 Combat Spells and TN modifiers |
  |
 Apr 19 2004, 03:59 PM
Post
#26
|
|||||||
|
Dragon  Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263  |
Really, i thought it might have something to do with the fact that you didn't actually use a technique like "Stop-Think-Post", then when in too deep couldn't bring yourself to admit it. But onto topic....
I thought that you made a ranged combat attack with your Sorcery skill dice. Hmmm, i'll have to go back and reread that text. EDIT: ...for the Clout spell. |
||||||
 |
 
|
||||||
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:01 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
1. I fully said that my communication skills sucked, yet despite that, some of the people who were actually interested in the conversation as opposed to individuals like you (who apparently just like to get your knickers in a twist) were able to get the gist. Go figure.
2. Yes, Sorcery is used for the attack test. You do not make additional attack tests when using elemental spells. Hence the use of "Sorcery functions in that regard for most elemental attack spells." |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:14 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Er ya, it wasn't me that cared about the conversation of the subject....even though i actually started the thread. Remember; Stop-Think-Post, it's about more than "communication". :wavey: EDIT: I did get the gist, that a good number of people were still quite confused about WTF you were talking about. But given your "logic" that was completely understandable. I personally don't even really care about you view on that subject since you obviously slipped past the point of reason. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:20 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
At least I'm not the one dredging up dead and wholly off-topic threads in some pathetic attempt to get a "zinger" off on someone I don't like.
But it's nice to know that you're at least admitting to your trolling. "When are you going to reply to this topic? Not that you should bother 'cause I'm just trolling and don't care what you have to say. Teehee." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:34 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,718 Joined: 14-September 02 Member No.: 3,263 |
Zigger? No. Trying to point out Zazen has a VERY good point. I really don't like dragging this thread off-topic, which i guess means this will be my last post here, but frankly you seem to be oblivious to what you do. You project your mistakes onto others, labeling people that disagree with you as "dumbasses". But i guess you'll just slot me into the dumbass catagory. OK, i realise you likely did that some time back on-or-before you were embarrased by shoving your foot down your throat (no need for a link, you know the thread, it's etched into the bullet you carry for me) but at least i'm in good company. :) I also realise it very likely that you'll continue your attemps to try piss on me at any turn you can, no matter how illogical you need to be to do it. But i thought i might mention that i will be laughing at you, just so you know, until you actually decide make discussions about that instead of about some sort of wang swinging contest. *shrug* Now back to our regularly scheduled thread..... EDIT: Edit labels, not just for breakfast anymore. No need to quote your addendum, as this point actually addresses that. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:44 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
<just pats your head> I'm sorry if you took "and anyone who doesn't think a ward is an astral barrier is a dumbass" comment as a personal insult, even though you never said you thought that. Because, in fact, the whole world does revolve around you and naturally anything anyone says must be a direct insult to you. Good call on that one.
But please, feel free to continue to derail the thread with your continued jibes and insults. I'm sure it'll make you feel better about yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:54 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Juts like emoting patting someone on the head is condescending and a personal insult.
You are both doing it, you both did it in the past, Heck, ive done it myself. Why dont we all just drop it and move on, eh? =) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 04:58 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Ehhhh... I don't particularly like these modifiers, as they really don't follow the same rules as the weapon ranges on p. 111. Also they seem to unfairly penalize the sorcerer at longer ranges; even at maximum range normal weapons only differ from their Short range TNs by 5 (4-9), and here the difference is +8 or more. Personally I think the sorcerer'd be better served with four ranges, much like other weapons: a "Short" range at +0 modifier, a "Medium" range at +1, a "Long" range at +2, and an "Extreme" range at +5. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 05:06 PM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Feel free to post a link to an example. :oops: |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 05:21 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
I feel a lot better knowing that other people notice this stuff. Thanks. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 19 2004, 05:26 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 309 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,548 |
Yes, let's argue about one another, instead of the topic. Trust me, that's not a good idea, you'll get flamed off the board for like...almost a year or something.
;) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 05:30 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
A quick search from just the last couple of weeks: Ambidexterity, adepts, and off-hand weapons Problems with quickened spells |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 19 2004, 05:33 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Would you guys mind bitching at each other in PMs or something? It's hard to keep the thread of the conversation going with you two beating your chests at each other.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 05:39 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 09:31 PM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
That chart is the closest thing to an official, up to date, guide to visibility by range TN penalties that I have. I point out that those are TN penalties, not changes to base TN, so centering can reduce the effect at all ranges below 5,001 m.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 09:42 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
Hmm. What about letting people aim spells? Maybe only possible with elemental manipulations but even then it could have cool visual effects as the mage powers-up his fireball slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 09:48 PM
Post
#42
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
While I agree they're far from flawless, I like the concept. I do agree it should be kept more in line with the way guns are currently handled, but spell casters should still be getting harsh penalties here. As a side note that is kind of related, I'm just curious: does anyone think that allowing aiming actions equal to skill (instead of half skill, as it is now) would make things more balance in terms of range between magic and guns? A skill of six is pretty fucking good, after all, that that is 9 seconds of aiming for the average human. Maybe make it progressive and require two simple actions for each point of aiming after half. [edit] Lilt, that cool visual effect would be the mage exploding as all fire from the enemy suddenly turned on him. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 19 2004, 10:00 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
Yup :D
Well: Does it seem reasonable even without the visual effect? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 10:04 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Although I'd want to strictly limit it, given how powerful mages already are, I'd say it's reasonable— assuming it were visual. The ability to sit and state at someone and then smack a crown with a manaball far deadlier than normally possible, however, is just too insanely powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 10:20 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,965 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 2,032 |
I was going to limit it to Elemental Manipulations... Allowing it for other spell types would probably break the game.
They would probably have to hold-out their hands menacingly or gesture to do it, does that seem reasonable for a visual effect? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 11:00 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Ahem. Break the game more.
But, yes, for elemental manipulations, limited to half skill (or maybe half magic?) for aiming actions, and requiring a noticable visual signature (say hands positioned somehow around small, glowing ball of fire, etc) would be just fine. It would, however, require a complex action to aim, which kind of limits its usefulness. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 11:05 PM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
I wouldn't allow it. Spells are completely different than firearms. There are no targeting devices and it's all done 'from the hip' as it were. It's more like trying to aim a swing of a sword than aiming a rifle.
With firearms and even Int-linked weapons, you have an argument for aiming since it's using your agility or your perception to aim the attack. With spells, it's basically just a raw outburst of emotion focused by your willpower. There's very little that's graceful about it, and what grace there is is already covered by the use of the Sorcery test to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 19 2004, 11:21 PM
Post
#48
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
I wouldn't even think about allowing spell aiming unless there were much stiffer visability penalties--even at short ranges--than normal ranged weapons; the ones mentioned above from SR2.0 would do, although the shorter ranges would have to be shortened further (say to increments of 20 for the first two or so). Spells are powerful enough already; no need to make them worse by allowing the mage to aim.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 20 2004, 04:03 AM
Post
#49
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,685 Joined: 17-August 02 Member No.: 3,123 |
Then again, there's the Enhance Aim spell ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 20 2004, 05:45 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
Err, what's your point? Enhance Aim is a detection spell that enhances your ability to aim. It has no influence on spellcasting. I guess you could claim that Sorcery is a ranged attack, but the spirit of the spell strongly suggests otherwise.
But getting into semantics here is apparently a "bad thing," so I won't bother going any further on that topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th January 2025 - 12:23 AM |
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.