameleon suit - someone had a good suggestion in an earlier thread - treat it like the Adaptive Colouration p.208 Running Wild (that critter power is -4 perception checks and -2 hit once creature is spotted).

Yea, Id go with that - otherwise the Predators in movies would be fucked the moment they are spotted if their camouflage just stopped working after someone saw them.

[Seriously Mike]

In SR4 cover was a negative modifier to the attackers pool, it was changed to a bonus to the defender in SR4A for various reasons, for example it doesn't make any sense that target being in cover makes it more likely for the shooters gun to misfire(higher chance of a glitch when you lose dice).
So ofcource cover didn't help in resisting spells in SR4, but it did make the casting the spell harder for the mage

So how does it work in regard to direct spells in SR4A? I'm trying to transition from SR4 to Anniversary, and now I'm stumped - on one hand, it's indeed harder for the magician to focus on an obscured target, but on the other, the new cover rules can justify it in the target having more chance to deflect the spell because it wasn't targeted properly.

[The Jopp]

So how does it work in regard to direct spells in SR4A? I'm trying to transition from SR4 to Anniversary, and now I'm stumped - on one hand, it's indeed harder for the magician to focus on an obscured target, but on the other, the new cover rules can justify it in the target having more chance to deflect the spell because it wasn't targeted properly.

You could say that the lack of a fully visible aura gives tha magician a buggy connection towards the target and he 'bleeds' mana when casting a spell towards the target, thus making the final spellcasting result far weaker as a fair bit of mana is lost in translation between the caster and the target.

We could also say that he had to spend a lot of mana to make a sure connection to the targets aura due to it being so obscured.

I can probably make up a few more plausible explanations. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Hmm - Could a mage then use the Called Shot rules to ignore cover?

[Yerameyahu]

Can a shooter use Called Shot to ignore Cover?

[The Jopp]

Can a shooter use Called Shot to ignore Cover?

Im probably mixing houserules together.

I usually rule that cover modifiers adds to the defenders defence roll since cover should not influence an attackers dicepool to create glitches - It looks a bit odd that just because soemone is hiding behind hard cover the attackers pistol explodes.

So if the defender would gain resist/doge dice from cover a called shot to ignore cover would reduce both attacker and defenders dicepool.

[Yerameyahu]

Cover *does* add to the defender (since they swapped it), but I'm not aware that you can Called Shot to 'reduce defender's DP' (= 'ignore cover').

[almost normal]

There's the simple aim action to aim for an exposed part of the body, but it takes away the same amount of dice you'd get for extra damage, which is silly.

[Yerameyahu]

That's either 'called shot to avoid armor' or 'called shot to increase DV', though. (IIRC)

[VykosDarkSoul]

There's the simple aim action to aim for an exposed part of the body, but it takes away the same amount of dice you'd get for extra damage, which is silly.

Not that silly, considering you are trading 4 dice to hit for +4DV ...whereas the 4 dice to hit is a POSSIBILITY of +4DV..

[Neraph]

Don't forget Take Aim = +1 Dicepool.

[Speed Wraith]

There's the simple aim action to aim for an exposed part of the body, but it takes away the same amount of dice you'd get for extra damage, which is silly.

A no-extra-roll-required bonus to damage is serious business.

[Yerameyahu]

The point is that neither of those (none of the called shots) are 'reduce defender DP' or 'ignore cover', right?