 Combat Spells and TN modifiers |
  |
 Apr 21 2004, 08:31 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Shooting Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158  |
There's a difference between keeping things simple (ie, using the same modifiers for any type of ranged attack) and not using any situational rules whatsoever for one thing while using enough to make God cry in another.
|
 |
 
|
|
Apr 21 2004, 08:34 PM
Post
#77
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,751 Joined: 8-August 03 From: Neighbor of the Beast Member No.: 5,375 |
Unless its one of those frosted shower curtians. Then he could zap ya! but there'd be a modifier b/c of the frosted effect and his visibility would be restricted. ;) This post has been edited by kevyn668: Apr 21 2004, 08:35 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2004, 12:04 AM
Post
#78
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Anyone with a gun has far more TN modifiers than any spellslinger. So, if you don't want to bother number-crunching then why don't you do away with visibility modifiers, cover modifiers, smartlink bonuses, laser sight bonuses, ultra-sound sight bonuses, aiming bonuses, injury modifiers, camouflage, invisibility, ranged combat modifiers for moving, or target moving, Enhance Aim Spell, etc, etc.? After all, we really don't want to slow the game down, right? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2004, 02:23 AM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 309 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,548 |
"So, if you don't want to bother number-crunching then why don't you do away with visibility modifiers, cover modifiers, smartlink bonuses, laser sight bonuses, ultra-sound sight bonuses, aiming bonuses, injury modifiers, camouflage, invisibility, ranged combat modifiers for moving, or target moving, Enhance Aim Spell, etc, etc.?"
Because /those/ modifiers actually make sense. ... ... AAAAH! Heh. Get it? |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2004, 02:37 AM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
You might want to read what you just quoted again. You just said cover modifiers make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2004, 04:57 AM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 309 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,548 |
Of course they make sense. Jesus.
Let me explain it to you, because you obviously haven't been paying attention: I don't think cover modifiers make sense for magic. However, some people do, and also seem to think that all SORTS of other bullshit modifiers should be applied to it. I was ridiculing them, because they are wrong. Got it? :) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2004, 05:00 AM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 3-February 04 Member No.: 6,054 |
ridicule? sarcasm? here on DS? good lord what is this world coming to!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2004, 05:05 AM
Post
#83
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Lots of things in SR don't make sense. However, cover modifiers and spellcasting, if you look, are quite clearly defined - cover modifiers apply to sorcery tests. And they make perfect sense - if you can't see something completely (cover) and clearly (visibility), it's much harder to target something, whether it's with a gun, or magic. You want to houserule that cover doesn't apply to magic, go ahead. But the game rules quite clearly explain that cover modifiers apply to Sorcery tests. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 22 2004, 05:19 AM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i'm still unclear as to how rules pertaining to something that's completely made up can 'not make sense'. it's not like there are any (widely accepted) real-world examples of spellcasting to compare to. unless the rules completely contradict themselves (wholly possible, in SR), any apparent nonsense in the magic rules stem from flaws in the readers' perception--that is, the way you think magic works ain't necessarily the way it works in SR. if your fluff contradicts the rules, the rules don't need to change--your fluff needs to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2004, 05:31 AM
Post
#85
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Can you cite a page number? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Apr 22 2004, 05:44 AM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,616 Joined: 15-March 04 Member No.: 6,158 |
SR3, p. 181, "Spell Targeting." Cover applies to any spell using LOS. Elemental Manipulations use all the standard modifiers for ranged attack tests.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22 2004, 06:54 AM
Post
#87
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 376 Joined: 14-July 03 Member No.: 4,928 |
Same Thread, earlier Post, Page 150, right hand column, bottom of page, refering to mages trying to hit targets inside vehicles with spells:
Further down again, it also states:
New quotes: Page 181, Spell Targeting, bottom right, last paragraph:
page 182, under Sorcery Test, 6th paragraph:
However, under Shadowrun Canon Companion, they have variable cover modifiers, from 1-4 depending on how much cover a target has. I won't go into those, but I find them a little more flexible than simply +4 for cover as per SR3 main book, as the more cover you have, the hard it should be to hit you, and conversely, the less cover, the lower the TN modifier. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Apr 23 2004, 05:17 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 7-January 03 From: Wilton NH Member No.: 3,872 |
As an additional note, those cover & visibility modifiers tend to reduce the overall successes of the spell which though important for spell defense and resistance is more important as a balancing tool in that it keeps damage from staging up for both Elemental Manipulation and Combat spells.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23 2004, 05:30 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Just to shed a little light:
The reason so many people seem to think that spell targeting is about auras is because it is explicitly explained this way in 2nd ed products. I am not sure whether it was awakenings or the grimoire, but in those text it was explained something like this: (going from memory) For a magician to affect a target with a spell, they must briefly synchronize their aura with the target's, and the spell would sort of "ground out" through them. It didn't matter that they weren't astrally percieving, since some little bit of that psychic sense is always there anyway. SRIII has a similar description that compares it to broadcasting on the targets' "frequency", but I don't believe it specifically mentions it being an aural synchronization. So, for those old schoolers who want to keep this rationale in their games, and yet reconcile it with the canon ruling, tell yourself this: If you can only see part of the complete aura you can only partially synchronize yourself, and thus the transmission of the spell is hampered, which is reflected by a higher target number, let's call it a "visibility modifier". But, you're still not targeting a part of the object, as this is impossible with spells, you're still targeting the whole aura, you're just doing it imperfectly which causes poor mana transmission. As for manipulation spells, well, no one seems to be having any trouble with those. I hope this was sufficiently coherent. Sorry I couldn't give page references. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th January 2025 - 12:13 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.